Clinton

[Ivan Seeking]

So in retrospect, what do you think best describes him?

[The_Professional]

I would like to see him run for mayor of NY :approve:

[Dissident Dan]

How about: "Very smooth, otherwise typical politician"?

[phatmonky]

Hate his politics (except maybe 10%), think he was a pussy about the lewinsky scandal, brilliant politician.
I'd hate to have him as our leader again, but would LOVE to put him into an ambassador position.

[kat]

lucky. :wink:

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry, Ivan, you're going to need to be more specific.....wait, maybe you won't - they are pretty much interchangeable, aren't they? :tongue: How about: "Very smooth, otherwise typical politician"? Isn't that redundant?

[JohnDubYa]

Clinton didn't just lie to save his own hide, he would lie just to lie. At no time did he ever string ten sentences together before I began to wonder if he hadn't thrown in a whopper.

If I have murdered someone and need a lawyer to pull out every dirty trick in the book to get off, he's my man. A man of no integrity, whatsoever.

[JohnDubYa]

I dunno, Russ. I never considered Dan Quayle particularly smooth. (Nor Bush Sr., for that matter).

[check]

I miss Clinton. Damnit, I miss everything about the 90s! :(

[Ivan Seeking]

but would LOVE to put him into an ambassador position.

I completely agree. Like him or hate him, his skills in diplomacy are recognized world wide.

[BoulderHead]

I miss all that Clinton g..., err, bashing.

[Gza]

Clinton didn't just lie to save his own hide, he would lie just to lie. At no time did he ever string ten sentences together before I began to wonder if he hadn't thrown in a whopper.

Thank god we have an honest leader in GW. :wink:

[JohnDubYa]

I just don't see George W. making up wild stories for no apparent reason. The supposed "lies" that I have seen so far either comprise (1) facts that have yet to be proven or disproven, (2) statements that were proven false but (possibly) thought to be true at the time. But no stories of burning churches, astroturf in El Caminos, or affairs with interns.

Now, maybe I have missed some stories that don't fall within the two exceptions. If so, let's hear them.

I think Kerry follows Clinton's lead in telling tall tales. I can understand the big fish story once in awhile, but to these guys it appears to be a habit.

[Prometheus]

I just don't see George W. making up wild stories for no apparent reason.
We can win the war quickly, and the Iraqis will welcome us. We can establish democracy in Iraq. Mission accomplished.

Perhaps you do not consider these wild stories. Or, are you suggesting that Bush is not smart enough to have made them up, and that he just told them. Or, are you saying that he had an apparent reason, no matter how dumb it might be?

[JohnDubYa]

We can win the war quickly...

Wasn't George W. the one warning us that the war could take a long time, maybe even years?

, and the Iraqis will welcome us.

I don't recall him ever saying this in such a fashion. Besides, some Iraqis have.

We can establish democracy in Iraq.

Who says we can't?

Mission accomplished.

Context? (What mission is he talking about?)

Does anyone have a GOOD response to my inquiry about George W.'s supposed lies? That one sucked.

[Gza]

Wasn't George W. the one warning us that the war could take a long time, maybe even years?

nope.


I don't recall him ever saying this in such a fashion.[Bush's statement that the Iraqis will welcome American troops].

were you by chance, hiding under a rock last year?


Who says we can't? [establish democracy in Iraq]

how do you start a democracy in a country that never wanted us there in the first place? I shouldn't even localize it to country, that entire damn region hates our presence there (as evidenced by the numerous insurgent kidnappings of civilians.)


Context? (What mission is he talking about?)[referring to the mission accomplished banner displayed on the US carrier Bush landed on during his flightsuit debacle]

what mission do you think he could possibly be talking about? If you want context, how's this: we're in the midst of a WAR. The president has just claimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And unless he was talking about completing his mission of fitting into that rediculous flight suit, i'm pretty sure the mission is the war.

[phatmonky]

nope.
Yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/sprj.nitop.bush/




were you by chance, hiding under a rock last year?

Were you by chance just posing another statement without backing?


how do you start a democracy in a country that never wanted us there in the first place? I shouldn't even localize it to country, that entire damn region hates our presence there (as evidenced by the numerous insurgent kidnappings of civilians.)

