’)Any Democrat who votes for, authorizes, excuses pre-emptive expansive military action against Iran (basically anything beyond clearly defined air strikes) will have to pay for it. At a certain point, the battered spouse is going to hit back. These jackals screwed us over more than once, “I didn’t see it coming” is not an excuse (No matter how much the Washington Post acts as a propaganda outlet for Dear Leader).
>> Your Liberal Media: Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan, and Washington Post’s Dana Milbank discuss how awesome it would be for Bush’s poll numbers to go to war with Iran before the elections
Sorry, Mike, that would be the Bush Blunder that would prevent necessary force. Remember the boy who cried wolf? Bush spent his credibility in Iraq, if he no longer is able to convince people that preemptive use of force is necessary now, even if it is, that is his fault not his con victims.
Of course the Democrats will have to consider another possible outcome: they successfully deter the US from using necessary force to stop the Iranian nuclear program, and an Iranian nuke eventually goes off in TelAviv or London or Riyadh or Los Angeles.
If that happens, the modern Democrat Party as we know it is finished.
This is where “high crimes and misdemeanors” is at the most
serious level, perhaps ever.
The “Bum’s Rush” into Iraq using preemptive war against a sovereign
nation on the basis of questionable intelligence, has weakend our
ability, both from economic and diplomatic perspectives, to declare
it when we may actually need to. Eg. Iran.
It is not the administration alone who bears a burden in this
sad drama worthy of an extra Act in Shakespeare’s “MacBeth”.
It is the media with their newly acquired status as “Best in Show’
in the Gelding category. They have surrendered their role as
a member of the “4th Estate” and now resemble the ad firm
who handles PR for Proctor & Gamble.
Now they print whatever the Man wants them to just so they can keep
their summer home in the Hamptons. They, like the Wingnut Nation
Blog/Media hacks, feel a perpetual need to justify and/or deflect,
their sullied roles in the quagmire known as Iraq.
Liberal Media Bias. PSSHAW!!!
Except Iran is nowhere near having a nuke and we can prevent it without a full fledged military occupation.
And notice how Germany, now inreal trouble, and seeking a conservative leadership (isn’t that always the case?), they come running back to us, repenting…
That’s how these “offended allies” that we’ll never get to cooperate always act.
Now that two people have said the same thing, that still doesn’t make it true. We are finding out right now, even as I type that Bush did not lie, nor was he even mistaken.
But even so, whatever we need to do in Iran does not depend on Bush’s “credibility” with people who hate him, anyway. Tell me who will not support him, that supported him before.
It’s like the “We’ve lost allies” meme. We lost back – stabbing hypocritical allies who were useless to us, and we’re supposed to comcern ourselves with how they feel about us?
“Tell me who will not support him, that supported him before.”
Um, how bout the 20 to 25 percent of Americans that have abandoned him since the 04 election. You do know that Bush is polling mid to high 30s.
And Mike: RETREAT TO THE BUNKER! RETREAT TO THE BUNKER! AGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
You are right FrankD, it isn’t the people who hate Bush that count, it’s the other countries in the world that the US might need to back us up if push came to shove in Iraq that count. Unfortunately, Bush has flushed the credibility of the United States down the toilet in their eyes with his spurious Iraq claims. Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Remember, before we invaded Iraq, many people opposed to the invasion pointed out that countries like Iran and North Korea posed actual REAL IMMEDIATE and IMMINENT threats that we might have trouble dealing with if our army was tied up in Iraq. That was before we found out there were no WMDs. Now Bush has an international credibility gap to add to those dangers. Good job.
It s the other countries in the world that the US might need to back us up if push came to shove in Iraq that count.
Name one, please…
And forget France.
Polls that are put out by people who don’t print the actual questions, don’t properly define the demographic polled, and are consistently low in reporting things Republican or conservative, are, to say the least, undesirable.
I wonder what Bush’s “numbers” were between Labor Day and Election Day 2000, and between Labor Day and Election Day 2004?
Did any one predict he would win, besides Rasmussen? I think not.
