Clearly the Iraqi PM is adopting the Bush-league tactic of just pretending away things.
A wave of bomb attacks and shootings swept Iraq Sunday, killing dozens of people despite a massive security operation in the capital and appeals from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for an end to sectarian fighting.
Al-Maliki insisted that his government was making progress in combatting attacks by insurgents and sectarian clashes between Shiites and Sunnis.
“We’re not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war,” he said through an interpreter on CNN’s Late Edition. “The violence is in decrease and our security ability is increasing.”
You almost expect him to say “heck of a job”.
Related
J-Learning: your how-to site for community journalism
Bush: "Childrens Do Learn"
Another Bush Under Federal Probe
Well, clearly, you are in a better positon to know what is going on in Iraq than the Iraqi PM. Though I have to wonder why CNN didn’t interview you to find out what was going on in Iraq (instead of the in coutry PM).
Maybe he’s lying. Oh, that’s right, according to Dugger, noone has ever said a provable lie in the history of man (except for those convicted in a US court of perjury, of course).
Or more likely, he’s engaging in wishful thinking to attempt to present a strong front to his supporters.
Then again, he might not have a clue what’s going on. Is he allowed outside of the green zone?
I wasn’t in New Orleans but I only had to turn on the tv to see that Brownie wasn’t performing a “heck of a job”.
factcheck,
Your moniker is clearly counterintuitive.
But still no progressive has proven a lie by Pres Bush. Not one. Doesn’t stop you from claiming lie, though. But them some progressives think Bush had 9/11 pre-knowledge and others think Wellstone’s plane was sabotaged.
As always, I’m ready to have a serious debate about whether Pres Bush has lied. But ’serious’ means ’serious’.Until then, I’m siccing Weebster on you.
I’m not going to waste my time on the likes of you, dugger. Time and time again you get owned, but you refuse to admit that your hero lied.
Don’t claim you’re here for “serious debate”.
December 4, 2001
Bush was asked, “How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?” Bush replied, “I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower–the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there. I didn’t have much time to think about it.”
There you go Dugger, a lie.
January 5, 2002
“First of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error, and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake….”
ANd he repeats it.
OK midder - you geta serious response-
Where is the ‘lie’ - remember that is your word- as opposed to the hazy recollection or just mistake? I am aware that some wacko sites use this as an indication that Bush knew ahead of time that the attacks were going to occur, but of course CNN had already broken in with video (8:48) of the burning building with reports of an airplane crash. All well before Bush went into the classroom at Booker. Bush’s “lie” (in your world) could then only be that he thought he remembered seeing the actual footage of the airplane flying into the building at that time as opposed to seeing it a very little bit later. IE, he saw the live crash site and heard reports that an airpalne did it - but did not see the actual airplane footage till a little later.
Why would he lie about such a triviality? With all the more important things happening rapid fire at that time - I would think his own personal recollection of the minutes diffrence between when when he saw the actual footage of the crash (as opposed to the burning crash site) wouldn’t be very important in anybody’s mind. That is, unless, you believe he had foreknowledge. Trying to be reasonable, this sure doesn’t seem like a ‘lie’ to me.
And “factcheck”,
Don’t have the time now. Right, buddy.
Hahahaha. Note the dates for the quotes.
He could not have seen the ‘live’ footage of the first airplane hit as there was none until the next day. By the time Bush could have seen any footage of an airplane hitting a building, it would have been the second plane and after he was informed of the hijackings. Because he had been informed of the hijackings he is making up his ‘bad pilot’ reaction.
I don’t know about this supporting any ‘Bush Knew’ conspiracies, to me it just looks like he is trying to make it look like he was on top of the situation and fully briefed as events unfolded, when we all know he wasn’t. But, then again, I can’t possibly know about his motives, I can only speculate why the things he said deliberately were false.
I shouldn’t bother, really, Midderpidge. Dugger has a wafer-thin excuse for anything you come up with, ranging from this bollocks about “hazy recollections” to the fact that mind-reading is impossible, therefore no-one has ever provably lied.
Trying to reason with him is a waste of good hydrocarbon atoms being weathered on your keyboard.
Mitter.
I saw the dates and I’m not convinced. He could have seen footage of the 2nd airplane later that morning. But you really dodged the issue of why he would lie about such a triviality. And there is no good reason. What difference does his offhand recollection of when he saw one piece of footage versus when he saw another piece of very similar footage make? It seems like a contradiction, but you do agree somebody can say differing things and just be mistaken right? So why would he think about this footage, remember it all clearly and then decide to lie about it - when it is all public record - easily disprovable if it means jack squat.
The obvious answer is that it didn’t mean anything and doesn’t mean anything and he was talking off the top of his head and confused a few minor details. I sometimes forget where I park my car. We all can forget minor things. Why is it not possible Bush can too?
Note, you say the “second airplane” and “later”. Now explain how he thought it was a bad pilot.
Midder
Easy. He saw the dramatic live footage. Is told an airplane crashed into the building. He’s not aware at that time of the intentional terrorist attack. Easy, then to guess/expect ‘bad pilot’. Again, what possible motive do intelligent progressives believe he could have for “lying” about such triviality?? And remember you say “lie”. Therefore he had to have foreknowledge of what he was saying was untrue, didn’t he? And on the spur of the moment, he decides to lie. That quick? The lie scenario doesn’t make any sense. Think about it. It just happened. He can’t have known anything other than the barest of bare bone details. Any fabrication would have been horrendously risky and with zero potential benefit. Right? Think seriously and intelligently about it. Why lie about something something you don’t know about? You are president. Every thing you say is taken down. Details could come out in just a few minutes and catch you in a lie. Why do it??
C’mon. That may have been a mistake. Faulty memory brush off of an unimportant detail. But no lie.
Your entire reply makes no sense. “Foreknowledge of what he was saying was untrue”? What the hell is that?
he made a statement that is logically impossible. There was no footage of the first plane strike until later in the day, the second plane didn’t hit until after he was in the classroom. He was informed of the attacks before he could have seen the video, and yet he says his reaction is about bad piloting. Use your brain.
It is such a small lie. Why would he say it? Why not just come out and say he hid behind a book in a classroom full of children and didn’t get around to seeing it until after decision time was over?
What is your next defense? That Bush was commenting on the wobbly approach before hitting the tower that would have been smooth if a good, well-trained suicide pilot was flying? Get real.
midder,
You haven’t addressed a single point I made. Haven’t called you names or impugned your patriotism. Haven’t even told you your argument ‘makes no sense’. You choose to call something a ‘lie’ that you yourself admit is logically impossible. You give no reasons why Bush has anything to gain by such a stupid and obvious ‘lie’. You offer zero reasons as to why it couldn’t be a simple misstatement. Again you are calling it a lie - meaning you think he stated an intentional mistruth.
I’m happy to have a reasonable discussion but so far its just been me. Do you have any arguments other than just restating the apparent contradiction?
I await yours or anybody’s else’s answers to my ‘reasonable’ arguments.
Wow, Dugger, you make the lamest defense ever, fail to make a single point and then accuse me of not addressing them.
He made the entire response up. It is a fantasy. It could not have happened. He embellished it with recollections to lend an air of reality to it.
You offer zero reasons as to why it couldn’t be a simple misstatement. Again you are calling it a lie - meaning you think he stated an intentional mistruth.
One time could be a misstatement. Two times is lying. Once on Dec 4, twice on Jan 5.
Lying isn’t always about gain, either, you know.
How do you know he made them up, Midder? And you have not debated anything - just repeated a nonsensical Internet conspiracy oriented theory.
I can see that you nor any one else on the left really wants to seriously debate the ‘lie’ charge.
Let it be known that I can and did debate seriously and didn’t throw Webster at you. This exchange is why I doubt progressives are really serous about the ‘lie’ charge. Its just what it has always been - ” we hate the guy so we just know he made stuff up.”
If you drink the hate Kool Aid, you agree with them. If you don’t, you scratch your head.
Dugger, A veritable Cyber Diogenes looking for that first confirmed Bush lie.
I’m scratching my head…
Are you now saying that “making stuff up” is not a falsehood?
duros66
Scatch away.
How do you know he was making things up (i.e., intentional)?
I really hoped it wouldn’t get down to the ultimate progressive arguing point: “we are able to read Bush’s mind.”
No, man, you said he was making stuff up. I don’t think anyone has said that besides you.
Hang on, I’m looking for a source.
And it has not gotten to that point any more than regressives are able to read my mind.
During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Is that a truism, Dugger, or a falsehood?
Dugger?
duros,
Notice my patience with your -uhh- confusion, ‘maannn’. You said: “No, man, you said he was making stuff up.” Hmm. A quick scan above would, however, indicate Midder said: “He made the entire response up.” Is the rest of your thinking that solid?
And as to your wiretap question, not sure why I should give it serious consideration, but I’m in a comapssionate mood. Lets start with the childish and false selection of options: truism or falsehood. Please. He could easily be referring to actual wiretaps in the classical sense (instead of overseas NSA data collection); he could be mistaken; he could be technically correct; he could have mispoken. Lots of possibilities, including lie. Except you, for sure, can’t prove lie and it doesn’t seem very likely to me. I personally think he was thinking solely about domestic wiretaps and did not draw a clear enough distinction.
Now duros, don’t you wish you had that time you wasted on dugger back?
Wow, that is an awful lot of spinning you’re doing there, “MAAAAANNNNNNN.”
I don’t see how the selection of options is childish OR false;
True or False.
I was also being compassionate and didn’t say, oh I dunno, “Fact or fiction.”
Anyway,
Yes, he could be referring to “actual wiretaps in the classical sense” (whatever the f*uck that means.
The crux of the quote is that he claimed “nothing had changed” and “– a wiretap requires a court order.”
Except the NSA wasn’t getting court orders at that time. So what is being “misspoken”?
Factcheck- yes, yes I do, but I don’t want to give up and give Dugger the false satisfaction of “victory.”
I got some more time.
Besides, I get paid by the hour.
Hey Dugger, prove he mispoke or didn’t remember it correctly. The statement is shown to be false. The embellishments show deliberation. The burden is on you.
Also, the embellishment is a lie in its own right.
No, midder,
The burden is on you. I don’t allege the specific “lie” - which requires intent. You do. Prove it.
And I still await an intelligent progressive who can argue the “lie” case without referring me to rabid left wing Bush-hate conspiracy sites.
Anybody out there up to it?
When did that happen?
True or false, Dugger?
Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
And you still haven’t told me how one proves perjury, in your view.
Never mind intent, never mind Bush’s state of mind at the time or any of that other prima facie bullshit.
“Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Simple question. Was this statement true? Or False?
Please be honest and show your work.
No Dukker, I have shown the statement to be deliberately false. The intent is implied: to deceive. Much like Bush’s 17 words. They meet the criteria of lie because they weren’t true and the intent is to deceive.
Your argument is with Webster - unless you magically know Bush’s intent.
I’m not budging.
Not a single lie has been proven.
Your argument is with reading comprehension Dugger.
Lie:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
“Intent” is not the motive of the liar, but in the purpose of the words to deceive.
OK Midder,
“Intent” is not the motive of the liar, but in the purpose of the words to deceive.
Same thing. Then, who do you know Bush’s purpose. As always the problem for you and progressives is twofold: Bush-hate drives you to opt for the inflammatory “lie” and Webster.
You know I’m right, here. I easily admit there are contradictions, misstatements etc. I even SUSPECT he has lied (as have all humans, I believe). But to assert that he has factually lied and then to proclaim that he is some kind of serial lair is silly.
Well, Dugger, why would Bush deliberately give us a false statement? Was it to entertain us as in a joke? Was it a poem or a story he was telling us? The purpose of Bush, is to get us to believe that the false statement he gives is true.
It’s like the SOTU 17 words. The CIA (our intelligence service that Bush alledgedly relies on) said the British claims were bunk. They told the White House not to make the claim, the White House played semantics to get around the CIA objections, but the fact remains, the CIA analysis said the claim was bunk. So why would Bush include it in the SOTU? As a joke? To entertain us? No, to try and deceive people into believing it was valid and true. Mislead. That is the definition of lie.
You see that and want to argue that Bush might not have known it was misleading or false. That falls on Bush, if he isn’t capable of doing his homework or being properly informed on the major issues he faces as President. The problem you seem to struggle with is that Bush isn’t just the man, he is the office as well. And when the office lies, as it did in the SOTU, Bush takes the hit on credibility and is the liar himself.
Taking the simple lie about seeing the planes hit live and his impressions of a bad pilot, that is the man, not just as the office, being a liar.
You lost the argument. Bush has lied. When your argument devolves into my objectivity vs. your objectivity, you leave the reservation. My “bush hate” drives me to the dictionary (Webster) in an argument about the definition of a word? If looking up the definition in an argument over the defintion of a word is a progressive fault, I can see the lack of information and logic you regressives rely on for issues such as global warming, pollution, education and Iraq. Talk about drinking the kool-aid.
But Dugger, how can we REALLY know if someone suffers from Bush-hate unless we can see into their soul? You ass-ume bush-hate when there is none proven.
I challenge you to come up with a bona-fide, verifiable, instance of Bush-hate. I bet you can’t do it.
Yeah, I just don’t like his policies and don’t trust Bush because he has no credibility.
Dugger, why won’t you answer this simple question?
“Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Simple question. Was this statement true? Or False?
Midder
“Well, Dugger, why would Bush deliberately give us a false statement?”
And by what magic means do you KNOW Bush ‘deliberately’ gave a false statement?
As opposed to giving a statement that turned out to be false. Let me help. You ‘know’, because you don’t like Bush.
Ok, I guess I win. You won’t answer, fine. This is how you play this game, dugger. You know you’ve been pwned so you disappear from the thread.
Impossible embellishments, Dugger. Bush couldn’t have possibly thought what he claimed. Unless you want to argue severe mental illness or diminished capacity. The simplest explanation is best for you.
SOTU: the yellowcake claim was debunked by the CIA months before the speech (it was yanked from at least one other speech), and yet, there it was. Deceptive and misleading. A lie.
Not to mention Duros’ example.
Well, boys, when you explain how you are to divine Bush’s intentions, we’ll talk about possible lies. Until then, you ain’t got jack squat. Just infantile leftist rage; and not a single lie by Pres Bush proven. Not one. You aren’t even close.
Dukker, you aren’t even close …to reality.
Bush is a liar and Dugger is an idiot. That pretty much sums it up, right?
How do you know ‘intention” boys?
Explain exactly what you mean by Bush’s intentions. The SOTU yellow cake, he wanted Americans to believe Hussein was pursuing nuclear materials from Africa, despite the CIA saying it wasn’t so. The “saw the plane hit the tower” claim, he wanted his interviewer to think he saw the plane hitting the tower live and that he didn’t ealize it was a deliberate attack. There are his intentions laid out as bare and simple as could be.
midder, He “wanted”? How do you know what he wanted??
He said the words didn’t he? Are you saying I should assume he didn’t mean for us to believe him?
Midder,
How do you know what he wanted?
I’m not saying you should assume anything; you should think.
Explain how Bush doesn’t expect us to accept as true what he says.
Midder, you have fine endurance to continue this “conversation” with Dugger!!