Never wanted us there in the first place? In the middle of the height of the insurgency, before the interim government took place, people were split 50/50 on whether they wanted us there. So your statement is invalid. Secondly, the same poll says Iraqis are looking forward to their future and positive about it. They also voted that they want a democracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/middle_east_iraqi_opinion_poll/img/6.jpg



what mission do you think he could possibly be talking about? If you want context, how's this: we're in the midst of a WAR. The president has just claimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And unless he was talking about completing his mission of fitting into that rediculous flight suit, i'm pretty sure the mission is the war.


"Rediculous" flight suit?? Are you not aware that said flight suit is a safety feature when riding in a military jet, and you'd be a moron for turning it down?

[Prometheus]

Yes.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/sprj.nitop.bush/
Were you by chance just posing another statement without backing?

Look who is talking. Did you bother to look at the date on your citation? Try again, and see if you can't come up with a better citation, one that was made before the war. No one is denying that Bush changed his tune after it was too late, once the mission had already been accomplished in his mind.

Never wanted us there in the first place? In the middle of the height of the insurgency, before the interim government took place, people were split 50/50 on whether they wanted us there. So your statement is invalid.
You own statement refutes your claim.

"Rediculous" flight suit?? Are you not aware that said flight suit is a safety feature when riding in a military jet, and you'd be a moron for turning it down?
This would be a wonderful arguement if it did not completely avoid the entire point under discussion, and instead present a completely irrelevant statement about nothing.

[phatmonky]

edited for my knobbery

[Gokul43201]

I did loook at the date, and it's irrelevant. Your statement was that Bush DID NOT say it would be a long term effort..

Of course the date's relevant. Gza was listing examples of 'Bush lies', and clearly, before the war, Bush was suggesting that it will be quick. If he changed his mind after the fact, that doesn't null the original 'lie'.

It's the link that's irrelevant - not the date - as it does not counter the intent of the claim.

[Prometheus]

speaking of changing tunes, good job on changing your original generalized statement.
I did loook at the date, and it's irrelevant. Your statement was that Bush DID NOT say it would be a long term effort.
Please provide a citation that supports your claim that I stated that Bush did not say this. I think that you are quite confused.

No, it doesn't. I never made the statement that they WANTED us there. You made the absolute statement that they didn't, and it was wrong.

Please provide a citation that supports your claim that I made this absolute statement. I think that you are quite confused.

It's not an argument, just pointing out the ignorance in your own irrelevant statements.

Once again prometheus, you have ignored your original statements with no backing. Try to bring some links next time.
I think that you are confused. You certainly seem to be confused about anything that I have posted. If you are equally confused about everything else you have ever said, then I and others who read your postings should take them all with a grain of salt. Perhaps you confuse me with someone else here. You are showing your ignorance, by making absurd accusations against me when I never made the statements that you are challenging. Does that make you ignorant and irrelevant in your mind?

[phatmonky]

Prometheus. I looked at the damn page 10 times, and thought you were the one who I originally replied to, it was Gza DOH!
My humble apologies :o

[phatmonky]

clearly, before the war, Bush was suggesting that it will be quick.
Why do you people keep doing this?? Post a link!

[Prometheus]

Prometheus. I looked at the damn page 10 times, and thought you were the one who I originally replied to, it was Gza DOH!
My humble apologies :o
Accepted. It could happen to any of us.

[Gokul43201]

Why do you people keep doing this?? Post a link!

Okay, I see why you're complaining.

Perhaps, George W Bush himself never directly stated that the war will be quick (I'm not sure...this was over a year ago...and Bush himself said very little) , but surely that was the impression given to the public by all the White House folks - from Cheney, to Rummy to Fleischer. And surely the President is ultimately responsible for what the people hear from the White House.

And the common public opinion was that the war would be quick, with minimal loss of life.

[JohnDubYa]

Perhaps, George W Bush himself never directly stated that the war will be quick (I'm not sure...this was over a year ago...and Bush himself said very little), but surely that was the impression given to the public by all the White House folks - from Cheney, to Rummy to Fleischer. And surely the President is ultimately responsible for what the people hear from the White House.

Okay, so you couldnt' find any Bush lies, so now you turn your attention to his staff. And even that is suspect.

So who stated that the war in Iraq would be easy? And this time, how about some (get this) actual quotes?