I don’t discount polls, I just don’t think they matter much in the light of real events, e.g., ABC’s releases of Iraqi “Saddam era” documents, which are going to have a greater effect than the Venona documents — much greater…
This argument is moot We are not going into Iran any time soon because the strain on our military would be enormous, given our present commitments. Not to mention the strain on politicians, especially Republicans who would have to back it. Most of this sabre rattling is for show and the people who are in control of things in Iran have probably long since figured it out. That’s why they’re calling this administration’s bluff.
“undesirable” should read “unreliable”
So let me get this straight. You want a pledge from any Democratic candidate that he/she will forego absolutely pre-emtive military operations? Bet you back down on htis ASAP. Nos erious adult candidate would buy that idiocy. Only the left.
Dugger
even as I type that Bush did not lie, nor was he even mistaken.
More Koolaid, Frank? You look like you need a refill.
No Bush lie has been documented by anyone – period.
Really, really suggest you carry through on this brilliance and demand every Dem candidate sign a no-premptive military action foreign policy pledge. Please!
Dugger
Or else he would just keep his eyes closed. THAT would make it true!
No Bush lie has been documented by anyone – period.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
http://bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm
Dugger, if bush had said “the sun isn’t going to come up tomorrow”, you’d be arguing that it wasn’t a lie because
A) His astrology team told him it was so, so he was given faulty intelligence, or
B) It was cloudly that day, and there was no visible sun, so in effect, bush was kinda sorta right.
I *know* you’re capable of intelligent thought, dugger. Please, please, stop just reacting and review the circumstances before you post.
lie2 n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
See 2002 State of the Union.
No Bush lie has been documented by anyone – period.
Bush Falsely Claims He Never Linked Hussein To September 11
bush connection
Bush, this afternoon:
First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don t think we ever said at least I know I didn t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.
In fact, Bush justified the war against Iraq by directly linking it to 9/11:
The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bush s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/20/9-11-and-saddam/
In the words of Bush s own counter-terrorism director: They did know better. We told them. The FBI told them. The CIA told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their deaths in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11 when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. I think for a Commander in Chief and a Vice President to allow that to happen is unconscionable.
The White House knew the costs were $551 billion – more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.
That looks like intent to me. Should I go on?
Concerns about abuse at Guantanamo are based on allegations made by “people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble [sic].” President Bush (05/31/05)
THE FACTS
Reports of abuse are not based on allegations by detainees but “accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The FBI agents wrote in memorandum that “they had seen female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners’ genitals, and that they had witnessed other detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours.” Nevertheless, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said military interrogators know “that any detainees [should] be treated in a humane way, and they have been.” (Center for American Progress 6/10/05)
LIE: The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war.
For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
FACTS: According to the CIA s Duelfer s Report Iraq:
§ HAD NO WMD s.
§ had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions ended.
§ Iraq failed to acquire long range Iraq s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.
§ Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.
§ In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.
This is consistent with pre-war findings:
Former Treasury Secretary O Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, indicated that [i]n the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality. In addition, the report concluded that the administration systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq s WMD and ballistic missile programs .
This is consistent with other pre-war reports. For example, in September 2002, the Pentagon s Defense Intelligence Agency concluded there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.
Sources: Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq s WMD; Ruben Bannerjee Al Jazeera 04.06.03, NOW Update 05.22.03, Scheer AlterNet.org 06.10.03; WMD in Iraq Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 60 Minutes 01.11.14; Dreyfus & Vest Mother Jones Jan-Feb 04; Suskind The Price of Loyalty.
CENSORED AND DELAYED 9-11 REPORT: The Bush administration purposefully delayed the release of the report of the Joint Congressional Committee on 9-11 until after the conclusion of the Iraq war to hide facts such as the absence of an Iraq-AlQaeda link. Once released, the administration censored portions of the report that demonstrated that Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 about Al Qaeda plans for a possible hijacking in the US and the Saudi role in funding Al Qaeda. (Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post (07.25.03).
Intent, Dugger. Intent. To. Deceive.
quaker, frame, help me out here. There’s … just… so ….. much….
LIE:The Bush administration sold its Medicare prescription drug plan to conservatives in Congress as having a cost of $400 billion over ten years, enabling it to narrowly win passage in December 2003.
FACTS: The White House knew the costs were $551 billion – more than 25 percent higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration revised its costs estimates to $534 billion.
One month after passage of the bill, the White House revealed that the program costs actually were $534 billion – more than 25 percent higher. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were “well known in the fall” but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got “suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration.”
