And Dugger, you do see the irony in posting an enormous list of Democrats talking sh*t but ignoring similar quotes (and worse, as in, actually starting a war) by Republicans in a thread that originally was about conservative exceptionalism (focusing on Murtha’s remarks about Somalia, remember). I’m happy to pick apart the Dems, many of whom are beltway whores more interested in their careers than civil service. They suck, by and large, with only a few glaring exceptions, but they aren’t the point of this thread, and laundry lists of quotes seem like attempts to divert attention with the old “two wrongs make a right” or “I know you are, but what am I” arguments.

As for the ongoing semantic games over whether Bush and crew lie a lot, ask yourself this, isn’t it sad that many hold the current administration to a lower standard than their own kids? What parent would play the whole, “well, I guess you didn’t lie, technically, though you worked pretty hard to deceive, obfuscate, and manipulate your mother and I…but you didn’t “lie,” so kudos to you!” It’s like a critic calling a film a “tremendous pile of steaming cow dung” only to see himself quoted on the poster as saying the film is “…tremendous…!” Technically it ain’t a lie, but who’s kidding whom, eh?

Looks like Bush is a liar. But even worse, he’s a torturer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html

Actaully, I will cede that Rummy actually said “immediate threat.”

But note the context of the bigger argument, as to the Admin scaring us into war with lies:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

“I await your retraction of your claim that the administration did not characterize Iraq with dramatic, calculated, fearmongering language.”

Made no such claim. Calculated language yes. Drama maybe. ‘Deliberate’ fearmongering, no.

And how do you explain all of this from your side:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D! , CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
-Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
-Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Dugger

My position is that the war was a bad strategic decision and that it is unwinnable. Bush shit the bed. It does not matter that other people may have applauded his bed-shitting, since he is the one who shit it. All I ask of my representatives now is that they not applaud the continuation of the bed-shitting, and that they admit that it was a bad idea to shit the bed to begin with.

“Rumsfeld did not say Iraq was an immediate threat.”

I’m sorry to have to correct your ignorance so bluntly.

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.” - Rumsfeld, 9-19-02

“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.” - Rumsfeld, 9-18-02

Here’s another fun quote: “This is about imminent threat.” - Scott McClellan, 2-10-03

Since your conservative cocoon has kept you ignorant, here are some other words the Bush administration deployed dishonestly to silence critics and frighten America into this idiotic war: “mortal threat,” “urgent threat,” “immediate threat”, “serious and mounting threat”, “unique threat,” and the claim that Iraq was actively seeking to “strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction.” I await your retraction of your claim that the administration did not characterize Iraq with dramatic, calculated, fearmongering language.

If you support honest debate over foreign policy, then you cannot support these kind of scare tactics. It’s just that simple.

Maybe the administration did play fast and loose with the truth because they thought it was in our interest. I can believe that. The problem, though, is that the war has gone badly. Not only has it not gained us any protection, it has cost us dearly in lives, funds, and in prestige and friendship in the Mulsim world and everywhere else. We don’t have to keep losing, though. Bring the troops home now.

When one says he “lies” as if that is part and parcel of his essential qualities as human being, I consider that demonizing. When a respected mainstream publication says its OK to hate Bush, likewise.

Rumsfeld did not say Iraq was an immediate threat.

Of course, they want to do the right thing and of course they want to prevail over Democrats.

Democrats want to do the right thing and prevail over Republicans.

Both believe their party winning is coincident to doing the rigth thing.

Limbaugh et al are commenters, not eleccted party officials or government members. No more than Michael Moore is on your side.

