Full Version: Pathological-Liar-in-Chief
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 10 2003, 08:55 PM)
As long as we are being pompous...
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 11 2003, 12:41 PM)
Sorry, I meant as long as I am being pompous...
Ahh! The royal "we".
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 11 2003, 12:47 PM)
So Madison was not consistent. But he was the father of the constitution and did help sell it...
Granted - and I meant no disrespect to little Jemmy Madison. It's just that his exegeses on the Constitution, however illuminating regarding his opinion at the time, should maybe be taken with a grain of salt - and the same can be said for Hamilton - especially as Madison's political ideas did seem to go through quite an evolution - which I rather admire in a politician.
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but this one pre-dates me...
I see nothing compelling in your list Wertz. Most were claims made on the campaign trail...expect exaggerations there.
Personal life, according to Bill Clinton's defendants, should be off-limits. But not, of course, if you are a Republican. Was he written up for being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard? Funny, I couldn't find any evidence of that. Must not have happened. Who knows. One guy's word against another, huh?
You show me one politician who is "squeaky clean" and I will laugh and prove otherwise. There is no such animal. As a matter of fact, I say show me any human being period that is completely clean...
Still waiting...
There is ONE reference to an item that actually occured when GWB was President: support for some program or another... The fact that a program is cut after the President comes out in support of it means little. He should cut EVERY program by 10% across the board today, but he won't.
Harkin has been dealt with. No SEC violations were found. He was never charged with insider trading.
Should I go through every point? Most are hearsay at best: so and so says that Bush did... Hearsay.
No one brought this up at the time, but that list looks suspiciously like it would come off some left-wing propaganda site. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but you should cite your sources. If you came up with that whole list yourself, I salute you. It has statistics in it, but, again, no source data.
What has the President lied about since he became Commander in Chief?
I see nothing compelling in your list Wertz. Most were claims made on the campaign trail...expect exaggerations there.
Personal life, according to Bill Clinton's defendants, should be off-limits. But not, of course, if you are a Republican. Was he written up for being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard? Funny, I couldn't find any evidence of that. Must not have happened. Who knows. One guy's word against another, huh?
You show me one politician who is "squeaky clean" and I will laugh and prove otherwise. There is no such animal. As a matter of fact, I say show me any human being period that is completely clean...
Still waiting...
There is ONE reference to an item that actually occured when GWB was President: support for some program or another... The fact that a program is cut after the President comes out in support of it means little. He should cut EVERY program by 10% across the board today, but he won't.
Harkin has been dealt with. No SEC violations were found. He was never charged with insider trading.
Should I go through every point? Most are hearsay at best: so and so says that Bush did... Hearsay.
No one brought this up at the time, but that list looks suspiciously like it would come off some left-wing propaganda site. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but you should cite your sources. If you came up with that whole list yourself, I salute you. It has statistics in it, but, again, no source data.
What has the President lied about since he became Commander in Chief?
QUOTE(Danya @ Jan 8 2003, 02:54 PM)
The terrifying thing about it all is that he is there, and even worse the American majority??? of people put him there and gave him the acute power.
No, they didn't. Gore had the majority of American votes.The electoral vote was disputed. Surely you remember the 2000 election. It was Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris that put George Bush in the Whitehouse. With a little help from the Supreme court.
No one seems to be as worried about our future elections as they should be. Not every vote was or will be counted.
Maybe Bush is more like Stalin.
Those who cast the ballots decide nothing; those who count the ballots decide everything. Josef Stalin.
No, they didn't. Gore had the majority of American votes.The electoral vote was disputed. Surely you remember the 2000 election. It was Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris that put George Bush in the Whitehouse. With a little help from the Supreme court.
No one seems to be as worried about our future elections as they should be. Not every vote was or will be counted.
Maybe Bush is more like Stalin.
Those who cast the ballots decide nothing; those who count the ballots decide everything. Josef Stalin.
What?
1st: Catherine Harris and Jeb Bush did not decide the election. The Supreme court decided when to stop counting ballots based on their state constitution. Who's fault is it that the people of Florida just couldn't seem to cast votes properly.
2nd: It was Gore that pushed for INTERPRETATION of votes by looking for "dented chads".
3rd: It was Gore that lobbied on TV for every vote to be counted, then lobbied in a Florida State Supreme Court to have 5,000 military votes from over seas third world countries that consequently don't post mark their mail properly according to US guidelines. Even all of Gores "count every vote" rhetoric, he was still just playing a game to get to the Whitehouse. A game he lost! These votes were from military personel, not exactly Gore-friendly.