Source: Kemper & Simon – Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh – Knight Ridder 03.11.04, Kemper – Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, CAP Progress Report 03.15.04.
Ponder this for a while, Dugger.
I’m going to get some more coffee.
9-11 WARNINGS
LIE: In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice stated: I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.
After the attacks, Ari Fleischer stated that the President had no warnings of an attack and President Bush explained
[n]ever [in] anybody s thought processes . . . did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets . . . never.
In May 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed, I don t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. (05.16.02)
Dr. Rice: [W]e received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. (03.22.04)
President Bush: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people. (03.25.04)
Surprisingly, Bush reiterated this comment at an April 13 press conference. [T]here was nobody in our government, at least, and I don t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.
FACTS: Dr. Rice admitted privately to the 9-11 panel that she had misspoken when she said there were no prior warnings, but then proceeded to repeat this claim in public.
The warnings received (see below) were sufficient for Attorney General Ashcroft to begin traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines because of what the Justice Department called a threat assessment. The Justice Department has yet to release this threat assessment.
Sibel Edmonds, a translator with the FBI, indicates “that it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack.”
President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September,” she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away. (22)
Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, “U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner” into the summit, prompting officials to “close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city’s airport.”
Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. which mentioned bin Laden s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.
The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6th briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.
Also that spring and summer intelligence reports indicated that
(i) Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack American and Israeli symbols which stand out ;
(ii) there was a threat to assassinate Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit using an airplane stuffed with explosives;
(iii) al-Qaeda was planning an attack using multiple airplane hijackings; and
(iv) that bin Laden was in advanced stages of executing a significant operation within the US.
This was included in reports entitled Bin Laden planning multiple operations, Bin Laden s network s plan advancing, and Bin Laden threats are real which warned of catastrophic damage.
The CIA s National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following equipment failure for the morning of September 11th.
In February 2001, the Hart-Rudman report warned that mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern and that the US was woefully unprepared for a catastrophic domestic terrorist attack.
President Bush refused to act on this report, preferring to await the findings of Cheney s terrorist task force which failed to even meet before 9-11. The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6 briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.
Sources: (1) The Left Coaster 07.14.03, Waterman UPI 07.23.03, Priest Washington Post 07.25.03, Dean Findlaw.com 07.29.03, Ridgeway Village Voice 07.31.03, Franken Lies And The Liars Who Tell Them, Daily Mis-Lead 03.11.04, Center for American Progress Fact Sheet 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Rice Washington Post 03.22.04, Progress Report 03.26.04, Daily Mis-Lead 04.14.04;
KILLED TREASURY DEFICIT STUDY: The administration deep-sixed a 2003 Treasury Department study that projected that the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase would be required to eliminate a projected $44.2 trillion budget deficit due to Bush s tax cuts. The study found that the future health care and retirement costs of the baby boomers would overwhelm the treasury. Sharp tax increases and massive spending cuts are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. The report added that the current financial challenge facing Washington is approximately 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output, or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. (Hollings Washington Post 06.19.03, Baker Slate 07.11.03, Ferdinand – Utne Reader 05.2003, Malveaux & McCaughan – CNN.com 05.29.03)
(emphasis added-D)
* SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences have accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. (Shogren Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)
A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration has:
o a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence
o The report also found that:
o there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.
READ THE REPORT! http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/RSI_final_fullreport.pdf
SUPPRESSING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST DATA BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL VOTE: The White House provided Congress with a cost estimate for the Medicare prescription drug plan of $400 billion even though it knew at that time the costs of were $551 billion – more than 25% higher. The administration threatened to fire Medicare’s top financial analyst (Richard Foster) if he released the information. Two months after the President signed the law, the administration increased its costs estimates to $524 billion. AARP, which worked with the administration in drafting the bill, revealed that these higher estimates were “well known in the fall” but is only now being made public. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based budget watchdog group claim Congress got “suckered by a classic financial bait-and-switch by the administration.”
