What Angers Bush
Tweet
This.
Now, however, friends, aides and close political allies tell the Daily News Bush is furious with his own side for helping create a political downdraft that has blunted his momentum and endangered GOP prospects for keeping control of Congress next month.
Some of his anger is directed at former aides who helped Watergate journalist Bob Woodward paint a lurid portrait of a dysfunctional, chaotic administration in his new book, “State of Denial.”
Three U.S. Marines were killed in fighting in Iraq’s western Anbar region, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency, the U.S. military announced Monday.
The three, who were assigned to the Regimental Combat Team 7, died Sunday from wounds sustained in “enemy action,” the military said in a statement. It did not provide further details.
65 Responses to “What Angers Bush”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Yes, President Bush doesn’t care about those who died for our country.
Ian, I know you’re being ironic, but the true irony is your statement is right on. Remember the comma and “just a number” statements? He doesn’t give an owl’s excrement about Iraqi casualties.
Mmhmm, Karl Rove.
Oliver- you don’t give a rats ass about the deaths of American soldiers, except as a political tool against Republicans. So just keep on your death watch and publish every little snippet you can find and scream “Brand Democrat” at the top of your lungs.
But don’t pretend like you give a shit. How do I know? The same way you think that you know what the President thinks?
Watch out Marty, with intelligence like that you might get banned from a place like this.
Marty, I know the irony is lost on you, but Republicans seemingly “don’t give a rat’s ass about the deaths of American soldiers” either. How else do you explain that their is general consensus that the current policy is broken but won’t be altered until after the November elections?
See here:
link
and here:
link
Also, while I don’t speak for the soldiers, it is my sincere hope that my kin who happens to be rotating in and out of this meat grinder come home in one piece, and I do give a shit about them and their compatriots.
Marty, you can tell how a person thinks and believes via their actions. George Bush sent the troops off to die for no reason, and rather than change course to save lives and take an electoral hit, he repeatedly chooses the expedient choice.
Deeds, not words. So stuff it.
Marty, I’m a United States Army veteran. Click my link.
Tell us about your military service, so we’ll know how patriotic you are and how much you care about the members of the military who are dying for a lie.
Remind me why I should not be pissed off at a president who deserted his own unit, and sends better people than himself to die for his lies.
I’m supposed to be HAPPY about that? Only in your Bizzaro World.
repack,
You always brag about your service as if that gives you some special insight or right to talk that others don’t have. You mentioned Bush ‘lies’ a couple of times.
Open up your dictionary and look up the definition of a lie and tell me which lies you have documented re Bush. And don’t try to pull any of that crap about your self-advertised service excusing you from logic or debate. Which lies????
Dugger | Oct 10, 2006 10:11:21 AM
“You always brag about your service as if that gives you some special insight or right to talk that others don’t have.”
Dugger is fucking joking … right?
“Open up your dictionary and look up the definition of a lie and tell me which lies you have documented re Bush. And don’t try to pull any of that crap about your self-advertised service excusing you from logic or debate. Which lies????”
Hugh Hewitt & The Question Of Irony
Hugh Hewitt, in one of his usual trap-attempt interviews makes the following statement.
“Why are you so reluctant, Eric Black, to call a lie a lie? Because most people understand a lie to be an intentional misstatement of fact and intentional deception. I mean, it’s not a complicated word. Why are you reluctant to use it?”
Of course, Hugh’s mindset says that a lie should be only called a lie when it’s applied to a Democrat, because if anyone calls George W. Bush (aka The Exalted One) a liar, Hugh is liable to literally flip out of his gourd.
Dugger, no you’re wrong. If you’re a liberal and you ‘served’, then your opinion matters. However, if you’re a conservative, served, and criticize crazy Uncle Murtha then the media won’t hype you:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004240.htm
To those of you who are used to me making cogent arguments, (including Oliver) I apologize for losing my cool.
And an FYI, for Repack- not that its any of your business, but I completed the first six weeks of my PLC course at Quantico and dq’ed during my second six due to a knee injury that I still have problems with 20 years later. Thus I never made it to active duty as the officer I planned to be. Since I did the course completely voluntary without taking scholarship money , I decided to finish school and stay in the private sector.
Any other irrelevant questions? What if my nephew were in Iraq right now? Would that make a difference to you? What if a kid in my church died in Iraq? Would that make a difference to you? What if my father was in Korea and my Uncle in Vietnam? Any difference to you? Your “credentials” don’t mean jack to me. Everybody has an opinion, and yours isn’t any better than Olivers, or Ians, or factchecks, or dugger’s or frame’s, or anybody elses here who hasn’t served. Especially since a clear majority of those who are serving and have served support a different side than you.
But I’ll grant you that there are plenty who have served with the same opinions as the rest of us- many for and many against. Just save the sanctimony for someone else.