4th: The electoral process is a great process and anyone who denies that should really check out it's benefits. It allots for equal representation for all people, not just the rule of places with large populations. the whole purpose for the electoral vote was this: so that all voices be given a vote fair and proportionate to how the whole country would be affected by the legislation of a president. Without this we would surely exchanged "1 tyrant, 3000 miles away, for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away." (oooh, i hope that wasn't too ultruistic)
QUOTE
You show me one politician who is "squeaky clean" and I will laugh and prove otherwise.
I think Dukakis was squeaky clean.
I came across this little tidbit that takes GB's State of the Union Address and talks about each point. You can be the judge of what was truthful or not. The reasons for invading Iraq are very interesting. They are towards the bottom. So is lying to congress about the reasons for going to war an impeachable offense?
http://www.accuracy.org/2003/
Interesting how the comments about campaign exaggerations not being that big a deal?
Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? That was not an exaggeration it was a boldfaced lie.
http://www.accuracy.org/2003/
Interesting how the comments about campaign exaggerations not being that big a deal?
Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? That was not an exaggeration it was a boldfaced lie.
QUOTE(PeteZahut @ May 7 2003, 11:40 AM)
I came across this little tidbit that takes GB's State of the Union Address and talks about each point. You can be the judge of what was truthful or not. The reasons for invading Iraq are very interesting. They are towards the bottom. So is lying to congress about the reasons for going to war an impeachable offense?
http://www.accuracy.org/2003/
Interesting how the comments about campaign exaggerations not being that big a deal?
Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? That was not an exaggeration it was a boldfaced lie.
http://www.accuracy.org/2003/
Interesting how the comments about campaign exaggerations not being that big a deal?
Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? That was not an exaggeration it was a boldfaced lie.
If nothing else, its good liberal spin on the issues. As far as accuracy?
Yes, it is so much easier to laugh at something than to try and address specific points. It makes your point that much more convincing.
QUOTE(PeteZahut @ May 7 2003, 01:44 PM)
Yes, it is so much easier to laugh at something than to try and address specific points. It makes your point that much more convincing.
Most of their attempts at "accuracy" are more aptly labelled spin.
You want some examples?
QUOTE
To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform which must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom so that every child in American can read and learn and succeed in life.
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families: "Bush's education plan is in jeopardy because of the economic problems nationwide. States and localities are forced to cut education budgets because of their enormous budget deficits."
Leah Wells, peace education coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: "The No Child Left Behind Act also deprives students of their right to privacy under section 9528, which mandates that the Local Education Agency release students' contact information for recruitment purposes. This is a dangerous infringement on students' abilities to make informed decisions about their privileged information, and furthermore undermines schools' abilities to be advocates for the students' privacy since the NCLB act also states that federal funds may be denied to schools who refuse to release their students' information."
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families: "Bush's education plan is in jeopardy because of the economic problems nationwide. States and localities are forced to cut education budgets because of their enormous budget deficits."
Leah Wells, peace education coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: "The No Child Left Behind Act also deprives students of their right to privacy under section 9528, which mandates that the Local Education Agency release students' contact information for recruitment purposes. This is a dangerous infringement on students' abilities to make informed decisions about their privileged information, and furthermore undermines schools' abilities to be advocates for the students' privacy since the NCLB act also states that federal funds may be denied to schools who refuse to release their students' information."
How does this comment even relate to the item about education? It says education funding is in trouble due to economic troubles (doesn't address the point) and that privacy will be infringed by the "No Child Left Behind" Act. Again, doesn't address the point.
The lengthy comments railing against tax cuts are classic liberal vs. conservative thinking. Not exactly "accuracy" or any attempt at fairness there.
QUOTE
Instead of gradually reducing the marriage penalty, we should do it now.
Zuckerman: "This strategy would primarily benefit married couples where the wife earns a similar salary to the husband. It would not benefit poor single parents or the millions of families where the wife stays at home to care for children or family members, or where the wife earns much less than the husband. Still, it would right a basic inequity in the tax code, and therefore deserves support compared to other proposals, such as eliminating taxes on stock dividends, for example."
Zuckerman: "This strategy would primarily benefit married couples where the wife earns a similar salary to the husband. It would not benefit poor single parents or the millions of families where the wife stays at home to care for children or family members, or where the wife earns much less than the husband. Still, it would right a basic inequity in the tax code, and therefore deserves support compared to other proposals, such as eliminating taxes on stock dividends, for example."