In May, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that the Bush administration violated federal law by ordering Mr. Foster to withhold information from Congress. The report stressed that the right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable. (Kemper & Simon – Los Angeles Times 01.31.04, Pugh- Knight Ridder Los Angeles Times 03.11.04, Kemper – Los Angeles Times 03.14.04, Progress Report 03.15.04, Pear New York Times 05.04.04)
* SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF MERCURY POISONING: Administration officials suppressed and sought to manipulate government information on mercury contained in an EPA report on children s health and the environment. The report, which found that 8 percent of women between the ages of 16-49 have mercury levels in their blood that could impair their children, was buried by the White House for nine months and was only released after it was leaked to the media by EPA.
In addition, in issuing regulations on mercury emissions, the administration told EPA staffers not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order to prevent production of evidence that would undermine its weakening of mercury emissions regulation. (Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity in Policy Making February 2004, Krugman New York Times 04.06.04).
LIE: As the budget deficit emerged; Bush assured us that the deficits would be small and temporary .
He also stated I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, Would you ever deficit spend? I said, Only only in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency. Never did I dream we d have a trifecta. The White House repeated this trifecta claim throughout 2002.
FACTS: Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore. Bush s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Source: New Republic 07.01.02
A report by the House Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:
o Changing education performance measures to make abstinence-only programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alterative environmental proposals;
o using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly;
o including information on the National Cancer Institute s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and
o preventing research on agricultural practices having a negative health [or] environmental consequences.
LIE: In a September 2003 speech, Bush claimed that his budget boosted spending for elementary and secondary education to $53.1 billion — a 26 percent increase.
FACT: Bush s budget for elementary and secondary education is only $34.9 billion (his entire education budget is $53.1 billion) and the boost he refers to is actually a $900 million cut. (Corn The Nation 09.15.03)
The Bush administration purposefully delayed the release of the report of the Joint Congressional Committee on 9-11 until after the conclusion of the Iraq war to hide facts such as the absence of an Iraq-AlQaeda link. Once released, the administration censored portions of the report that demonstrated that Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 about Al Qaeda plans for a possible hijacking in the US and the Saudi role in funding Al Qaeda. (Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Priest – Washington Post (07.25.03).
Yeah, I cut and paste. So what? Does that action make it less true? You asked for documented lies and deceptions. Here.
What the fuck does it take?
By your logic, Clinton never lied about getting a hummer.
LIE: I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school. (2004 SOU)
FACT: The Bush administration has eliminated 84,000 students from the Pell Grants program and reduced grants to another 1.5 million students. Its FY2005 budget freezes Pell Grant awards. (Center for American Progress 02.03.04)
A little serious thought? What does that even mean? Should I make stuff up? That would be your department, pal.
In his 2004 State of the Union speech, he claimed I refuse to give up on any child and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America s children.
FACT: Bush s FY2005 budget under-funds the No Child Left Behind ( NCLB ) program by $9.4 billion or 27 percent less than authorized by Congress. Bush has under funded the NCLB program by $15 billion over his first three years. Most of the under funding is in the area of Title I of the Act which provided funds to schools with low income or disadvantaged students. (The Daily Distortion 10.24.03, New Democratic Network 12.02.03, Center for American Progress 02.03.04)
LIE: The Bush administration spread stories that the outgoing Clinton administration vandalized the White House with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, phone wires cut and pornography left on fax machines.
FACT: The General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, wires slashed, equipment damaged or other evidence to match the allegations. (Boston Globe 05.28.01)
hey duros,
were you paying attention? (I got your “ponder”. )
Which one of those cut and pastes were you able to read minds on? Give me what you think is alie, a real lie. One lie and we’ll discuss it.
Or if I just dispose of one of your cheap cut and pastes, that should do it.
“LIE: The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war. ”
No lie. Posisibly a mistake but we do not know if Saddam was able to move weapons. Besides intelligence reports indicated WMDs. Previous Admin said there were WMDs or programs. The fact that we did not find WMD stashs does not mean it was a lie.
Are there any adults out there with a lie (one with just a little serious thought behind it)? Nows your chance.
Dugger
LIE: Bush told the VFW that Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.
FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans medical care, while his 2004 budget requests falls $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called an inadequate status quo. Bush s FY2005 budget cuts funding by $13.5 billion over 5 years. (The Daily Mis-Lead 10.21.03, The Center for American Progress 02.04.03)
duros,
No lie anyplace. Just stuff you don’t like. Pick one you want to stake your argument on and we’ll go into it. You’ll lose because you can’t read minds (maybe thats why you avoind a serious intelelctual discussion). Otherwise you are proving my point by just recycling ‘talking points’. Are you able to read and think for yourself? Pick one. Otherwise I’m not impressed by cut and paste.
