rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,026
QuoteNice redirect. But as I stated to others in this thread. The topic is a terrorist link between the 911 perps and SH.
As for your Bush lies statement, well, then half or more of the world leader including some of your heros lied to. My point is not that it is OK rather, if everybody else, including many before Bush said it, how come it is only a lie when said by GWB?
This argument is past looking rediculas at this point. Hell, even the DNC media lackeys don't say it any more because they now know they can't get the american public to believe that "lie".
Explain how at least one of these two statements is NOT a lie:
“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003
"The administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
There's an interesting set of double standards here...
If the US/UK et al. train insurgents/militia/ etc.. they are considered to be Freedom Fighters
i.e 1980s.....Mujahiddin in Afghanistan
1990s...... Bosnia
If anyone else does it...... they're terrorists
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
If the US/UK et al. train insurgents/militia/ etc.. they are considered to be Freedom Fighters
i.e 1980s.....Mujahiddin in Afghanistan
1990s...... Bosnia
If anyone else does it...... they're terrorists
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Rush,
Does the need to be right outweigh the desire to be accurate? Being pedantic to be shout down opposition and proove that you're right just makes you look petty.
Bush calls Iraq part of 'axis of evil' on February 2002.
Powell presents UN evidence in Jan 2003, after 12 months of news reports and political manouvering about WMDs.
Bush mentioned terrorist training camps in his speeches, but the official party line was the need for the removal of WMDs. Read the timelines. Bush talks about terrorism, 9/11 as secondary to WMDs. No one else talked publicly about anything but WMDs til 2003 when the strength of the WMD debate was weakening.
History is your opponent in this debate. Generally it wins unless you're the person writing it.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
Does the need to be right outweigh the desire to be accurate? Being pedantic to be shout down opposition and proove that you're right just makes you look petty.
Bush calls Iraq part of 'axis of evil' on February 2002.
Powell presents UN evidence in Jan 2003, after 12 months of news reports and political manouvering about WMDs.
Bush mentioned terrorist training camps in his speeches, but the official party line was the need for the removal of WMDs. Read the timelines. Bush talks about terrorism, 9/11 as secondary to WMDs. No one else talked publicly about anything but WMDs til 2003 when the strength of the WMD debate was weakening.
History is your opponent in this debate. Generally it wins unless you're the person writing it.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteNice redirect. But as I stated to others in this thread. The topic is a terrorist link between the 911 perps and SH.
As for your Bush lies statement, well, then half or more of the world leader including some of your heros lied to. My point is not that it is OK rather, if everybody else, including many before Bush said it, how come it is only a lie when said by GWB?
This argument is past looking rediculas at this point. Hell, even the DNC media lackeys don't say it any more because they now know they can't get the american public to believe that "lie".
Explain how at least one of these two statements is NOT a lie:
“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003
"The administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004
They are not true if SH did have links to al queda. I believe he was a threat.
And besides ( I should ingore this post as it is not on topic) a lie is a lie only if you know you do not speek the truth. You seen to "know" that Bush knew that SH did not have WMDs. Can you trully say you knew? Give me a break......
(hmm, I did not know that Scott was a vetrilaquist dummy......)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
I have read the time lines! I have followed this from the beginning. WMDs were not the only reason.
The media and the left have make this the mantra.
You said the WMDs were the only, "ONLY" reason. That has never "NEVER" been true. This is not a play on words on my part.
Were WMDs a big part? Yes, I admit that but the terror links were also a major part. That the battle to the terrorists was what was talked about.
Now that the terror links proff seem imminent (sorry, I couldn't help myself) you want to say WMDs were the only reason.
Not true then, not true now.......
I have admited being wrong on this site before, I do not believe I am this time.
So I ask you to quit re-writing history.......
The media and the left have make this the mantra.
You said the WMDs were the only, "ONLY" reason. That has never "NEVER" been true. This is not a play on words on my part.
Were WMDs a big part? Yes, I admit that but the terror links were also a major part. That the battle to the terrorists was what was talked about.
Now that the terror links proff seem imminent (sorry, I couldn't help myself) you want to say WMDs were the only reason.
Not true then, not true now.......
I have admited being wrong on this site before, I do not believe I am this time.
So I ask you to quit re-writing history.......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And besides ( I should ingore this post as it is not on topic) a lie is a
>lie only if you know you do not speek the truth.