Here is an article about Rumsfeld. Point out any point in the story where he says the war would be easy.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html

By the way, being overly optimistic is hardly a lie. A person can think he is going to win a marathon, but that doesn't make him a liar if he doesn't.


And the common public opinion was that the war would be quick, with minimal loss of life.

And only the President could have instilled such an opinion in the public? What about past experience fighting in the Persian Gulf? You don't think the public remembered that war and how relatively easy it was? You don't think the Left played up Iraq's weaknesses in order to diminish our successes?

[Gokul43201]

So who stated that the war in Iraq would be easy? And this time, how about some (get this) actual quotes?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44801-2003Mar28&notFound=true

And only the President could have instilled such an opinion in the public? What about past experience fighting in the Persian Gulf? You don't think the public remembered that war and how relatively easy it was?

Yes, I'm sure the memory of the Gulf War I played a big role in shaping public opinion. But clearly, the White House helped that image along with "subtle persuasion".

You don't think the Left played up Iraq's weaknesses in order to diminish our successes?

This is possible, but I honestly can't recall hearing or reading that.

[Prometheus]

Okay, so you couldnt' find any Bush lies, so now you turn your attention to his staff. And even that is suspect.
You are pretending to have a short memory. How believable.

So who stated that the war in Iraq would be easy? And this time, how about some (get this) actual quotes?

Here is an article about Rumsfeld. Point out any point in the story where he says the war would be easy.
Again, an irrelevant quote made in October 2003. Nobody is disputing that once the war had begun and Bush and friends realized what a mistake they had made in estimation of timing that they changed their estimation. Why do you continue to make this case using evidence from so late in the war?

Check out http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

While we are at it:
There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html

“We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

By the way, being overly optimistic is hardly a lie. A person can think he is going to win a marathon, but that doesn't make him a liar if he doesn't.
Your analogy is flawed, in my opinion. A person believing that he will win the marathon is not a good analogy to a president making large numbers of "optimistic" statements that are mistaken yet meet their purpose of leading us to war.

And only the President could have instilled such an opinion in the public? What about past experience fighting in the Persian Gulf? You don't think the public remembered that war and how relatively easy it was? You don't think the Left played up Iraq's weaknesses in order to diminish our successes?
Bush made numerous claims that led to war. In the most polite view, he "erred". Your personal optimism based on past experience in the Gulf war should not be used as an excuse for his mistaken portrayal of the war, its purpose, and its cost.

[Gokul43201]

I'm the public, I paid very close attention to what was being said before the war...reading direct transcripts etc. I never got the idea that the Iraq war was going to be "quick". I'd like to see any direct statements that would support such an impression. Please share the wealth.

Wow, you and I get our news from very different places !! :eek:

Did you actually try clicking the little blue colored link.... ?

I'm guessing you also chose not to read Prometheus' post !

EDIT : Hey, where'd you go ?

[Gza]

I'm the public, I paid very close attention to what was being said before the war...reading direct transcripts etc. I never got the idea that the Iraq war was going to be "quick". I'd like to see any direct statements that would support such an impression. Please share the wealth.

You seem to have missed (or ignored) Prometheus's post, Kat. Here is what you are looking for.


The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

You should really try to pay closer attention.


EDIT: come to think about it, I should pay closer attention. Gokul already brought this up.

[kat]

lol, oops sorry..I took so long to post that you had posted before mine went up and welp...Ignore it.. for now... :redface:

[JohnDubYa]

So here are the quotes from George W. Bush offered so far:

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." This was hardly a reversal due to misfortune, as he spoke it on the day of the invasion.

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

"military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." (is that a lie?)

So where are the Bush lies? If anything, his statements have proven prophetic.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

In terms of invasions, he was right. It depends on how you define "major." And even if major combat operations didn't end, if he had no way of knowing that fact it hardly constitutes a lie.

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

Taken out of context. He was talking in terms of danger to the world, not that they were actively cooperating.

As for Dick Cheney, he is entitled to his opinion, which he admitted throughout was based on mostly conjecture. That doesn't make his statements lies.

It seems that we need to iterate the definition of a lie. If a person makes a statement that he thinks it is true, it is not a lie. To show that Bush lied, you need to show that he knew better at the time he made the statement. Even Cheney's optimism is hardly a lie. In fact, he pointed out more than once that he was just expressing his own outlook.