After making another off-point comment, Zuckerman agrees with the President.
Comments about reducing "double taxation" of corporate dividends is again an economic debate. It is basic economic principle that corporate profits are double taxed, once when received by the corporate entity and again when dividends are given to the owners (stockholders). Again this is a philosophical difference, nothing about "lies"
QUOTE
Across the Earth, America is feeding the hungry. More than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States.
Raj Patel, policy analyst at Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, and a visiting fellow at the University of California at Berkeley: "U.S. food aid is nothing more than the dumping of crops that the U.S. is itself unable to sell on world markets. In large part, this is because countries such as Japan and the European Union have bans on genetically modified food, which the U.S. has, for the past seven years, been exporting as food aid to the Third World. This is not compassion, this is steely subsidy of agricultural corporations. Food aid would not be necessary in Africa were it not for the liberalization of agricultural markets that the U.S. has been pushing relentlessly over the past decade."
Raj Patel, policy analyst at Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, and a visiting fellow at the University of California at Berkeley: "U.S. food aid is nothing more than the dumping of crops that the U.S. is itself unable to sell on world markets. In large part, this is because countries such as Japan and the European Union have bans on genetically modified food, which the U.S. has, for the past seven years, been exporting as food aid to the Third World. This is not compassion, this is steely subsidy of agricultural corporations. Food aid would not be necessary in Africa were it not for the liberalization of agricultural markets that the U.S. has been pushing relentlessly over the past decade."
Raj Patel's comments do not detract from the truth of the President's words. (as an aside, there is nothing inherently "monstrous" about genetically modified foodstuffs)
QUOTE
Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.
Zuckerman: "If we are to prevent HIV/AIDS in Africa, the Caribbean, or anywhere else, the Administration will have to embrace the kinds of prevention programs that work. That includes condoms, not just abstinence education, and not just treatment of people who are already ill. And yet, the Administration has been rejecting these kinds of comprehensive prevention programs at home."
...
I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.
Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation and co-author of The End of Disarmament and the Arms Races to Come: "This sounds like a lot of money, but it's important to put it in perspective. The U.S. military budget, at nearly $400 billion a year ($396.1 billion for FY 2003) is larger than the military budgets of the next 26 countries combined ($394.2 billion); and 35 times larger than the combined military budgets of the "Axis of Evil" countries (Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- $11.8 billion). U.S. nuclear weapons research, development, testing, and production, at $5.9 billion for 2003, is significantly higher than spending during the average Cold War year, for directly comparable activities ($364 billion). This does not include delivery systems. How could this money be better spent to ensure real human, national and global security?"
Salih Booker, executive director of Africa Action: "Bush's announcement would be the height of cynicism if the president does not now request at least $3.5 billion of his new total for funding this year. This is the U.S. share of what is urgently needed to fight HIV/AIDS now. According to the White House, the President's request for additional funds to fight HIV/AIDS will not affect the 2003 budget, and will only begin in 2004, with an increase of just $700 million. The real measure of the president's sincerity will be in the budget numbers for 2003 and 2004. Large numbers for 2007 are meaningless to people who will die this year without access to essential medicines. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is the most important vehicle in the effort to fight the pandemic and the U.S. should contribute a far greater share. The new commitment of only $1 billion to the Fund, over a period of 5 years, would actually undermine Africa's greatest hope. Africa's illegitimate external debts are draining $15 billion a year from the War on AIDS. The spirit and logic of the President's own initiative demand the immediate cancellation of these debts."
Zuckerman: "If we are to prevent HIV/AIDS in Africa, the Caribbean, or anywhere else, the Administration will have to embrace the kinds of prevention programs that work. That includes condoms, not just abstinence education, and not just treatment of people who are already ill. And yet, the Administration has been rejecting these kinds of comprehensive prevention programs at home."
...
I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.
Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation and co-author of The End of Disarmament and the Arms Races to Come: "This sounds like a lot of money, but it's important to put it in perspective. The U.S. military budget, at nearly $400 billion a year ($396.1 billion for FY 2003) is larger than the military budgets of the next 26 countries combined ($394.2 billion); and 35 times larger than the combined military budgets of the "Axis of Evil" countries (Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- $11.8 billion). U.S. nuclear weapons research, development, testing, and production, at $5.9 billion for 2003, is significantly higher than spending during the average Cold War year, for directly comparable activities ($364 billion). This does not include delivery systems. How could this money be better spent to ensure real human, national and global security?"