You guys are going to have to come up with a different word to describe what happens when a republican lies. "Intentional misrepresentation" perhaps? How about "veracity deficit?" I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "lie" is.
>lie only if you know you do not speek the truth.
You guys are going to have to come up with a different word to describe what happens when a republican lies. "Intentional misrepresentation" perhaps? How about "veracity deficit?" I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "lie" is.
rushmc 23
Ok
....then there was no "Intentional misrepresentation"
....then there was no "Intentional misrepresentation"
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
sundevil777 102
QuoteYou guys are going to have to come up with a different word to describe what happens when a republican lies.
That is so weak.
It wasn't a lie for any of the many world leaders that said the same thing. Some of them were communist, some were socialist, some were democrats...
Were any of the world's political leaders not convinced he had WMD?
Clinton set an official policy to pursue his overthrow. I think that was a good decision. He didn't effectively do anything about it though. If you think Bush was wrong to implement the policy, then you should also be against Clinton for declaring it.
I understand it is very frustrating for liberals to be out of power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our gov't. It wasn't easy for conservatives either.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
kallend 2,026
QuoteQuoteYou guys are going to have to come up with a different word to describe what happens when a republican lies.
That is so weak.
It wasn't a lie for any of the many world leaders that said the same thing. Some of them were communist, some were socialist, some were democrats...
Were any of the world's political leaders not convinced he had WMD?
Clinton set an official policy to pursue his overthrow. I think that was a good decision. He didn't effectively do anything about it though. If you think Bush was wrong to implement the policy, then you should also be against Clinton for declaring it.
I understand it is very frustrating for liberals to be out of power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our gov't. It wasn't easy for conservatives either.
That is SO WEAK.
McClellan, White House Spokesman, first said Iraq was an "imminent threat", then a year later made a statement denying having used the word "imminent".
The second statement was certainly a lie. The first was certainly untrue and may have been a lie.
You simply confirm Bill's comments about veracity deficit.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sundevil777 102
He should have remembered his own words, but they were from a year before. You seem to assert it is impossible to be mistaken about such a thing.
Again, you want to change the definition of a lie.
After having the opportunity to confirm his own words, did he continue to deny making the statement? Maybe he did, and it would then certainly be a lie. Maybe that is the best example of a lie that you can find.
Philosophy without action is useless. Clinton set the policy to overthrow SH that I happen to agree with. Bush had the courage for the action, that I also agree with. SH was directly supporting terrorism.
Although his administration was littered with scandals and I think was generally a disgrace, I give Clinton credit for some important things that were not popular within his party, such as supporting welfare reform and NAFTA. It seems that there is nothing that Bush does that can be supported by liberals.
Again, you want to change the definition of a lie.
After having the opportunity to confirm his own words, did he continue to deny making the statement? Maybe he did, and it would then certainly be a lie. Maybe that is the best example of a lie that you can find.
Philosophy without action is useless. Clinton set the policy to overthrow SH that I happen to agree with. Bush had the courage for the action, that I also agree with. SH was directly supporting terrorism.
Although his administration was littered with scandals and I think was generally a disgrace, I give Clinton credit for some important things that were not popular within his party, such as supporting welfare reform and NAFTA. It seems that there is nothing that Bush does that can be supported by liberals.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Actually I have an issue with that. If it's you or me, fair enough, but if every word you say in public is archived on your website then you really dont have much in your defence when you get caught out.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.
billvon 2,991
>It wasn't a lie for any of the many world leaders that said the same thing.
It is not a lie to say you believe that. It is a lie to say that you have PROOF that they are there when you have none.
If the administration had said "Hey, we're going after Saddam because he's a really evil guy and he killed lots of Kurds" then fine. If they said "we're going after Saddam because he might be a threat in the future" then fine.
But when you say there is no doubt that he has them, that it's a fact, that there's no question, that we know exactly where they WMD's are . . . then you're fibbing - you are claiming certainty where none exists. (And yes, several other people said the same thing.)
Let's take a local example. You think rigger X is untrustworthy. You've heard some really bad stories about him, and someone went in under one of his packjobs for as-yet undetermined reasons. But you're not really sure what's going on.
You tell your friends "I don't like that guy. I wouldn't use him. I think he's a bad rigger. He packed the rig on that chick that went in." Fine. That's your opinion; people can support you or not depending on whether or not they trust you.