When the war began, no one knew for sure what would happen. Each government official gave their own opinions on how long they thought it was going to last. Some were more optimistic than others. That hardly constitutes a lie.


Your analogy is flawed, in my opinion. A person believing that he will win the marathon is not a good analogy to a president making large numbers of "optimistic" statements that are mistaken yet meet their purpose of leading us to war.

Show me the large numbers of "optimistic" statements that the president made concerning this issue. Once and for all, where are they? Or was this just a "lie"?

[Gokul43201]

In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell.

Can't blame him for that !

[Gokul43201]

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)



The art of lying has nearly been perfected by this administration. Perhaps no one in the administration ever said this literally, but strangely, half the people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Wonder where they got that idea from ?

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

Taken out of context. He was talking in terms of danger to the world, not that they were actively cooperating.

I agree. But the real gem is the statement that follows : "And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." <don't be distracted by the grammar>


As for Dick Cheney, he is entitled to his opinion, which he admitted throughout was based on mostly conjecture.

Damn, didn't know the Veep could go about proffering opinions 'based on mostly conjecture' to the masses.

And he's admitted this ? When ?

But perhaps we digress...this thread is about Clinton, not Bush.

[JohnDubYa]

In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell.

So in other words, Bush' realistic appraisals of the upcoming war were in fact the opinions of Rove and Cheney? So they were all in agreement that the war was going to take a long time to begin with?

Damn I wish you would sort out your logic before posting. If you want to brand Bush a liar, and he has expressed relatively pessimistic views on the war, and his staff expressed relatively optimistic views on the war, then you want to claim that Bush directed their opinions -- not the other way around!


The art of lying has nearly been perfected by this administration. Perhaps no one in the administration ever said this literally, but strangely, half the people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Wonder where they got that idea from ?

You mean that since we have now established that Bush did not lie about the war prognosis, we are going to play this silly game with Saddam's involvement in 9/11?

This is the ever-shifting target. You offer a hare-brained idea that Bush stated overly optimistic quotes about the war, but when challenged and unable to offer any evidence, you switch to an entirely new subject.

Where are the quotes? Show us the quotes.

I agree. But the real gem is the statement that follows : "And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." <don't be distracted by the grammar>

Grammar? His statement was verbal.

And what about the quote? I see nothing there. From what I have seen of Saddam's cruelty, he is every bit as evil as Osama. In my opinion, many times more so.


Damn, didn't know the Veep could go about proffering opinions 'based on mostly conjecture' to the masses.

Do we live in Moscow? Of course he can profer opinions based on conjecture. Everyone does it. Otherwise, the answer to nearly every question asked would have to be "dunno."

When reporters ask how long a war is going to take, how can you possibly answer without resorting to conjecture?

And he's admitted this ? When ?

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that."

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

"significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

All are examples of conjecture.

Now, this is getting real silly. If you are unable to parse the conjecture in a sentence such as "I think I am getting a Honda for my birthday," then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

[Gza]

So here are the quotes from George W. Bush offered so far:

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." This was hardly a reversal due to misfortune, as he spoke it on the day of the invasion.

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

"military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." (is that a lie?)

So where are the Bush lies? If anything, his statements have proven prophetic.

I find it funny how you select out some fragmented quips where Bush is actually making sense, and draw the broad conclusion that he is not a liar from these few of statements. And to go as far as calling him prophetic is in my opinion, to much credit for one man.

[JohnDubYa]

I find it funny how you select out some fragmented quips where Bush is actually making sense, and draw the broad conclusion that he is not a liar from these few of statements.

I pulled the quips from sources offered in this forum by those calling him a liar. I found nothing else in any of the links provided. Furthermore, despite my repeated requests, no one has offered much of anything else.

I am not drawing the conclusion that he is not a liar. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise. Are we to assume he is a liar, with the burden placed on his supporters to prove he isn't? That is what you are suggesting.

WHERE ARE THE LIES? Just show the lies.

[Prometheus]

So here are the quotes from George W. Bush offered so far:

"A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict." This was hardly a reversal due to misfortune, as he spoke it on the day of the invasion.

"the fierce fighting currently underway will demand further courage and further sacrifice." (is that a lie?)

"military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures." (is that a lie?)

