Some Republicans are so tied in to the Bush cult, they will never admit that they lie as they breathe — but Mother Jones magazine has compiled each incident of deception regarding the idiotic invasion of Iraq.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Should we start a pool on the time of Dugger’s anticipated arrival on this topic?
Seriously, Oliver, like throwing gas on a fire.
Sorry, check that. Like throwing gas on a lightning bug.
A fire of hilarity!
Pointing historical facts out to the Right?
That’s unpossible!
Its Mother Jones for Chrissakes! A gaggle of leftist doctrinaire extremists. We are supposed to believ those fever swampers? Why not cite JadeGold or duros as an authority?
Dugger … I am sure we can trust that you will never cite any articles from the Weekly Standard, World Net Daily, Washington Times, FOX News or the Wall Street Journal editorial page in the future?
I had a teacher once who, when faced with the denser kids gawping blankly at sums, used to say “Don’t look at the blackboard, look at what I’ve written on the blackboard.”
Oh, funny, Dugger. No more authoritative than you or Frank, buddy.
Are you reading it? I’m only up to Dec 2001, but there is no leftist slant that I can discern (and I’m lookin’, honest). Just straight up “this is what happened and when”.
BTW, where are Jadegold and Frank anyway?
Claiming that any Republican lied at all is insane leftism, Duros.
duros, the truth has liberal bias. I saw Jade on a thread the other day.
duros, the truth has liberal bias.
Well, that explains it. Thanks.
Duros 62 “Danger is the nosey next-door neighbor of security.”
That timeline can’t possibly know the motives of Bush & his cronies.
I dunno, midder, I think it does. what rhymes with Hegemony?
Yemeni? Lemony? Anemone? Remedy and Enemy are close.
“I am sure we can trust that you will never cite any articles…”
Um, Dugger cites sources? Never seen it. He just makes shit up as he goes along.
“Dugger … I am sure we can trust that you will never cite any articles from the Weekly Standard, World Net Daily, Washington Times, FOX News or the Wall Street Journal editorial page in the future?’
This is pretty much true Rheinhard. I try to use unfriendly sources to make my point. Don’t always.
I mean using MA Jones on this site is like fifty scraggly dawgs howling at the moon and then having another scraggly dawg join in. So what.
….like fifty scraggly dawgs howling at the moon and then having another scraggly dawg join in…
You mean like Rush and Bill and Sean?
You should read it anyway, Dugger. Very informative, very well researched and put together. It ain’t the container that matters, it’s the content. Put your liberal hate on hold for a minute.
This is straight out of cult 101. Anything not slavishly echoing the master is clearly against the master.
Dugger, that’s not good enough. You’d say “Noes this does not count because omg librul mazagine” about everything to get out of dealing with the actual content.
Fuck the website. Address the issue.
Attacking the messenger, Dugger?
Got nothin’ eh?
So far Dugger has only managed to spew venom.
Have you notice this sort of thing happening more and more to righties lately? When they’re given hard-to-dipute factes, they start growling angrily at the presenter of those facts.
Moderates to the Rescue!
I remember the events in the timeline as they laid out, and agree with the dubious evidence precipitating the war, but its not unreasonable to look at the story through the filter of the source. Doesn’t invalidate it, but you should always know who is giving you the story.
I mean, I don’t care who the source is, left or right, it’s smart to know what they represent and where they’re coming from.
…and who pays them.
What did I tell you.
Dugger, why don’t you put together a timeline, or list even, of the pre-Iraqi invasion intelligence the Bush administration fed the public that turned out to be accurate.
I’ll do it midder!
Pre-Iraqi invasion intelligence that turned out to be accurate:
That will be all.
And here this whole time I thought yellowcake was butter filled and topped with chocolate.
Quaker,
Well, err, not at this time.
Well, what to say. This is the most convincing summary I have yet seen to describe our current situation in the Middle East.
Some of it is not thoroughly developed. For example, the U.S. had a legitimate right to end the Taliban regime and to seek out OBL. Then again, there is a story here about a job begun and a job not finished which is at least as damning as the whole build-up to the Iraq war.
Dugger, I just don’t know where you go from here. You have been thoroughly discredited and you still manage to make excuses. A wiser person would recognize her predicament. Hopefully age brings wisdom to you.
Well then, Dugger, you might have a look at the MoJo timeline.
You should find it chock full of examples to support your unrelenting thesis. There are many examples of misdirection, spin, evasion, and selective presentation of fact that MoJo lumps together as “lies.”
However, in my cursory browse through it, it looks like the author(s) simply compiled stories from mainstream sources. The only editorializing seems to be in the title.
Where have I been discredited zadura. Which I am wrong, as I have been here and there, I admit it.