You always brag about your service as if that gives you some special insight or right to talk that others don’t have.
You have the same “right” to talk, but you do not know what it is like to serve your country, so yes, I DO have an insight that you do not, just as I do not know what it is like to be a woman because I have never been one.
You mentioned Bush ‘lies’ a couple of times.
“We FOUND the weapons of mass destruction!” (Turned out to be hydrogen generators.)
“Saddam kicked the inspectors out.”
I know, you think that if a guy is too stupid to know that what he says is not the truth, it isn’t, technically, a lie. So, by your standards, you are not lying now.
Are you really happy with a president so stupid he doesn’t know that his statements are not true?
Dugger says: “tell me which lies you have documented re Bush.”
Dugger, I am so sick of you dragging out this bullshit argument. How about this lie:
“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.” (emphasis added)
Remember that? That’s on the White House web site. And in fact, it’s two lies in one. The second being where he says “we value the Constitution,” which would be laughable if it weren’t so false.
So do us all a favor and shut the hell up about this no documented lies bullshit.
“but you do not know what it is like to serve your country”
Want to bet, big mouth braggart?????
Want to put up some money saying I wasn’t in the service?????
And where is the lies, repack, ol bud. Lets here some hero Some where you know the ‘intent’ of the speaker.
For future reference, Dugger, when people refuse to answer that bollocks argument of yours, it’s not a surrender, it’s because it’s the kind of premium-grade horseshit they reccomend on Gardener’s World.
So take the dictionary meaning of ‘lie’ and demonstrate a lie re Bush as President.
I haven’t seen it yet, but then my ‘bollocks’ argument takes the dictionary meaning of lie verus the leftist socio-political inferred definiton of lie.
And, repack, ol buddy, the bet offer is open. You said this (I ignored it when you said it a couplke of times earlier):
“but you do not know what it is like to serve your country”
Want to bet?
Jesus keerist Dugs. Read the quote cited by nihilistic. At the time the president spoke those words he had already orderd the NSA to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. So he knew that what he was saying was untrue.
Why would the president say something that he knew to be untrue? Because he intended to deceive – he wanted to give the impression that everytime a wiretap was placed, it was done so with a court order, even though he knew this impression was false.
Bush is a liar.
Dugger | Oct 10, 2006 2:06:55 PM
“Want to bet, big mouth braggart????? Want to put up some money saying I wasn’t in the service?????”
I believe Dugger. He’d sacrifice his family and other families in loyalty and commitment to The Decider.
Dugger, still waiting on that list of Bush administration Iraqi WMD claims that turned out to be true.
Bush lies have been proven. You have failed on every debate on this subject, why ask for a replay?
More American deaths for no justifiably good reason. Makes me sick.
And before you neo-con kooks go off I never said I don’t approve of war – I do – as an absolute last resort when all other recourses have been exhausted and there is a clear, present, and imminent threat to this country (IE – Osama “Still Not Caught” bin Laden). Afghanistan qualified. Iraq does not now and never did qualify.
And don’t hand me that ass-backward argument about Saddam being such a horrible dictator who killed his own people crap – the original reason was harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction and it was a LOAD OF SHEISSE. We invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses to depose a leader we didn’t like – and you can damned well bet that if Bush and Co. had their way we’d do it several more times.
Do any of you neo-con crackpots realize that if we invaded every country that killed its own people we’d own half the globe by now? Or is that what you are after and refuse to admit it? The Empire of America?
And now they’re claiming that 655K Iraqis have died since the beginning of our war there as well.
What a raw waste of human life – something you neo-con nuts supposedly value so much that you’ll freak out over abortion and stem cell research – but not over killing off generations of a country’s population or our own troops! Hypocracy at its best.
The sooner this twit and his cronies are out of office the better – for us and the Iraqis. I’m not a Rep. or a Dem., but I’d take Clinton lying about a blow job any day over Bush lying to start a war!
Except, Matthews, no lies have been documented re Bush and the war. A lie requires intent to devceive and we don’t know bush’s intents, even if he was mistaken, do we? Look up the menaing of ‘lie’. Rather than engage in superstition and ignorance, you will need to argue the war on its own merits here.
Midder, Prove Bush’s intent to deceive and you ay be able to prove a lie. Otherise, yo are just as wrong now as you were 6 months ago. Not a single lie has ben documented re pres Bush and Iraq. And keep in mind all of those quotes from all of those progressive democrats about WMDs, WMD programs, the need to take action against Saddam etc – pre Bush. Did dumb ol’ frat boy as governor of Texas trick the Clinton Admin nto hyping Saddams threat. How does that Frat Boy do it?
Dugger | Oct 11, 2006 10:01:13 AM
“no lies have been documented re Bush and the war. A lie requires intent to devceive and we don’t know bush’s intents, even if he was mistaken, do we?”