So where are the Bush lies? If anything, his statements have proven prophetic.
Bush lied to everyone to get the war in motion. Who, besides you, cares that on the first day of the war he started backtracking.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

In terms of invasions, he was right. It depends on how you define "major." And even if major combat operations didn't end, if he had no way of knowing that fact it hardly constitutes a lie.
Let the world take note. I would never have believed it if I hadn't seen it. You are using the "it depends on the meaning of is" excuse. By the way, if he had no way of knowing, he should not have gone for the photo op anyway.

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam."

Taken out of context. He was talking in terms of danger to the world, not that they were actively cooperating.
Wow. You understand him far better than the rest of us. It seems that only you understood his words in 20/20 hindsight.

As for Dick Cheney, he is entitled to his opinion, which he admitted throughout was based on mostly conjecture. That doesn't make his statements lies.
Wrong. Cheny has maintained his lies throughout. The press has said that he is wrong, and Bush has said that he is wrong. He refuses to listen to anybody, but to use his position as VP to mislead people. This is far beyond the right that he has to his opinion. You and I have the right to our opinion. He has a responsbility to the nation. Cheny is a major liar.

It seems that we need to iterate the definition of a lie. If a person makes a statement that he thinks it is true, it is not a lie. To show that Bush lied, you need to show that he knew better at the time he made the statement. Even Cheney's optimism is hardly a lie. In fact, he pointed out more than once that he was just expressing his own outlook.
Great. We need to iterate your bogus definition of a lie. If a person is in a position of power, and he is an idiot, and he lies to the nation, we do not need to disprove that he thought it was true because he is an idiot in order for it to be a lie. Cheny's optimism. You call it optimism? I think that we should call you an optimist for this take on Cheny.

When the war began, no one knew for sure what would happen. Each government official gave their own opinions on how long they thought it was going to last. Some were more optimistic than others. That hardly constitutes a lie.
Wrong again. Bush provided the world, the entire world, with bogus information. Based on his bogus information, we went to war, and the world changed. You would forgive him because he is an idiot, and he just made an honest mistake in jumping to conclusions without evaluating the information, and never bothering to reconsider his 2 second decisions.

Show me the large numbers of "optimistic" statements that the president made concerning this issue. Once and for all, where are they? Or was this just a "lie"?
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. If you don't open your eyes, you can't expect to see.

[Prometheus]

So in other words, Bush' realistic appraisals of the upcoming war were in fact the opinions of Rove and Cheney? So they were all in agreement that the war was going to take a long time to begin with?
Is that a skill that you learned on your own, or did you learn from Bush how to misread other people's words and then react to your misunderstanding?

You mean that since we have now established that Bush did not lie about the war prognosis, we are going to play this silly game with Saddam's involvement in 9/11?
Smile when you say "we" pardner. I see that you still have not noticed that several people are not agreeing with you.

This is the ever-shifting target. You offer a hare-brained idea that Bush stated overly optimistic quotes about the war, but when challenged and unable to offer any evidence, you switch to an entirely new subject.
Now I have to wonder if you are even paying attention.

And what about the quote? I see nothing there. From what I have seen of Saddam's cruelty, he is every bit as evil as Osama. In my opinion, many times more so.
As if it were relevant even if true.

When reporters ask how long a war is going to take, how can you possibly answer without resorting to conjecture?
So now you are backtracking.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that."

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

"significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

All are examples of conjecture.

Now, this is getting real silly. If you are unable to parse the conjecture in a sentence such as "I think I am getting a Honda for my birthday," then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Yes. You now finally admit that Cheny is full of it. By your euphemism "conjecture", he lied to the world. I am quite surprised that you find what you call conjecture to be perfectly acceptable.

[Prometheus]

In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell.

Can't blame him for that !
Good point. We can't both blame Bush for being too stupid to make a decision on his own and accuse him of lying when others tell him what he thinks.

[Prometheus]

I pulled the quips from sources offered in this forum by those calling him a liar. I found nothing else in any of the links provided.
Translatiion: You didn't read anything, and lo, you found nothing.

Furthermore, despite my repeated requests, no one has offered much of anything else.
Translatiion: You closed your eyes, and lo, you found nothing.

I am not drawing the conclusion that he is not a liar. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise. Are we to assume he is a liar, with the burden placed on his supporters to prove he isn't? That is what you are suggesting.
Now that the evidence is clear and overwhelming to many of us, this post of yours is about a year late.