Salih Booker, executive director of Africa Action: "Bush's announcement would be the height of cynicism if the president does not now request at least $3.5 billion of his new total for funding this year. This is the U.S. share of what is urgently needed to fight HIV/AIDS now. According to the White House, the President's request for additional funds to fight HIV/AIDS will not affect the 2003 budget, and will only begin in 2004, with an increase of just $700 million. The real measure of the president's sincerity will be in the budget numbers for 2003 and 2004. Large numbers for 2007 are meaningless to people who will die this year without access to essential medicines. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is the most important vehicle in the effort to fight the pandemic and the U.S. should contribute a far greater share. The new commitment of only $1 billion to the Fund, over a period of 5 years, would actually undermine Africa's greatest hope. Africa's illegitimate external debts are draining $15 billion a year from the War on AIDS. The spirit and logic of the President's own initiative demand the immediate cancellation of these debts."
Don't know how the size of the military figures into the fight against AIDS, but it just seems, somehow, that he is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Again, he does not dispute the thoughts, only the timing (and somehow, the size of the military).
QUOTE
All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.
Jennings: "All suspected terrorists are not necessarily terrorists. But it has been observed that many of the detainees may go on to become terrorists if and when they are ever released from detention."
Jennings: "All suspected terrorists are not necessarily terrorists. But it has been observed that many of the detainees may go on to become terrorists if and when they are ever released from detention."
Good point, then bad editorializing. I don't suppose he was ever asked for any backing to that statement. "Well, I wasn't a terrorist before, but now that you think I am, I will become one" What hogwash.
QUOTE
We've got the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run.
Perlman: "That is absolutely correct; we do have the terrorists on the run. Since our bombing of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is now more decentralized and harder to find than they were before. They are naturally developing more clever methods to evade us."
Perlman: "That is absolutely correct; we do have the terrorists on the run. Since our bombing of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda is now more decentralized and harder to find than they were before. They are naturally developing more clever methods to evade us."
I guess he advocates leaving them be to plan and attack again. Again, he is just making a snide comment.
QUOTE
And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles.
Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism and the forthcoming The U.S. War on Iraq: Myths, Facts, and Lies : "There has never been any intimation of a threat that the United States will be attacked by ballistic missiles. The technical shortcomings of a National Missile Defense are extreme; there is no way one could expect a successful defense against such an attack. In fact, the plan of the neoconservatives, as detailed in Rebuilding America's Defenses, a September 2000 document from the Project for the New American Century, is to create a 'theater-based' missile defense system, with many different regional bases. This document also admits the true purpose of such a system -- to enable the United States to fight small theater wars without fear of significant counterattack In other words, the purpose of 'missile defense' is to destroy the capability of other states to deter U.S. attack, not to defend the United States from attack. This goes hand in hand with the other great secret, openly acknowledged in this document; the reason any of these U.S.-designated 'rogue' states are interested in acquiring WMD is not so they can attack the United States -- that would be insane -- but to deter a seemingly almost certain future attack by the United States. The 'axis of evil' was in part calculated to send the message that such attacks are to be expected -- a message then followed up by the deliberate leak of parts of the Pentagon's classified 'Nuclear Posture Review,' detailing scenarios in which countries including Iraq and North Korea might be attacked with nuclear weapons. Although the North Korean regime is a truly horrible one, it seems to be the only country that has reacted rationally to that threat, by at least asserting the possibility of developing a deterrent if the United States continues its bellicose posture."
Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation and author of the report "Nuclear Weapons in a Changed World: The Hidden Dangers of the Rush to War" and the report "Looking for New Ways to Use Nuclear Weapons": "It is essential to understand that 'national missile defense'" is not about protecting the United States from a 'bolt from the blue' attack. Rather, as revealed in the Nuclear Posture Review, 'offensive strike capabilities' are designed to work hand in hand with active and passive 'defenses' to serve as so many swords and shields, working hand in hand to ensure the U.S. ability to project overwhelming military power projection anywhere in the world, to protect U.S. 'interests and investments' on almost instant notice."
Perlman: "Since we abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile ABM Treaty, many countries who were on the way to eliminating their nuclear stockpiles, such as Russia and China, have started rebuilding in response to our nuclear developments, not to mention countries like Iraq who feel like they need protection from our bold threats to use nuclear weapons against them. Again, we provoke, and then protect from their reaction to our provocation. Then they develop countermeasures. Our defenses can be overcome with technology that is technologically more simple and far less expensive."
Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism and the forthcoming The U.S. War on Iraq: Myths, Facts, and Lies : "There has never been any intimation of a threat that the United States will be attacked by ballistic missiles. The technical shortcomings of a National Missile Defense are extreme; there is no way one could expect a successful defense against such an attack. In fact, the plan of the neoconservatives, as detailed in Rebuilding America's Defenses, a September 2000 document from the Project for the New American Century, is to create a 'theater-based' missile defense system, with many different regional bases. This document also admits the true purpose of such a system -- to enable the United States to fight small theater wars without fear of significant counterattack In other words, the purpose of 'missile defense' is to destroy the capability of other states to deter U.S. attack, not to defend the United States from attack. This goes hand in hand with the other great secret, openly acknowledged in this document; the reason any of these U.S.-designated 'rogue' states are interested in acquiring WMD is not so they can attack the United States -- that would be insane -- but to deter a seemingly almost certain future attack by the United States. The 'axis of evil' was in part calculated to send the message that such attacks are to be expected -- a message then followed up by the deliberate leak of parts of the Pentagon's classified 'Nuclear Posture Review,' detailing scenarios in which countries including Iraq and North Korea might be attacked with nuclear weapons. Although the North Korean regime is a truly horrible one, it seems to be the only country that has reacted rationally to that threat, by at least asserting the possibility of developing a deterrent if the United States continues its bellicose posture."
Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation and author of the report "Nuclear Weapons in a Changed World: The Hidden Dangers of the Rush to War" and the report "Looking for New Ways to Use Nuclear Weapons": "It is essential to understand that 'national missile defense'" is not about protecting the United States from a 'bolt from the blue' attack. Rather, as revealed in the Nuclear Posture Review, 'offensive strike capabilities' are designed to work hand in hand with active and passive 'defenses' to serve as so many swords and shields, working hand in hand to ensure the U.S. ability to project overwhelming military power projection anywhere in the world, to protect U.S. 'interests and investments' on almost instant notice."
Perlman: "Since we abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile ABM Treaty, many countries who were on the way to eliminating their nuclear stockpiles, such as Russia and China, have started rebuilding in response to our nuclear developments, not to mention countries like Iraq who feel like they need protection from our bold threats to use nuclear weapons against them. Again, we provoke, and then protect from their reaction to our provocation. Then they develop countermeasures. Our defenses can be overcome with technology that is technologically more simple and far less expensive."
Opposition to a missile defense system always puzzles me. Defense is just that, defense. We already have the offense to wipe out the whole world (including ourselves). A successful missile defense would be the ultimate deterrant. Even an unproven one would be a substantial deterrent. I just don't see the argument of how an active defense makes us a war monger.
How many more are there? That page is huge. No factual points are made by the detractors.
I will restate: that thing is pure spin.
QUOTE(amlord @ May 6 2003, 12:17 PM)
Personal life, according to Bill Clinton's defendants, should be off-limits. But not, of course, if you are a Republican. Was he written up for being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard? Funny, I couldn't find any evidence of that. Must not have happened. Who knows. One guy's word against another, huh?
How the current Commander In Chief spent his own military career is not simply a personal matter...it is relevant, especially considering his is current zest for a foreign policy that advocates unprovoked war. Clinton also dodged the service...had he radically changed US War Policy you can bet he would be attacked with his history too and rightly so. I remember it being an issue during the debate before going in to Kosovo.
I no more want to hear about Bush's sex life than I did Clinton's or any other President's. Unless of course they are being accused of a sexual crime it has no place or relevance in carrying out their role as President.
I do, however, want to know how the President handled his patriotic duty before he became the Commander in Chief.
QUOTE(Digital Patriot @ Jan 8 2003, 05:58 PM)
Bush is not practicing genocide as hitler did. He has no plans for world domination. He is not a totalitarian nor a dictator. He might have lied, ...
A. There are those who could argue that Bush is indeed practicing genocide in a sense, whether it's the "kill the brown people" mentality or the punitive agenda against the poor in the US (who 'just happen to be' mostly black and hispanic). I won't debate that at length, just wanted to throw it out as a consideration.
B. Concerning totalitarianism: The Bush agenda, and the strategies regarding usurping the power of federal agencies by installing puppet ideologues to top posts (Michael Powell, Ralph Reed, etc), attempting to stack the Court with ideologues (Miguel Estrada, for example) might be construed by some as a superhuman effort towards that goal.