Loyalty.
To.
The.
Decider.
Above.
All.
Else.
Braaaaack … Polly want another cracker?
Dugger doesn’t understand what intent to deceive is. When confronted with an argument that a Bush claim is a lie Dugger:
Never argues for the claims veracity.
Never makes a specific argument for context errors.
Never accounts for evidence that Bush had foreknowledge a claim was false or dubious.
When arguing Bush’s intent Dugger never gives an alternate explanation to refute evidence that Bush’s intent is to be believed, such as:
He was joking.
He was acting in a play or other work of fiction.
He was being sarcastic.
He was insane or delusional.
And no how bad Dugger gets beaten on any given claim he always resorts to two defenses:
1. “You can’t know Bush’s intent.” Which is Dugger’s ignorant way of saying motive. Ignorant in that knowing why Bush makes a false claim is irrelevant, intent in the definition of lie rests solely on Bush’s intent for his word’s to be taken as true.
2. “Why would he lie?” Which of course is Dugger’s red stain on the upper lip, proving he drinks too much Kool Aid.
Again Dugger, document the Bush claims on Iraqi WMDs that were true. Instead we got Aluminum Bicycle tubes, lawn mower engines, model airplanes, ice cream trucks, forged documents, witnesses with massive credibility problems, pictures of innocent buildings, yellow cake claims that were false, and talk of mushroom clouds.
So anything stated that is not true is a lie? You wanna go with that???
Dugger:
One genuine documented Grade-A Bush LIE regarding the war:
Bush press conference, March 21, 2006: “And when [Saddam] chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him.”
There it is. Saddam denied the inspectors. Wouldn’t let them in. Kept them out. Bullshit.
If the inspectors were blocked by Saddam, then why on Earth would the US advise them to get out of Baghdad on March 16 of 2003? That was only FOUR DAYS BEFORE the war began.
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE!
There you have it, Dugger. One documented lie told by your Lord and Savior, GW Bush, regarding the Iraq war.
You’re welcome.
Well lets see, nihilistic. You are new here, so I’ll be kind. You have a big bad lie, right? I mean, it must be so because you used caps. Hard to disprove caps. And you are saying Saddam did not ‘deny’ inspectors? Really sure you want to say that is a pure, proven lie?
How do you explain this then:
“But Charles Duelfer, a top official with the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) from 1993 until it was disbanded in 2000, says Iraq hindered more than it helped the effort, misleading inspectors and refusing access to sensitive buildings.
“It got to the point they knew that we knew that they knew that we knew,” he said. “It was a great game, in a sense.”
After years of hide and seek, the inspection system broke down in 1998. The United Nations pulled its inspectors from the country, and the United States and Great Britain launched Operation Desert Fox — four days of airstrikes against military and political targets inside Iraq.
Since then, without inspectors on the ground, it has been nearly impossible to know what is now in Iraq’s arsenal. Under mounting pressure after Bush’s speech to the United Nations, Iraq now says U.N. weapons inspectors can return to the country. ”
Now, Bush is roundly ridculed for his lack of eloquence, but I don’t think its a huge stretch to take ‘deny’ from that. And thats the UN talking.
See, you just puked up some stuff from hate-Bush sites and veteran Bush haters like the troglodette Helen Thomas. Won’t cut it here.
I’ve got plenty more.
Another progressive bites the dust. Maybe nihilist will change his name and talk about yellow cake. That one’s been shot down plenty of times, too.
Dugger, you still haven’t answered my question about the wiretaps quote; True of false?
I really don’t want to rehash this yet again, nor do I think others here want to watch us go at it (again) to your embarrasment, but I will concede one point. Perhaps the operative word in your futile attempts to remain loyal to the Decider is “documented” and not, as I and others have maintained, “lie.” Is that it, Dugger? We don’t understand the use of the word “documented”? At least in the way that you understand the term?
I mean, if this:
It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
appears on the White House web site (thanks nihilist), that’s pretty well documented, ins’t it?
What does it take to crack your veneer?
Dugger,
It’s gonna take more than that to get rid of me.
You say that Bush wasn’t telling a lie when he said that Saddam denied the inspectors, since Saddam wasn’t cooperating fully with Hans Blix, et al. Okay, if you’re going to make some weak argument on semantics, I’ll allow that. How about when Bush said this:
“And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.” (That’s from here.)
So what did Bush mean? Did he mean that Saddam wasn’t cooperating fully with the inspectors who were in iraq, or that he wouldn’t let them in? Why would he say that Saddam wouldn’t let them in, if he meant that he wasn’t cooperating? Is the entire crux of your argument that The Decider isn’t a liar the fact that we can’t pin down what the meaning of “is” is?