WHERE ARE THE LIES? Just show the lies.
Where are your eyes? Just open your eyes.

[JohnDubYa]

Where are your eyes? Just open your eyes.

I am. I am opening them right now to this thread, and I don't see any lies posted by your, nor anyone else.

Cut the crap and post the lies. Let's see the quotes.

And you still haven't told us your opinion of John F. Kennedy, who ordered the "chemical warfare" on the Vietnamese people. Cat got your tongue?

[Gokul43201]

So in other words, Bush' realistic appraisals of the upcoming war were in fact the opinions of Rove and Cheney? So they were all in agreement that the war was going to take a long time to begin with?
Damn I wish you would sort out your logic before posting.

Hah, that's funny ! I wish you'd read before you put your toes between your molars.

I'll repeat : "In my opinion, Bush never really has lied - he just says what Rove, Cheney and Rummy want him to tell." I never said that Bush says what R, C and R say or opine - just what they have him say.

You offer a hare-brained idea that Bush stated overly optimistic quotes about the war, but when challenged and unable to offer any evidence, you switch to an entirely new subject.

I did say that perhaps Bush himself never used the words, but yes, the White House and other top officials did make overly optimistic predictions about the war. And I gave you the evidence for this. But since we are talking about lies (and it was not me that started with this specific claim...I will by no means be bound by it) I mentioned how it does not necessarily require the speaking of a falsehood to end up deceiving the people. Since you went about defining what a 'lie' is you might want to look it up in a dictionary to see the relevance of the example I gave.

And no, I did not switch to an entirely new subject. In your own words :

The supposed "lies" that I have seen so far either comprise (1) facts that have yet to be proven or disproven, (2) statements that were proven false but (possibly) thought to be true at the time. ...Now, maybe I have missed some stories that don't fall within the two exceptions. If so, let's hear them.

Grammar? His statement was verbal.

"...equally as bad...equally as evil..." etc. is just plain, wrong English - but this is besides the point.

Where are the quotes? Show us the quotes.

I've discussed this above and I see no reason to restrict myself to just that point.

Okay here we go :

# To explain why he has turned a $236 billion budget surplus into a projected $307 billion deficit in 2004, the president claimed that he had said during the campaign that he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency but never imagined he would have a "trifecta." Mr. Bush never made such a campaign statement.

# CNN : Bush highlighted a new private-sector "blue chip" economic forecast projecting that the economy would grow in the fourth quarter of this year by 3.3 percent compared to the same period last year. Bush emphasized a portion of the report suggesting that such a level of growth depended on swift passage of his proposed tax cuts. By contrast, more than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, said last week that Bush's tax plan wouldn't help the ailing economy immediately. Instead, they predicted that it would create deeper deficits that could drive up long-term interests rates and jeopardize the economy down the road.

"I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case.'"

# LA Times : "[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. However, the student doctored the quotation.

# On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." But on 02/27/03 White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said : "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building."

I'm sure you can Google too...

[Prometheus]

I am. I am opening them right now to this thread, and I don't see any lies posted by your, nor anyone else.

Cut the crap and post the lies. Let's see the quotes.
I am sorry if I post so much that you have to skip some of my postings. You should go back and read a little. Harping on where are the lies will not excuse you from reading all of the postings of lies.

I cannot believe that you sincerely believe that Bush was really truthful about the war before it happened. You seem to feel that the ends justified the means, which is a legitimate opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it in this case. However, can you seriously tell us with a straight face that you believe that Bush et. al. are telling the truth as they believe it to be, and that all of the mistakes in Bush's statements are due to the fault of others?

[Gza]

I am sorry if I post so much that you have to skip some of my postings. You should go back and read a little. Harping on where are the lies will not excuse you from reading all of the postings of lies.

Just to expand on that; in case he feels that isn't enough, try reading Gokul's posts. And if that still isn't enough try this:

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

Now please stop complaining about people not posting quotes, or citing resources, because they're all in front of your face. Like Prometheus said, you really need to open your eyes and read them.

[JohnDubYa]

I never said that Bush says what R, C and R say or opine - just what they have him say.

So Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had him say that the war was going to be long and difficult. Why would they do that if they didn't believe it themselves?