C. MIGHT have lied? I'm not so terribly concerned about whether the president lies about personal issues that the press has no business dredging up (whether it's a DUI or a #######), but I'm MIGHTILY concerned about the administration lying about things like whether Iraq has direct ties to Al Qu'eda (sp?) or whether it has WMD, and then manufacturing fraudulent evidence to present to the UNSC in order to coerce support for a war that is not only unjust, but which nobody wants.
(does that make me a horrible, idiotic conspiracy theorist?)
CMIIW
Peace--
NIK
QUOTE(nikflorida @ Jun 1 2003, 02:01 AM)
QUOTE(Digital Patriot @ Jan 8 2003, 05:58 PM)
Bush is not practicing genocide as hitler did. He has no plans for world domination. He is not a totalitarian nor a dictator. He might have lied, ...
A. There are those who could argue that Bush is indeed practicing genocide in a sense, whether it's the "kill the brown people" mentality or the punitive agenda against the poor in the US (who 'just happen to be' mostly black and hispanic). I won't debate that at length, just wanted to throw it out as a consideration.
B. Concerning totalitarianism: The Bush agenda, and the strategies regarding usurping the power of federal agencies by installing puppet ideologues to top posts (Michael Powell, Ralph Reed, etc), attempting to stack the Court with ideologues (Miguel Estrada, for example) might be construed by some as a superhuman effort towards that goal.
C. MIGHT have lied? I'm not so terribly concerned about whether the president lies about personal issues that the press has no business dredging up (whether it's a DUI or a #######), but I'm MIGHTILY concerned about the administration lying about things like whether Iraq has direct ties to Al Qu'eda (sp?) or whether it has WMD, and then manufacturing fraudulent evidence to present to the UNSC in order to coerce support for a war that is not only unjust, but which nobody wants.
(does that make me a horrible, idiotic conspiracy theorist?)
CMIIW
Peace--
NIK
Any reference to lying here, other than wild speculation that the Iraq case was a lie? There is plenty of evidence (in other threads) that say that the administration and other countries leaders believed the details of the case against Iraq, but that the resultant action was in dispute.
A lie is saying something that you know to be untrue. Acting on faulty intelligence, or intelligence that has not come to fruition yet does NOT constitute lying.
QUOTE(amlord @ Jun 2 2003, 10:37 AM)
There is plenty of evidence (in other threads) that say that the administration and other countries leaders believed the details of the case against Iraq, but that the resultant action was in dispute.
OK, so let's say that Powell was misled. Or Bush. Were the people misleading him not also part of the administration? Might the deception not have been a direct and predictable consequence of pressure to "come up with the right answer"? I've seen managers who will keep asking the same question, of the same or different people, until they hear the answer they want, and I don't think such managers can be absolved of responsibility when things inevitably go awry. Being a leader means taking responsibility for subordinates; if they screwed up, you screwed up. Believe me, it sucks to be called on the carpet for something someone else did, but that's part of the job description. If the evidence was cooked under his watch, Bush is culpable.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Jun 2 2003, 10:57 AM)
QUOTE(amlord @ Jun 2 2003, 10:37 AM)
There is plenty of evidence (in other threads) that say that the administration and other countries leaders believed the details of the case against Iraq, but that the resultant action was in dispute.
OK, so let's say that Powell was misled. Or Bush. Were the people misleading him not also part of the administration? Might the deception not have been a direct and predictable consequence of pressure to "come up with the right answer"? I've seen managers who will keep asking the same question, of the same or different people, until they hear the answer they want, and I don't think such managers can be absolved of responsibility when things inevitably go awry. Being a leader means taking responsibility for subordinates; if they screwed up, you screwed up. Believe me, it sucks to be called on the carpet for something someone else did, but that's part of the job description. If the evidence was cooked under his watch, Bush is culpable.
It makes him responsible, it does not make him a liar. Big distinction there. Of course he is responsible for everything that goes on.
Funny sig, btw.
Amusing thread title but don't sign me up for pathological. But this is his most damning bit of misinformation.
Experts doubt Iraq, al-Qaeda terror link
Bush has tried to equate Hussein with bin Laden and his team has performed calisthenics to try to paint a close relationship and then credible ties between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda.
QUOTE
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror," Bush said.
Experts doubt Iraq, al-Qaeda terror link
Bush has tried to equate Hussein with bin Laden and his team has performed calisthenics to try to paint a close relationship and then credible ties between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.