And OK I agree that many times we ‘think’ a person is lying but can’t prove it. That does not mean we are right. It may mean our own political and emotional prejudices are coloring our judgments. That is why lie has a high standard of proof legally. For instance, you are going to find you are wrong about Rumsfeld and immediate threat (as in Iraq posed an…). I doubt you are lying about that. But I don’t doubt you believe it to be true. Which is the problem then with tossing around ‘lie’

Dugger

You say you don’t think he is evil, but that he lead us into a war just because it flattered his self image. How about he led into war because he thought it was the right thing to do. How about the political opposition pretty much wants to do the right thing just as much as the other side and that we are all in this together. And that disagreement is fine, but can be accomplished without demonizing the opposition.

Dugger

What if the Lusitania was sunk with military supplies and ammo on board?* Should we have stayed out of World War I?

What if lend - lease was a sneaky way for FDR to help the British before 1941?*
Should we have left Germany out of war plan?

What if our trade embargoes directed at Japan were viewed as war - like by them?**
Should we have just said “we instigated Pearl Harbor” and done nothing?

Then why do that now?

* It was
** They were

You’re right, honest men should be able to disagree. It’s just hard to see the beam in our own eyes sometimes (myself included).

“But the virtually unprovable charge of lie”
Even if I agreed that it was technically unprovable, which I don’t, a person can still recognize times when it is most likely that someone is lying, leaving you defending a distinction without any meaningful difference. “We do not torture,” and the “immediate threat/mushroom cloud” parcel of lies about Saddam’s WMD were thusly recognizable — and if anyone was trying to circumvent debate in this country, it was the Bush adminstration’s dishonest appeal to fear in the runup to Iraq. Sad that you can’t/won’t recognize it, even if the majority of the country, not to mention history, will do so.

Bush’s lie about Snow isn’t a big deal to me; it’s just that when I see someone like you, Dugger, who has a superhero fcodpiece fetish about Bush to such a degree that you literally cannot see when the man tells us a bald-faced lie, I feel a civic obligation to expose your magical reasoning. At least you seem to be approaching a view of him as a human politician. Is that a half-admission poking its head out of the groundhog hole? Fundamentally, why is Bush exempted from the general rule that politicians lie? I submit that it is because you have a simplistic, idiotic, Malkinized view of leftists. More on that below.

Your account of my view of Bush is as cartoonish as it gets — so much so, I wonder if you’re inventing it for the sake of argument, because I certainly have never said that he’s evil or that I hate him, though I do hate torture. If you are actually interested in a dialogue, here’s my assessment. I was rooting for him to do well after 9/11, basically up until the run-up to the Iraq war. That’s where I jumped ship. I think he’s narcissistic, inflexible, and on the dumb side; so he was easily persuaded to make a horrible strategic decision because that decision flattered his conception of himself, rather than on the actual merits of the decision. (I think this is also the basic rationale of most war supporters as well). If I had sum up what I most object to about his administration it would be: leading us to failure in Iraq, above all; and civil liberties issues, particularly torture and domestic spying, each of which are a cancer on our democracy.

Tom, it hasn’t changed. Dugger requires an impossible magic standard to be convinced that Bush lied.

You, NOT I, said fired. FIRED. You were wrong.

And you may not be intelligent enough or calm enough to understand what I’m saying. I actually think Bush has probably lied about some things in his life. But I expect he is no different from most other humans and major politicians who politicize and “rosy outlook” things. But I know the difference between my opinion and a public claim/asssertion - between proof and opinion. I know neither I nor you can prove lie. The real problem is that the left, and you, live in a comic book world where everyone to your right is evil and venal and you are moral and virtuous. You cannot accept the fact that Bush may be merely human and wants to do a good job every bit as much as every other president and is working towards that end. He could be right or wrong. But that doesn’t fit your simplistic view of the world. No. Bush must have an evil gene - evidently- and lies because he likes to lie and be evil. With that kind of closed minded attitude, the only recourse is to insist on sticking to the meaning of words and provison of real proof. As I have said many times, contradictions do not equal lies. Mistatements, misunderstandings, mispeaks are always a possible explanation - for anyone , Bush included.

Dugger, It hasn’t changed. No lie has been documented.