But if you say "I have no doubt that he intentionally killed that woman. It is a fact that he leaves molar straps in his packjobs. There's no question that he is a criminal." Then not only are you lying, but you may well end up in court to answer for your libels.
Can you see the difference between the two?
It is not a lie to say you believe that. It is a lie to say that you have PROOF that they are there when you have none.
If the administration had said "Hey, we're going after Saddam because he's a really evil guy and he killed lots of Kurds" then fine. If they said "we're going after Saddam because he might be a threat in the future" then fine.
But when you say there is no doubt that he has them, that it's a fact, that there's no question, that we know exactly where they WMD's are . . . then you're fibbing - you are claiming certainty where none exists. (And yes, several other people said the same thing.)
Let's take a local example. You think rigger X is untrustworthy. You've heard some really bad stories about him, and someone went in under one of his packjobs for as-yet undetermined reasons. But you're not really sure what's going on.
You tell your friends "I don't like that guy. I wouldn't use him. I think he's a bad rigger. He packed the rig on that chick that went in." Fine. That's your opinion; people can support you or not depending on whether or not they trust you.
But if you say "I have no doubt that he intentionally killed that woman. It is a fact that he leaves molar straps in his packjobs. There's no question that he is a criminal." Then not only are you lying, but you may well end up in court to answer for your libels.
Can you see the difference between the two?
sundevil777 102
QuoteCan you see the difference between the two?
I can see the difference, but I think your analogy is poor.
I don't think analogies will enhance understanding here.
So everyone was more sure of themselves than they had a right to be. That just makes them misled and too confident in their assertions. Even those that would never support any war with anyone under any circumstance agreed with the conclusions - they had no motivation to justify any desire to justify war, but still came to the same conclusion. If you want to continue calling that a lie, well I just don't know.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
sundevil777 102
Actually, there were many people that lied.
SH's own subordinates lied to him. They were ordered to proceed with making weapons and were afraid to tell him of their failure/incompetence.
At least one notable source of intelligence from Iraq lied to us. He was supposed to have been a reliable inside source, but was later shown to have used us to push for overthrow.
I contend that it was very reasonable for everyone to make the firm conclusions that were made at the time. At the time, it would have been wrong to not be confident.
If the assertions of fact were made without showing the evidence to the opposition political parties and the world (faulty as it was), that would be different. But everyone was able to look at the same info, and came to the same firm conclusion, even those countries in bed with SH on the oil-for-food scam were convinced.
From now on, I would hope we would be a bit more skeptical. Our intelligence agencies are used to deception campaigns orchestrated against us, I think maybe they were not prepared for an internal deception campaign within Iraq.
As you so humbly said, can you see the difference?
SH's own subordinates lied to him. They were ordered to proceed with making weapons and were afraid to tell him of their failure/incompetence.
At least one notable source of intelligence from Iraq lied to us. He was supposed to have been a reliable inside source, but was later shown to have used us to push for overthrow.
I contend that it was very reasonable for everyone to make the firm conclusions that were made at the time. At the time, it would have been wrong to not be confident.
If the assertions of fact were made without showing the evidence to the opposition political parties and the world (faulty as it was), that would be different. But everyone was able to look at the same info, and came to the same firm conclusion, even those countries in bed with SH on the oil-for-food scam were convinced.
From now on, I would hope we would be a bit more skeptical. Our intelligence agencies are used to deception campaigns orchestrated against us, I think maybe they were not prepared for an internal deception campaign within Iraq.
As you so humbly said, can you see the difference?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
kallend 2,026
QuoteQuoteCan you see the difference between the two?
I can see the difference, but I think your analogy is poor.
.
His analogy is EXCELLENT.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you see the difference between the two?
I can see the difference, but I think your analogy is poor.
.
His analogy is EXCELLENT.
his analogy is just a bunch of throwing darts at shuttlecocks - figuratively speaking that is
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteWhat I said was WMDs, at least for Bush, were not the ONLY reason.
You're certainly right about that. Here's another reason.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
As for your Bush lies statement, well, then half or more of the world leader including some of your heros lied to. My point is not that it is OK rather, if everybody else, including many before Bush said it, how come it is only a lie when said by GWB?
This argument is past looking rediculas at this point. Hell, even the DNC media lackeys don't say it any more because they now know they can't get the american public to believe that "lie".
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites