Kerry's Purple Hearts

[Phi for All]

I have two questions......If you polled all the Democrats in the U.S. Congress' date=' how many would publicly say....that Bush is a liar?

 

If you polled all the Democratic political strategists that you see on TV, how many would publicly say that Bush is a liar? (in addition to Carville)[/quote']I think you're asking the wrong people. Are you trying to answer questions with questions?

 

Before I speculate on your question, can you tell me what your answer is to the points brought up in posts #37-39? Was it a lie? Was it a fib? He quoted material that didn't exist. He made it up. No one misinformed him. When caught, his people backed him up with more material that didn't exist. Their explanations were also lies. Can you respond to that first, please?

[Douglas]

I think you're asking the wrong people. Are you trying to answer questions with questions?

 

Before I speculate on your question' date=' can you tell me what your answer is to the points brought up in posts #37-39? Was it a lie? Was it a fib? He quoted material that didn't exist. He made it up. No one misinformed him. When caught, his people backed him up with more material that didn't exist. Their explanations were also lies. Can you respond to that first, please?[/quote']

Yup, I can respond to that. My response is.......You just answered my question.....Thanks.

[Phi for All]

Yup, I can respond to that. My response is.......You just answered my question.....Thanks.

How... evasive. Ever considered politics?

 

Imo, your problem here is the difference between telling a lie and being a liar. Asking other politicians and strategists to call Bush a liar makes it sound like every word out of his mouth is a lie. We've ALL told lies, so being a liar is one of the most common conditions there is.

 

The distinction here is that Bush told a lie in order to get backing to go to war, jeapordizing thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to do so. It's one thing to get faulty intel and quite another to make make up a lie about an enemy's nuclear weapons capability and get your staff to back you on it. Remember, they didn't say he was mistaken, they kept referring to quotes from different IAEC reports that never, ever existed.

 

If you can't at least agree to that point, Douglas, how can any of us take the rest of your arguments seriously? Sidestepping this issue makes it look like no amount of proof can ever persuade you, so why are we wasting time with you?

[Pangloss]

Actually, if 60 Minutes can get its head out of its arse and show that report, it will supposedly show that the administration did NOT make up the nuclear business. It was sold a line, just like CBS News was.

 

I've yet to see any actual evidence of "lie". I think it's just something the left is extremely hung-up on, because it's necessary to demonize the president in order to acquire more "ABB" votes for Kerry.

 

Not saying that's true of anybody here, just my take on the far-left establishment's promotion of that position.

[atinymonkey]

I've yet to see any actual evidence of "lie". I think it's just something the left is extremely hung-up on' date=' because it's necessary to demonize the president in order to acquire more "ABB" votes for Kerry.

[/quote']

 

You mean, you have yet to look.

 

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3050706.stm

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

 

It's odd that people forget the offical enquirys so quickly.

[Douglas]

How... evasive. Ever considered politics?

Hey Phi, you're pretty funny. Talk about evasive, you did a real nifty job of side stepping my questions.

 

Anyway, to my knowledge, Ted Kennedy was the only person in congress to publicly call Bush a liar. Now, let's face facts, you can find 100+ web sites that call Bush a liar, but you can't find 10% of Congress that will call him a liar.

If there was any credible evidence that Bush lied (like Clinton/Monica), the dems would be all over his butt, calling for a Congressional or independant investigation. When I see that, and it looks like he's guilty, I'll jump on your bandwagen.

[Sayonara]

Hey Phi, you're pretty funny. Talk about evasive, you did a real nifty job of side stepping my questions.

One does not respond to a question with a question. He asked first.

 

 

Anyway, to my knowledge, Ted Kennedy was the only person in congress to publicly call Bush a liar. Now, let's face facts, you can find 100+ web sites that call Bush a liar, but you can't find 10% of Congress that will call him a liar.

If there was any credible evidence that Bush lied (like Clinton/Monica), the dems would be all over his butt, calling for a Congressional or independant investigation. When I see that, and it looks like he's guilty, I'll jump on your bandwagen.

"If nobody calls him a liar, then he has never lied" is not exactly a good foundation for trust.

[Douglas]

Sayonara

One does not respond to a question with a question. He asked first.

The questions were directed to Mad Mardigan. I was not answering the questions, I was simply asking a question related to the alleged lies.

I don't like to answer for Mad Mardigan, since his answer's may be different than mine, however, to satisfy the equation, my answers are NO.

That leaves Phi able to answer my questions

 

 

"If nobody calls him a liar, then he has never lied" is not exactly a good foundation for trust.

Many people have called him a liar, especially the left wing tabloids on the internet, in addition to Kennedy (the only senetor), Carville, Moore, Franken and others.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions for a " good foundation for trust"

[Mad Mardigan]

All of this debating we have done, it all still breaks down to one thing for this election. You are either voting for or against Bush. Kerry will loose votes to Nader, So as long Bush has 48% of the votes, he is in.

[Phi for All]

That leaves Phi able to answer my questions

I have two questions......If you polled all the Democrats in the U.S. Congress, how many would publicly say....that Bush is a liar? If you polled all the Democratic political strategists that you see on TV, how many would publicly say that Bush is a liar?

First of all, you're asking me to put words in other people's mouths, something you know is wrong and pretty much worthless. Second you told me before:

You just answered my question.....Thanks.

And third, I answered your questions before in post #53. There is a difference between telling a lie and being a liar. So far in this thread I have not called Bush a liar. I said he lied. To repeat myself, insanely expecting a different result, asking other politicians and strategists to call Bush a liar makes it sound like every word out of his mouth is a lie. I never suggested it, and it seems like you are trying to put those words in my mouth to discredit me.

 

I still maintain Bush lied about the IAEC reports, hoping no one would check his facts and believe that Saddam would have nuclear weaponry within six months if we didn't invade Iraq ASAP. The fact that his staff did nothing to correct it, but instead, when caught, referred to an earlier report, which also was a lie, suggests they needed this lie to work very badly.

 

And now I'm asking you again, Douglas, since it's clear Bush was not mistaken (insisted the IAEC had said "six months away" despite ample opportunity to retract), or misled (when caught out he had his staff refer to a different report, which was also bogus), wasn't this simply a lie?

[Douglas]

You mean' date=' you have yet to look.

 

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3050706.stm

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

 

It's odd that people forget the offical enquirys so quickly.[/quote']

atinymonkey, interesting info. I checked them all, and found the official .gov.uk/intellegence site had some good info.

 

Yup, the official inquiries are often overlooked. As I was reading the .uk/intellegence report, I found a paragraph, that if a sentence had been taken out of context, would have been very damaging.

[Douglas]

Phi for All

Imo, your problem here is the difference between telling a lie and being a liar.

Nope, that's your problem.

The distinction here is that Bush told a lie in order to get backing to go to war, jeapordizing thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to do so.

If there was any evidence of that, and believe me, the democrats would have sniffed it out, Bush would have been impeached by now.

To repeat myself, insanely expecting a different result, asking other politicians and strategists to call Bush a liar makes it sound like every word out of his mouth is a lie.

WOW

Let's try again. We'll ask the politicians (in congress) and democratic strategists if .....Bush told a lie in order to get backing to go to war, jeapordizing thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to do so........ from you.

[Pangloss]

You mean, you have yet to look.

 

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3050706.stm

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

 

It's odd that people forget the offical enquirys so quickly.

 

Can you be more specific, please? What is it about these massive articles which you believe proves deception on the part of the Bush administration?

[atinymonkey]

atinymonkey' date=' interesting info. I checked them all, and found the official .gov.uk/intellegence site had some good info.

 

Yup, the official inquiries are often overlooked. As I was reading the .uk/intellegence report, I found a paragraph, that if a sentence had been taken out of context, would have been very damaging.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I have a feeling that most of these debates stem from taking one fact out of context and blowing it up. Nobody expects the government to tell the whole truth, in fact we rely on the government knowing more than we do. Some information could be extremely damaging if it were made public, and some decisions are based on such extraordinary amount of research it would be impossible to get the reasoning across without hours of time to explain. To that degree we have to be able to trust the government, if that trust is intentionally betrayed then the public should demand and get honest answers. Personally I think both Bush and Blair have betrayed the public trust, and that should be a hanging offence.

 

Can you be more specific, please?

 

See the second link in my previous post. It's like I'm precognitive.

 

What is it about these massive articles which you believe proves deception on the part of the Bush administration?

 

What part of my rather short and specific post gave you the reason to attempt to strawman me? Aside from that, has there ever been a politician who has not lied? More than that, I was providing links to official reports to quell your assertion that CNN is responsible for policing the government and issuing the reports to the public. If you want the offical reports for the US inquiry, you can google them. I'd suggest you look into Dr David Kelly while your at it:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3901183.stm

 

As the report he 'provided' that formed the basis of the US/UK dossier on Iraq turned out not to have come from the intelligence community, but from a thesis written by a student. This is highlighted in the Butler Review*, where this disregard of official documents in favor of a more theatrical and less factual version was seen as irresponsible. To be clear on this, the intellgence reports the UK gathered formed the basis of the US reasoning as well as the UK.

 

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3050582.stm

 

Crucial to this issue is the 45 minutes claim, which both the US and the UK government referred to as fact when the intelligence communities had not made any such reference. In regard to the 45 minutes claim, members of both govenments (Bush & Blair) lied, if this was intentional or not remains open to question.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3051298.stm

[Phi for All]

We'll ask the politicians (in congress) and democratic strategists if .....Bush told a lie in order to get backing to go to war, jeapordizing thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to do so........

If I can't get a straight, honest answer from you, which is all I asked for, what makes you think all these politicians and strategists you seem to know are going to respond to my question?

[Douglas]

If I can't get a straight, honest answer from you[/b'], which is all I asked for, what makes you think all these politicians and strategists you seem to know are going to respond to my question?

Look Phi, I believe you're trying to muddy the waters here in an effort to extract yourself from the tenuous position you've put yourself in.

 

Now, I don't mind if you think Bush is a liar, or that he lied for an excuse to go to war, that's your prerogative. As for me, I believe that he may have been misled, but not lied. I think that most responsible people believe as I do.

So, let's terminate this.

[Pangloss]

What do you mean by "strawman me"?

 

I don't see any proof that Bush lied here. What you have is basically this (which I knew before we began this discussion, so you've told me nothing I didn't already know):

 

1) The evidence of WMDs was incorrect.

2) Some of the evidence may have been manufactured by somebody.

 

Back to square one.

 

I certainly agree with your general point that people often lie. I don't have a problem with people expressing the OPINION that Bush lied. But so far it's just opinion, not fact.

[Phi for All]

Look Phi, I believe you're trying to muddy the waters here in an effort to extract yourself from the tenuous position you've put yourself in.

Did you cut and paste that from the "How to Avoid the Issues" handbook?

As for me' date=' I believe that he may have been misled, but not lied.[/quote']Now that wasn't so tough, was it? Thank you for this honest answer. Now all we have to do is find out who made this up and "misled" the president:

(Bush) "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. "I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps it was then-Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

"He's {Bush is} referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report[/u'] saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

If it was him, he should have been fired for such a major "misleading" statement. What's that you say? He was promoted to Press Secretary?! Hmmm. Someone to replace Ari Fleischer, a man who has also been caught telling lies, or, as Douglas prefers, misleading the people of the world as the press spokesman for the President of the United States.

 

Apparently, having a major misleader to speak for him is very important to Mr. Bush.

[Pangloss]

I know you're talking to Douglas, but I have to interject: You don't know that McClellan (or Fleischer for that matter) weren't mislead either.

 

Look I'm not going to stand here and demand ridiculous strings of misleads and innuendos. I'm not blind, I understand the inferrence that after a while it reaches the point of extremely unlikely that nobody in the Bush adminsitration knew the truth.

 

The problem is that ridiculousness goes both ways, and none of this supposition really answers the question. Maybe it's not answerable, I don't know, but I was hoping for something more than just equivocation reaching the point of nullification.

[Sayonara]

There comes a point where someone along the line has to accept responsibility for the mistake, whether it be a mistake made by their department or their subordinates. This should definitely apply where massive consequences result from policies that are based on the mistaken advice.

 

This doesn't necessarily mean that you have to trace the information back to the original source. Anyone in a position of responsibility using that information should know better than to base policy on it without corroborating the content elsewhere.

 

As it stands, it appears that the government is eschewing all accountability, which I suspect is why they have slightly alienated some people.

[Pangloss]

I agree with that (and it was well put).

 

My objection here is not so much that the administration wasn't deceptive, but that the "Bush lied kids died" mantra is about politics, not getting at the truth.

[budullewraagh]

well, if it is the truth, which it is, it should be known

[john5746]

Listen to President Bush in December 2001 explaining publicly how he learned about the terrorist attacks three months before: "I was in Florida. And ... I was sitting outside [an elementary school] 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, 'There's one terrible pilot.'"

 

This account is obviously false since network cameras were not trained on the towers at the time the first airliner hit; it was only later that amateur video of this event was broadcast.

 

Note: Not sure if this is true, lifted from the Baltimore Sun

[Pangloss]

Link please?

[john5746]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=Bush+Shines&target=article&Go.x=7&Go.y=7

 

Then goto Archive1990 tab.