Let me know, because I don’t think I can win an argument against a sociopath.
Also, you said, “you just puked up some stuff from hate-Bush sites…” Since when are Whitehouse.gov and USA Today Bush-hate sites? And where is your quote from? If you have a link, provide it, please.
-ND-
I don’t want to get rid of you nihilistic. You make me look good.
And I go by the dictionary. If you regard that as weak, good for you. You stated in big bad CAPS that Bush lied when in fact, according to that same little thing called a dictionary, he didn’t. I also gave you words from the UN which showed what Bush said was essentially true. What happened here is that you and your hate sites didn’t account for different time intervals (Bush versus hate Bush sites) and you didn’t allow for Bush’s awkward ability to speech – ridiculed here on a another item.
I, of course, don’t know what Bush meant, but I’m guessing he was talking about Saddam over the years. And when I googled, I only saw stuff from liberal sites like Salon, etc and haters like Helen Thomas.
I might suggest you think for yourself rather than parroting somebody else’s assurance about ‘Bush lies’. They don’t up in rational conversation.
A lie is alie. It isn’t the same as a mistake, mispeak, misunderstanding. if you want to be artional and coherent above te comic book level, you must at least question why this man who is so smart he can at once fool all thos eDemocrats into voting for war, would leave a gazillion ‘obvious-to-progressives’ lies on the public record.
words from the UN which showed what Bush said was essentially true.
“Essentially” is not the same thing as true, Dugger. You are moving the goal posts again by claiming to interperate what he meant.
Just because someone does not share the same myopic views as you does not necessarily make them a “hater.”
Now answer my question.
Wow, Dugger. You really showed me, didn’t you? I’m literally cowering under my desk at your superior skills of debate.
I also gave you words from the UN…
Yeah, words from someone who left the UN before Bush was even in office. That’s great. Maybe you can find someone from the Reagan years who will back up your claim. How about we listen to Hans Blix instead? You know him, right? He was the weapons inspector before the war started, during Bush’s first term. (I provide the link for people who actually want to see my source. I know you don’t read them.
Regarding Iraq’s cooperation, Blix says, “Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.”
So according to Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, Saddam had let the inspectors in and was cooperating. Why would Dubya say otherwise? It’s obvious that what he said was false. Saddam had in fact let the inspectors in. But, since the keystone of your argument has been that it is the intent to deceive that makes a lie a lie, we have to figure out if Bush meant to deceive when he said that Saddam didn’t let the inspectors in.
So either Bush knew that it was false or he didn’t. If he knew that it was false, then obviously he lied and the argument is over. But if he didn’t know it was false, then what? As George Costanza said to Jerry, “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Well, if W believed the line about the inspectors not being let in, then that can only mean one thing: his advisors didn’t tell him about Blix’s report to the UN.
So what does that mean? It means that Bush either knowingly surrounded himself by oppornutistic war-mongers, or he was unaware of how manipulative his staff was. So he was either grossly incompetent (in the latter case) or criminally negligent (in the former).
So there we have it. Bush lied or he didn’t. You decide which you think it was, because if he didn’t lie about the inspectors, then that makes him the worst President ever. Why do I say that? During the run-up to the Iraq war, the single most important issue faced by W’s administration was the run up to the Iraq war. He should have been given every scrap of information pertinant to making a decision about whether to go to war. If he didn’t know that the inspectors had been let back in, then it’s like I said, criminal negligence or gross incompetence.
Either way, worst president ever.
(But I still think he lied.)
-ND-
Whoops. Hosed up that link to the Blix thing.
Here it is.
Damn typos.
-ND-
It isn’t a lie if Dugger sticks his fingers in his ears and screams “Stay the Course”.
Bush is a liar. It can be proven in several cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Dugger demands an insane beyond mathematical certainty the kind where the claim 3+3=6 can not be demonstrated as true because even though we are adding, we don’t know if Bush was talking standard base 10. He could have meant base 4 where 3+3=12 or even base 5 or 6 (11 and 10). Who can say?
Just as when Bush stands up and addresses an audience and tells them things, we don’t know if Bush was acting in some bizarre play or trying to inform his audience. Who can say? In other words, Bush has zero credibility and really needs a disclaimer when he speaks.
Take Duros’ example. Bush made a claim about warrants that he knew to be false with the intent to deceive. That satisfies a minimum burden of proof suggesting it was a lie. Duros showed that Bush had foreknowledge that his administration had programs that skipped the warrant process.
When faced with that case, you failed to make any kind of real defense. You didn’t argue Bush’s claim was true. You didn’t make any case for it being taken out of context (it wasn’t). You didn’t argue Bush didn’t know about the program he authorized (that would be a whole other can of worms that would paint Bush as worse than a liar). You didn’t try to make a case that Bush didn’t intend to be believed.