Dugger, No lie has been documented. Any place.
Typical. Attack me. I don’t understand what make “reading minds” so important to this discussion. Do you mean what was on the President’s mind when he said and did these things? Not fucking much, I can guarantee you that.
You pick one and let’s “go into it.”
So tell me, O wise one. How does anyone prove anything to you?
Like I said, using your logic, Bill Clinton never lied about having oral sex with an intern because he never “intended” to lie about it.
You can lead a neocon to the truth, but you can’t make him see it.
george Bush is the most honest person on Earth, because according to Doogie, he has never uttered an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Ever.
Shorter dugger: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Laura: “George, are you eating cookies in bed again?”
W: “(mouth full) Nooo!”
lie2 n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
WMDs? Imminent threat? Yellow cake?
All falsehoods deliberately presented as being true.
duros,
You are wriggling like gigged eel. Surely you can up with and rationally discuss one lie. Just one. You are letting progressives across the nation down. The whole movement is about to crumble. The fascist dark ages are nearly upon us. Alas alack!
Dugger (WMDs? Imminent threat? Yellow cake? AWOL?)
He also stated I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, Would you ever deficit spend? I said, Only only in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency. Never did I dream we d have a trifecta. The White House repeated this trifecta claim throughout 2002.
FACTS: Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore. Bush s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Source: New Republic 07.01.02
Not opinion, Duugger. Fact
BTW, why don’t progressives start a campaign to require their presidential candidate take a pledge to never use preemptive military action? Was all of this just hate-Bush hot air or do you have real convictions? I mean you thought about this, right?
Dugger (chuckle)
duros
Well first off how do you know Bush’s memory is not faulty? He’s is a public figure and speaks very frequently in public. Isn’t it quite possible his memory is faulty. You have no way of knowing do you?
Or secondly, look at YOUR definiton and the word “deliberately”. How do YOU know he is dliberately misleading – if he is misleading at all. How do you know that ‘to mislead’ is his intent? Do you have unique mindreading capabilities? Its YOUR definiton.
What you have is a throw-away political statement he made that is not backed up by the public record. That does not equal lie – at all.
See, the problem is not being able to point out contradictory or incorrect statements. They are there with all politicians. Its the left’s and your tendency to describe those contradictory or even incorrect statements from Bush as (hatefully) “lies”.
Dugger, Still No Lies and that was his best case
Shorter Dugger:
Change the subject.
Why don’t you tell me what I’m thinking right now?
Well, I would hope that the leader of the free world as we know it can determine what he said as opposed to what his opponent said.
Perhaps we just disagree on what constitutes lying.
How about when Cheney says something to a reporter who says “that isn’t what you said 3 years ago” and he says “I never said that” and she says “I have a clip of you saying it, let’s watch” and there he is saying exacly what he just said he never said? Sorry, I have no copy & paste, it was something I heard on the radio the other day.
I guess it all comes down to what is in the mind of the person who speaks the untrue statement; if he doesn’t believe it isn’t true, then it must be, right? Thus, Clinton never lied about his indiscretion. Do we agree on that?
Dugger, Still No Lies and that was his best case
No, actually it wasn’t. But fuck it. You can only polish a turd so much.
You cannot prove intent, Dugger. You cannot hope to know what another person is thinking when they say what they say. (Well, I know you can because of your super powers.)
I can’t prove intent either. There, I admit it. That doesn’t make anything I posted above this line any more or less true.
Happy?
George Bush is still a liar and a crook and makes me miss Richard Nixon for his superior ethical behavior.
What am I thinking right now? I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “bass fat”
duros,
One of the more unglamorous concsession speeches, but I accept.
And no I can’t prove Clinton lied but a Federal judge officially concluded some pretty bad things about him.
Dugger
Well, I never been one for glamor. I apologize. You’re ok, Dugger.
However,
And no I can t prove Clinton lied but a Federal judge officially concluded some pretty bad things about him.
I’m confident there will be more than a couple of federal judges with some pretty harsh words for Mr. Bush in the not-too-distant future.