I pateintly and countless times debated the lie charge with shrill haters on the left. I have remained reasonable. I have yet to lose that debate.
Quaker, Mojo is a well known organ of the left. The extreme left is characterized by intense hate of anything Bush. It can hardly be considered a mainstream source of anything.
“The extreme left is characterized by intense hate of anything Bush”
More mind-reading. How can he possibly know the motives?
“I have yet to lose that debate.”
But that’s because you’ve set the goalposts such that no human being can be “proved” a liar. It’s an inhuman, laughable standard. That you’ve stuck by it is a sign not of the strength of your position, but the weakness of it.
Dukker, I guess that puts you in the extreme right nutjob category. Every debate usually ends up with you consistently screaming that everyone that disagrees with you is a bush-hater. That leaves one to conclude that you are the opposite a virulent Bush-sycophant.
It’s funny. When people say Bush lied about this or that, you don’t defend the veracity of his statements, you reduce yourself to frothing arguments over semantics and motive. Guess what, no one cares what your extremist only-applies-to-George-Bush definition of lie is. What he says consistently turns out to be false. He has no credibility. There is a word commonly used for that — LIAR. Go buy a used car from the Bush and let it rust on blocks in your front yard like the Iraq war sits on this country.
Dugger, there are people everywhere who can’t admit error. You might recall G.W. Bush himself being unable to think of a single misstep he’d made in his presidential tenure.
There were similar people in communist Russia in the 1980’s — people who stuck to old ideas and ideology in spite of the crumbling edifices. Do I accuse you of being a communist? No. But as we continue to hallow out our military in a risky foreign gamble with no reward in sight, think about where you stand at this historical moment. Will you be a Gorbachev or Zhirnovsky?
“I have yet to lose that debate.”
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?
If I get anymore reasonable with this issue, I’m gonna fall asleep.
Dugger will not answer the question. Never mind intent, Never mind what bush was thinking.
True or false?
It is false. Bush knows it is false as he says it, therefore it is a lie. See how simple that is Dukker?
Mojo is a well known organ of the left. The extreme left is characterized by intense hate of anything Bush. It can hardly be considered a mainstream source of anything.
Not even when they quote the AP?
If MoJo declared the oceans to be wet, you’d still dispute ‘em?
AP is an appendage of the left.
“Mojo is a well known organ of the left.”
This is ridiculous. Mother Jones is well known, but for being liberal? Not by half. Try three decades of award-winning investigative journalism. I agree with Beverly Hills boy that it’s important to know where one’s information is coming from but let’s not pretend that a respected magazine like Mother Jones is in the same league as right wing hack outfits like NewsMax or The Washington Times. Mother Jones is a non-profit, for godssakes.
But this is how the right wing drags down the discourse in this country. Some right wing moron like Dugger cries bias and suddenly any and all distinction between respected publications with proven integrity and the smear merchants is totally erased. Yes, of course, we should look at all our news sources critically, but some insitutions have earned trust and others haven’t. To suggest that Mother Jones is untrustworthy because it’s liberal is total bullshit. The Washington Times, on the other hand, is untrustworty because THEY LIE!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/the-washington-times-slim_b_22599.html
But Frame, non-profits are in and of themselves leftist extremism, aren’t they? If not, they’d be working for profit.
I’m kidding, BTW.
“I’m kidding, BTW.”
Oh I’m on to your little game, “Duros62,” if that is your real name.
Found another one.
“…you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.
September 2002
The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …
QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. . .
August 21, 2006
“…and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.”
ATLANTA, Sept. 27, 2002 – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said this morning the link between al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq is “accurate and not debatable.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09272002_200209272.html
A particular issue of focus has been the attempted procurement by Iraq of high strength aluminium tubes, and the question of whether these tubes, if acquired, could be used for the manufacture of nuclear centrifuges. Iraqi authorities have indicated that their unsuccessful attempts to procure the aluminium tubes related to a programme to reverse engineer conventional rockets. To verify this information, IAEA inspectors have inspected the relevant rocket production and storage sites, taken tube samples, interviewed relevant Iraqi personnel, and reviewed procurement contracts and related documents. From our analysis to date it appears that the aluminium tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges
January 27, 2003
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n003.shtml
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
State of the Union, January 28, 2003
(emphasis added)
A. Documented. Lie.
I.e., a falsehood meant to deceive.
Dugger?
Buh, buh, but Duros! You can’t prove that Bush knew about the IAEA report. Maybe he thought they were talking about some other high-strength aluminum tubes.
Maybe his copy of the report was on Condi’s desk and he didn’t get to see it.
Maybe he heard about it, but forgot.
Maybe Saddam sent radioactive mutant mole people to burrow under the oval office and substitute a phony report that said exactly the opposite.