ND
(But I still think he lied.)
No problem with that. I think Jimmy Carter is the worst President in history. That 22% misery index hurt every working American – bad. We all have opinions.
And you still don’t allow in your example for different time intervals. In Bush’s quote he did not limit his time interval in referring to Saddam.
And I think Bush is actually one of the worst extemporaneous speakers as Pres. So when he responds to a question, I think an intelligent observer would also consider his poor speaking organization and enactment skills. An intelligent person who BELIEVES in the ‘lie’ conspiracy must wonder why he would ‘lie’ about so much stuff on the public record. And if you tell me its to deceive, I invite you to step back and look at the comprehensive portrait of Bush you have created. He can fool Congressmen right and left. More Democrats voted for the war than against it. Yet he ‘lies’ knowing that as Pres everything he says is public record. And, amazingly, this dumb frat boy/genius can be caught in these earth-shaking ‘lies’ by $0.25/blog commenters – but he can bamboozle gaggles of Senators who hate him who have staffs of elitist Ivy League educated supporters who also hate Bush.
Common sense – if you are not paranoid- does not support the ‘lie’ motif.
midder,
I have never said everything Pres Bush says or you or me or Clinton or whoever is true. In that we are all fallible and most of us talk and write, we will sometimes say something untrue. I have yet to see something I’m convinced was intentionally deceptive on Bush’s part that would suggest lie. I have not seen the first example of something that progressives call alie that doesn’t have a sh*tpot of mitigating circumstances against ‘lie.’ Like ‘nihilistic’s’ example above whre he fails to consider time interval, spontaneity, common sense etc.
I would challenge you all to come up with your single best case of a provable lie against Pres Bush and lets examine it rationally and calmly. I don’t fear that one iota. But I would aution you, I have been through this many time and the ultimate progressive response is something to the effect of “you keep insisting on the dictionary” or “yeah but, you don’t say whether what he said was true or not’. ANd then Iw ould remind you that the chant from progressive sis not ‘untrue’, not ‘ineloquent’, not incompetent’, but ‘lie’. You chose something very hard to prove.
Dugger, if you actually have the nerve to argue that the plausible deniability factor of the Bush administration in general, and the President in particular, is good then you are so far up George Bush’s ass that it would require tug-of-war with an Abrahams to get you out, and therefore going to ignore any argument we make. Intent to deceive? GIVE ME A GODDAMNED BREAK!!!
That out of the way, let’s talk about what Bush and Co. are “honest” about….
Laura Bush – “Most of them come from … you know … low income housing and such. This is actually good for them.” – Speaking about Katrina victims living on a freakin’ football field in Texas.
George Bush – “…No. I’m not really worried about him anymore.” – Speaking about Osama “Let’s Kill All Americans” bin Laden – you know – the ASSHOLE that sent planes flying into the Pentagon and WTC?
Dick (Oh So Appropriately Named) Cheney – “… I think the insurgency is in its last throes…” – Think again asshole!
George Bush – “No one could have predicted that the dikes would not hold…” – Interesting since desgraced FEMA guy “Heck ‘Uv a Job” Brownie told him that more than 24 hours before hand – look it up it was on freaking video feed for Christ’s sake!
George Bush – “Mission accomplished.” – In reference to the Iraqi war that supposedly ended how many years ago? Yet mysteriously we’re still losing our compatriots in this mess!
You know, I don’t have the rest of my life to point out to you that your guy and his cronies are a bunch of complete nunces – I have other things to do that involve real people in the real world – but I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit here and listen to you talk about Bush like he’s an A-OK American. He’s a coward and a liar, and he could give a shit less about the American people – when history does evaluate this guy you better hope they start with a handicap of trainable level IQs, or you will be sorely disappointed!
And of course I don’t expect any of this to get through to you – it’s hard to get it to your destination, that being entrenched all the way up George Bush’s colon.
In Bush’s quote he did not limit his time interval in referring to Saddam.
Holy shit. That’s your argument? Bush wasn’t talking about recently, he was talking about before???
Not to be disrespectful, Dugger, but that is just plainly bat-shit insane. Allow me to provide the following example. (Gather ’round, kids, it’s story time.)
Let’s say a man robs a bank. He has a gun and a few hostages. The cops are outside and the chief says “hey, Mr. Bank Robber, let the hostages go, drop your gun, and come out with your hands up.”
The bank robber replies, “eat me you stupid cop. I ain’t giving up.”
After a while, the hostage negotiator shows up. She says, “hey, Mr. Bank Robber, you don’t need those hostages. Why don’t you let them go and give yourself up, so we can all walk away from this?”
Bank Robber says, “Go take a flying leap. I’m not surrendering.”
After a couple hours of this, the SWAT team arrives. They have a big van with lots of equipment, a small armored vehicle and a dozen snipers. The police chief says, “Mr Bank Robber, the only way you’re going to avoid being on a slab at the coroner’s office is to let the hostages go, throw down your weapon, and give yourself up.”
After a tense moment, the front door opens and the hostages scurry out and are swept away by the cops. Soon, the door opens again and a gun is tossed into the street. The bank robber then walks slowly out onto the sidewalk with his hands up. “Okay,” he says, “I surrender.”
The chief looks at him, then says, “fire!”
The bank robber is hit with a hundred bullets and falls to the sidewalk in a lump of bloody goo.
Later, at the press conference, Helen Thomas asks the chief, “why did you feel it was necessary to fire upon the suspect?”
The chief replies, “he refused to surrender.”
–End of story–
So, Dugger, by your insane Bush-licking logic, the chief in this story is absolutely correct in his statement. The bank robber did refuse to surrender, if you allow for “different time intervals”. Forget the fact that he surrendered, there was a time before when he didn’t, and therefore, we can simply take the way-back machine to that time because it suits our needs better. This is what you call a psychosis. Using your One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest logic, I could argue that Nancy Pelosi should be recognized as Speaker of the House. I mean, the Democrats have more seats, right? Forget about recently where the Republicans took over. You have to allow for “different time intervals.”
And I can say that the Cubs are the World Champions. Sure, it happened in 1908, but you have to allow for “different time intervals.”
And deadbeat dads can forget about paying alimony. They just have to allow for “different time intervals” back to when they didn’t have kids.
Is that how Neocons are able to claim that Iraq is a success? They just allow for that “different time interval” and regress their brain to the eight minutes after the fall of Baghdad when the place wasn’t a total clusterfuck?
Bat.
Shit.
Insane.
I picked an example you were familiar with, Duros’ example of Bush claiming the US always gets warrants. You once again fail to offer any defense but stary into some bizarre theory that it is impossible for Bush to lie because all his words are recorded. That’s it. That’s what you got. Did you know that the Nazis never killed all those Jews because they knew there was no way for them to hide all those bodies forever?
If that’s all you got, stop wasting our time. Bush is a liar.
Just for the hell of it here’s Duros’ example:
““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. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.””
and
“To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks. So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. … This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda. I’ve reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as our nation is — for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.”
Now Dugger, mount your defense.
nihilistic_disintegration | Oct 12, 2006 9:00:53 AM
“And I can say that the Cubs are the World Champions. Sure, it happened in 1908, but you have to allow for “different time intervals.”
And deadbeat dads can forget about paying alimony. They just have to allow for “different time intervals” back to when they didn’t have kids.
Is that how Neocons are able to claim that Iraq is a success? They just allow for that “different time interval” and regress their brain to the eight minutes after the fall of Baghdad when the place wasn’t a total clusterfuck?
Bat.
Shit.
Insane.”
Excellent post, nihilistic disintegration. Don’t, FOR ONE SECOND, think it will slow Dugger down.
His next arguments? He’ll offer conjecture, his interpretation and opinion, all of which have fuck all to do with the “facts” he spouts.
Thanks, S,
The best part is that Dugger, in all his wisdom and super awesome debate skills, has in effect, completely nullified the entire case for Clinton’s impeachment. If you recall, the Neocons stated that they weren’t going after him because he got his knob shined in the Oval Office, they were attaching him because he “lied under oath.” (Remember them all chanting “rule of law, rule of law”?)
But according to Dugger’s a-shithouse-rat-is-not-as-crazy-as-me logic, they can’t prove that Clinton was talking about his recent contact with Monica. He could have been speaking about the time before, when he had never, in fact, had sexual relations with that woman.
So I think it would only be fair for Dugger and his Neocon Circle-Jerk buddies to start a petition drive to get Clinton exonerated and have the impeachment removed from all history books. After all, we wouldn’t want to impeach a man for something that can’t ever be proven by anyone ever in the entire history of humans, now would we?
Also, Midder: the claim 3+3=6 can not be demonstrated as true because even though we are adding, we don’t know if Bush was talking standard base 10. He could have meant base 4 where 3+3=12 …
You totally hit the nail on the head. Sadly, that didn’t seem to slow down the Duggster either.
-ND-
Midder & Nihilist, I appreciate your help with this. Notice how Duggie absolutley refuses to address this point. I have been asking him for weeks now one simple thing;
Was Bush’s statement about warrants true or false?
he refuses to answer, going for the easy out about “time intervals and context” etc.
“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.”
True or false, dugger?
Yah, didn’t think so.
Here kitty, kitty, kitty!
Hmm, Duros. Dugger seems to have disappeared. Perhaps he’s off in his study, sipping from a snifter of brandy, basking in the glow of his super-awesome debate skills after taking me to school so many times.
Or maybe he’s just a pussy.
It’s hard to tell sometimes.
LoL
The last time Dugger responded to someone who kicked his ass, it was a most incoherent, badly written post. It was difficult to understand what he was trying to say through the spelling mistakes and clumsy grammar.
Ok Midder.
Notice first of all how I shot down the Un inspectors ‘lie’.
Now to your ‘lie’. I have been out for a while Where exactly is the lie in your wiretap (A concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit.
The act of installing such a device. ) remarks? Be careful, pay attention to Bush’s wording, especially ‘wiretap” and pay attention to the context -international vs domestix- of his remarks).
You hear those waves breaking, Midder. thats the beach. You are about to be washed up on the shoals. By choosing ‘lie’, I don’t even have to show Bush is correct.
And I will give you an out. Since I have taken so long, you have my permission to declare victory due to non response. nevertheless, still no lies re Pres Bush have been proven. Not a one.
***Fingers plugging ears, eyes shut tight “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you NYAH NYAH NYAH NHAH NYAH”***
If the Supreme Court AND the Decider agreed that the Decider should resign because he’d lied, Dugger would talk him out of it and explain to he, Rove and the Supreme Court how it wasn’t a lie.
Still looking for the lie.
Notice first of all how I shot down the Un inspectors ‘lie’.
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
I hope everyone here truly appreciates the honor of participating in the same blog as Debatumus Maximus. I feel so… so… inadequate in the presence of words that He Who Out-Debates All has typed.
Dugger, seriously, how did you “shoot down” the lie? By making the most inane argument you possibly could have. Is that how Master Debaters win debates? Say the most off-the-wall screwball nutjob thing possible, chuckle as rational people try to make sense of it, then declare victory while everyone else is busy jamming an icepick into thier ear in a vain attempt to kill the part of their brain that remembers your dumbass retard upside-down logic?
Well played, Lord Of All Arguments. Well played.
And while we’re on the subject of your awe-inspiring reasoning skills, this would be the point where you acknowledge that your argument exonerates Clinton for that thing he got impeached for. Or did your super-tuned brain gloss over that part?
Hey, Debatumus Maximus,
Since we’re going round and round in a seemingly endless loop of “here’s a lie” and “you don’t know intent,” I was wondering if you could maybe provide one example of what you would consider a documented lie. One lie, told by anyone ever. I just want to know what is required to meet your standard.
The way I see it, going by your argument, there has never been a single documented lie in the entire history of the human race.
So if you could provide one example, that would be helpful, since I obviously don’t have the oversized brain honed to a razer-sharp point that you do.
I’m sorry this is hard for you, nd. That pesky dictionary and ‘intent’ and all. Could the dictionary be right wing? Too bad ‘lie’ is very hard to prove. BTW, I’m satisfied with anyone having a personal opinion about someone lying, just don’t try to make your personal opinion the public record, especially for somethin subjective as ‘lying.’
And you have zero idea about my ideas and psoitons re Clinton. You merely are taking the intellectually lazy path of assuming all who disagree with you think the same way.
Dugger, we have already been over this. You have previously admitted that Clinton did not lie. You have rebutted the words of Abraham Lincoln who said that a person who utters a falsehood claiming ignorance of fact does not exonerate them from lying.
You have failed to point us to one (one!) example of someone who you know beyond a shadow of a doubt has lied.
You have also consistantly ignored my polite requests for an answer to a simple question.
Perhaps Bush was not lying, but he sure as shit wasn’t telling the truth. Is that the kind of semantic tap-dance that you require of your opponents, Dugger?
Behold everyone! We have in our midst the only truly honest man in the world! Someone who can say that they have never, ever willing told a lie in their entire life!
All hail Dugger. The world’s most honest man!
“You have previously admitted that Clinton did not lie”
Nope. You truly don’t get it. Clinton did not commit perjury and I could not prove he lied. I think he lied.
“Perhaps Bush was not lying, but he sure as shit wasn’t telling the truth.”
This is possible. Just as I don’t consider your previous claims of ‘Bush lied” to mean, now that you see the light, that you lied then. You changed your mind. If I said in 2001 that no member of the Bush family has been elected President twice and we look back on that statement, it isn’t true. Did I lie? I said something untrue. Or I don’t know I’m color blind and I say the sky is morning sky is deep green, is that a lie? Its untrue.
All of this is really easy. get rid of the hate, consider your average an just as smart and virtuous as yourself, don’t be afraid of differing ideas, and a lot of this overwrought emotionalism will leave you.
Well, at least now I know what color the sky is in your world.
get rid of the hate, consider your average (m)an just as smart and virtuous as yourself, don’t be afraid of differing ideas, and a lot of this overwrought emotionalism will leave you.
Have I exhibited any large degrees of hate to you, Dugger? I have tried to be as reasonable and calm as I possibly can be in the face of overwhelming odds. I am not “afriad of differing ideas”, though I will readily admit I can be guilty of an emotional reaction when the ideas differing from my own fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as well as majority opinion.
And you still didn’t answer my original question.
Perhaps your advice to me could just as easily be applied to your own point of view.
Think about it.
Been wrong many times duros. Will be wrong again. Makes me humble and I hope, thoughtful. Its why I try mightily to resist profanity and cheap name calling. Sometimes unsuccessfully.
Well, amen to that, brother, on that we have common ground.
But you still didn’t answer the question.
Still waiting for that defense Dugger. So far you have spouted some gibberish without it meaning anything.
Point One: International vs Domestic? Bush claimed the US government always gets warrants. Where is there a distinction of international and domestic?
Besides which, Bush’s use of the term ‘international’ is contrived, because the program in question, in fact, intercepted (wiretapped) communications that included Domestic Participants. Knock one straw man down.
Point Two: “wiretap (A concealed listening or recording device connected to a communications circuit.
The act of installing such a device. )” Is not the definition of Wiretap. The definition is much simpler than that: to tap a telephone or telegraph wire in order to get information. So there is no confusion on your part, the definition of tap is: To monitor, with or without authorization, the information that is being transmitted via a communications circuit. Knock down implied straw man number 2.
Definition Intending: to have in mind as a purpose or goal.
Definition Deceive: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.
Bush LIED. You need to actually mount a defense.
Dugger: And you have zero idea about my ideas and psoitons re Clinton.
When did I ever make an assertion of your ideas and positions re Clinton? Show me where I made a claim one way or the other what you believe re Clinton. I think you were simply taking the intellectually lazy path there, making an assumption about my positions regarding your position.
But whatever. That’s not the main point.
If I follow your argument here, you’re saying “no lies have been documented re Bush” (adding as President or re the war as needed). Your main support of that claim is that according to the dictionary, a lie is a false statement with intent to deceive. Therefore (still using your logic) we cannot prove that Bush ever lied since one can’t discern a person’s intent.
That’s it, right? I think I finally understand your argument. (If you weren’t such a debating Colossus, maybe it wouldn’t have taken so long to get there.)
So then you say to me: don’t try to make your personal opinion the public record… Such words of wisdom that you dispense for free. But wait, earlier you said, You stated in big bad CAPS that Bush lied when in fact, according to that same little thing called a dictionary, he didn’t.
Well, Dugger, maybe you should heed your own advice and not state your opinion (that Bush didn’t lie) as fact. You see, if one can’t discern intent when arguing for the Bush lie, then one is equally unable to discern intent when arguing against the lie. What I’m saying is that if we use your logic, then saying that there hasn’t been a single documented case of a Bush lie is absolutely, positively, without a doubt, one-hundred-percent not a valid claim. You yourself said I, of course, don’t know what Bush meant… Which means that you can’t sit there and claim that there haven’t been any documented Bush lies, because for all you know, there have been 1000 of them. Maybe more. Maybe every sentence that jumbles out of The Decider’s mouth is a lie. Who are you to say otherwise?
So until you can, to quote midder, actually mount a defense for the Liar In Chief, you can’t refute our claims that he’s a lying sack of shit. If you won’t let us use intent when showing what a liar he is, then you can’t use intent when trying to show that Bush isn’t the world’s biggest liar.
So now, when we provide documented evidence (via quotes from The Decider and -your favorite- dictionary definitions) that Bush made a deliberate false statement regarding his illegal wiretapping program, you can’t just say “nuh uh!” You have to actually provide some sort of documentation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that your Lord And Master was actually speaking the truth.
You got it. The Bush lie vs. truth index would be seriously skewed into the lie side ov the chart if Laura didn’t prep him every morning and say “Your name is George W Bush.” something he repeats to himself about 400 times between wake up and lights out, just so he remembers who he is. That 400 repetitions of one truth helps balance out everything else he says everyday. Except that early morning viewing of THE PRINCESS BRIDE on March 20th, 2003. That day he got confused and invaded Iraq to exact revenge on the 6 fingered Saddam Hussein whom Bush believed had murdered his father over a sword.
HOLY CRAP!!
Nihilist, you’re a fucking genius!!! You are my new Rock God, man. You have done it; totally run dugger’s Ship of Fools hard aground with the simple logic that has been staring us all in the face.
I gonna have a bruise on my forehead, now.
Wow. Thanks, Duros. You’re too kind. I can feel my ego becoming massive. (Not as massive as Dugger’s super awesome debating skills, but pretty big.)
I sure hope the Duggster hasn’t gone into hiding. I don’t know about you and Midder, but I wasn’t finished making him look good.