Not one proven lie. Not one.
Dugger has not one undamaged brain cell. Not one.
Quake
Please reassure me that I am being reasonable here and not subject to “raging Bush hate.” I know dugger hates the whole “cut & paste” thing, but it seems the only way to introduce him to, y’know, facts and junk.
Of course you are, Duros.
In a very strict sense, Dugger is correct. When one labels words “a lie,” that implies a state of mind on the part of the speaker, one that can’t be know with certainty.
But then, that’s a standard that just doesn’t really matter. We can’t know much of anything with certainty, can we?
Dugger’s playing you.
This illusive “intent” y’all keep talking is very simple: The intent was to go to war. Period. Everything else flowed from that. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld practiced to deceive, to quote a phrase, from the very beginning to achieve the object of their intent.
Dugger.
Here are those lies you ordered.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Frame
The intent was to go to war.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. Good point.
Dugger’s been uncharateristically quiet today, hasn’t he?
No lies have been documented re Pres Bush.
Are your arguments against his policies so weak that you can only criticize his guessed-at motives and intentions?
“Are your arguments against his
policies …”
Sheesh. Dugger, his policy in Iraq is monumental failure. You’re boy lied and then fucked up. That’s pretty damn lame don’t you think?
No lies have been documented re Pres Bush.
**jaw drops***
Do you have a brain injury we don’t know about?
Then I don’t know what to tell you. You have no basis in reality. Page after page of documentation. Examples even a12 year old would point out and say WTF?
Keep holding your fingers in your ears and saying”lalallal, I can’t hear you!!!” for the next 2 years, that’ll work.
Great googly-moogly.
“I have yet to lose that debate.”
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?
You can’t just keep saying “no lie docuemnted ever.” That turd don’t flush.
The problem for Dugger is what Bush’s intentions are is irrelevant to the definition of ‘lie’. Only the intention of the statement to deceive is relevant. So when Bush is telling us the government gets warrants when he should know there is a program that doesn’t, that is a lie. When he says he watched the planes hit live when he didn’t; lie. When he says he first thought the planes hitting were the result of bad piloting when he was informed they were deliberate attacks, he is lying. When he tries to convince the country Iraq was trying to buy materials from Africa when the CIA told him the claim was dubious, he is lying.
Dugger is trying confuse us by saying Bush might not know what he is saying is false. Okay, Dugger, what reasonable explanation of Bush’s state of mind can you make? Is he a liar (simplest), is he delusional (mental illness), is he inexcusably uninformed (incompetent), or a mixture of all three?
Seriously, if you want to argue after three months Bush can’t remember his timeline on 9-11, and can’t remember his reactions to the attack video, you have some mental weakness there. If Bush doesn’t know there are secret programs spying on Americans without warrrants, we are looking at criminal negligence and massive dishonesty of his underlings. If Bush really doesn’t know the claims he makes in the SOTU are bunk, that is grand incompetence and/or massive dishonesty by his underlings.
So either Bush knows the things he says aren’t true, he is mentally deficient, he is unacceptably uninformed or he is the puppet of dishonest and unscrupulous people that control his information flow. Which is it Dugger?
Midder,
That thing you’re gnawing on is your own tail. You have come 360. To all of your very selective non-liar options, add: you are mistaken and Bush is right, Bush mispoke, Bush’s words are taken out of context, Bush mispoke, Bush misunderstood, etc. – many more.
So Mitter, you foolishly admit there are countless alternatives to ‘lie’ . You look at all of those possible options and decide to select the one very thing you have no way of verifying and state it to be the truth.
That speaks for itself.
You are easy and hate isn’t persuasive.
Midder
I can accept no. 1 as a by-product of politics. No.s 2 and 3 make him unfit to hold office.
And yet you won’t talk to me, or answer a simple question; true or false?
The burden is now on you Dugger to prove that Bush’s intent was not to deceive. You’ve gone around in circles telling us that we don’t know his state of mind, but how do you? Especially when so many can prove otherwise? Are you that intellectually dishonest?
Just remember that Dugger’s fine proving Clinton’s lie by a standard of preponderance of evidence, but as soon as Bush lies, his standard switches to “beyond all possible doubt.” Do you have the capacity to recognize how pathetic that makes you look, Dugger? Or even the character to acknowledge it? If so, you have yet to show it. What the hell is there to say?
You are easy too, and avoidance is not persuasive either.
See, I’m on to your strategy. If you refuse to engage and merely parrot the same horseshit over and over, you expect that I will devolve into this bush hate rampage and lose the reasonable-ness which you claim to cherish so much.
Your Jedi tricks don’t work here.
No Dukker, I am asking you which is better: a liar, a puppet, an incompetent, or a president with mental deficiencies?
You add things that you can’t argue. For instance, veracity of his claims. We have outlined statements such as, “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.” Which we now know is false, was false when Bush made the statement, and that fall under his knowledge base and decision-making as president. That makes it a lie, unless you want to argue special circumstances such as mental disease or severe incompetence, gross or criminal. Which is it?
‘Pidge, did you remember that comedian who had the one bit, “You can call me Ray, you can call me Jay….but you doesn’t has to call me Johnson.”
That’s pretty much what Dugger is doing to you.
Listen, I’ve been sparring with Dugger here for a long, long time. I’m very familiar with his style.
He’s laying a snare for you by being both literal and precise. The Bush statements you point to can be called wrong, errors, blunders, spin, misdirection, selectivity, misinformation, or even plain ol’ B.S.
But when you call them “lies,” you’re reaching beyond the factual content of the Bush statements and trying to read intent.
You’ll never, ever win that one because George Bush will never, ever admit that he intended to relay false information.
Tom
“Just remember that Dugger’s fine proving Clinton’s lie by a standard of preponderance of evidence’
This is absolutely 100% wrong.
Midder,
Is is uncomfortable reading minds?
Is is uncomfortable reading minds?
It must be pretty easy for you, given your frequency.
Answer my question, please.
Dugger, you yourself said that you will accept “proof” of a lie in the event that a court ruling. The standard of the court is preponderance of evidence. Why is that standard okay for a Clinton lie but not for a Bush lie?
Don’t you people ever tire of this argument?
Just modify your statement to: “In my opinion Bush lied,” and you’re done.
You needn’t document or prove your opinion. You may make assumptions therein.
Tom.
I believe, but can’t prove Clinton lied. Many on the right will swear they know he lied. They are in the same boat as you guys. And a lot of it on both sides revolves around a dehumanization of the perceived ‘enemy’.
(Quaker is right. We’ve beat it to death. I fully accept that you, Midder, duros and many others on the left strongly believe Bush lied.)
“(Quaker is right.“…blah, blah, blah…)
I’d like a set of 5 by 7’s and an 11 by 14 to hang over the mantle, please.
Quaker is right, but you’re not getting off that easy, pal.
I strongly beleive that Bush has lied, and a preponderance of evidence and documentation seems to bear that out. I would like you to honestly admit that.
Okay, so we agree it’s okay to call him a liar, sort of like it’s okay to call someone a sinner or a Christian, or a jerk — all because ‘liar’ isn’t subject to rules of absolute proof. Rather, it’s “proved,” such as it is, by preponderance of evidence, which is what we’ve been arguing. I’m glad to see you admit that, Dugger. What I can’t figure is why you were so worked up about it.
Are you seriously arguing Dugger, that when George Bush talks his intent isn’t for us to accept as true what he says?
Mid, I don’t think Dugger wants to play with us anymore.
Quaker, you’re right in terms of identifying Dugger’s tactics, but modifying our statements to suit him would be to dignify those tactics with a response.
Dugger doesn’t deserve the satisfaction of making us play on his terms.
“Dugger doesn’t deserve the satisfaction of making us play on his terms.”
Well by all means, stay the course.
And besides that, he brings it up. He issues the throwdown, but he doesn’t have the chutzpah when he gets pwned. he disappears.
“Dugger doesn’t deserve the satisfaction of making us play on his terms.”
And yet he gets you to do so, time after time.
He’s setting out a literal and precise definition for the word “lie” and then challenging you to apply that definition to support the charge “Bush lied.”
And commenter oblige him eagerly every time he sets the bait.
So be my guest. Stay the course. Continue to try to “prove” a lie instead of simply conceding your assumptions and moving on.
Poor Dugger. It has to be confusing to him when people talk about the War on Terror. That assumes we know motive and what these people are thinking. What everyone else calls the 9-11 attacks are just a sad accident that occurred when individuals caused planes to hit buildings in America. We can’t possibly know they were hijacking the planes, maybe they took over the cockpit by mistake thinking it was the bathroom. But what if they meant to take over the planes, how do we know they meant to attack the US? Maybe they just got lost on the way to Cuba or somewhere. We can’t possibly know what they meant to do because we aren’t mind readers. Osama bin Laden might just have been their travel agent. Who can say?
Quaker, you’re right. I am willing to call it a draw. On the proviso that Mr.Dugger refrain from the “not one documented lie” falderal henceforth.
It must be tough when the Uncertainty Principle is how you life your life.
Dugger thinks when George Bush talks his intent isn’t for us to accept as true what he says.
I guess we shouldn’t wait for that list of pre-Iraq administration claims that turned out to be true.