To explain why he has turned a $236 billion budget surplus into a projected $307 billion deficit in 2004, the president claimed that he had said during the campaign that he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency but never imagined he would have a "trifecta." Mr. Bush never made such a campaign statement.

Well, not publically at least. But I would like to see an actual quote. At least tell me where you are getting your information.

Bush highlighted a new private-sector "blue chip" economic forecast projecting that the economy would grow in the fourth quarter of this year by 3.3 percent compared to the same period last year. Bush emphasized a portion of the report suggesting that such a level of growth depended on swift passage of his proposed tax cuts. By contrast, more than 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, said last week that Bush's tax plan wouldn't help the ailing economy immediately. Instead, they predicted that it would create deeper deficits that could drive up long-term interests rates and jeopardize the economy down the road.

"I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case.'"

In the opinion of Moore.

"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. However, the student doctored the quotation.

So the President uttered a statement he thought was correct. That's lying?

How many of us have passed on an urban legend? Well, that is essentially what Bush did. Sounds like an honest mistake to me (although he should be more careful).

On Oct. 11, 2000, then-Texas Gov. Bush said: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." But on 02/27/03 White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said : "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building."

Sounds like Ari is mistaken, or even lying if he indeed was aware of Bush's earlier comment -- one of the dangers of having a Press Secretary is they can make mistakes.

The man has been in power for four years, and all you have are (1) Bush recalling that he made a statement four years previously that he apparently never made, (2) a disagreement between him and economists, (3) an honest mistake that could have happened to any of us, and (4) a statement made not by him, but his Press Secretary. The first one looks promising for you, but the rest are really lame. Four years? And that's what you have? We seemingly got more than that on a daily basis from Clinton.

[JohnDubYa]

Now please stop complaining about people not posting quotes, or citing resources, because they're all in front of your face. Like Prometheus said, you really need to open your eyes and read them.

I went to the site, and the first one I read was the ridiculous Castro story, where the President repeated what he thought was the truth. That does not make him a liar. If it did, we would all be liars. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever managed to speak without uttering a fact that later turned out to be incorrect.

As for you Prometheus, I am still waiting to hear your opinions on JFK. C'mon, you must have some opinions on the man, considering he ordered the Agent Orange attacks on the Vietnamese. Let's hear it.

[Gokul43201]

The man has been in power for four years, and all you have are (1) Bush recalling that he made a statement four years previously that he apparently never made, (2) a disagreement between him and economists, (3) an honest mistake that could have happened to any of us, and (4) a statement made not by him, but his Press Secretary. The first one looks promising for you, but the rest are really lame. Four years? And that's what you have? We seemingly got more than that on a daily basis from Clinton.

Haha, please ask the President to get out of bed and talk some some - he's given far fewer press conferences than any of the recent presidents...I guess there's really not much happening these days, eh.

And actually, all the things we claim to be lies are really just honest slips of the tongue, including the response to the Harken insider trading charge. And thanks to you, we now realize that the President is not responsible for things said by the White House Press Sec, or Sec. Def or the Veep or the NSA - they're all rogue employees running wild, offering unbacked-up conjectures.

Okay, now that's been cleared up.

[russ_watters]

I didn't read this whole thread, but its quite clear to me some people aren't separating the two phases of the war:

-"major conflict" is open war between the US and Saddam's troops. Bush never said how long it would be (that's the 6 weeks, 6 months, etc quote), but it was implied that it would be short: and it was short.

-Terrorism after the end of "major conflict" and during reconstruction is something Bush never addressed at all. That's certainly a failure in planning, but its not a lie as Bush never claimed there wouldn't be terrorism after the end of "major conflict."

And btw, anyone remember what the title of this thread was about? Nice hijack, Gza.

[Prometheus]

As for you Prometheus, I am still waiting to hear your opinions on JFK. C'mon, you must have some opinions on the man, considering he ordered the Agent Orange attacks on the Vietnamese. Let's hear it.
What a pathetic line. You have asked me this irrelevant question some 20 times. I posted a response. Rather than address my response, you post this pathetic dribble in response, as an aside to your pathetic dribble in repsonse to someone else.

I think that you must believe that Republicans are great and Democrats are evil, and that all actions of Republicans are great and that all actions of Democrats are evil. You have this simplistic, and simple, way of looking at things. That must be the source of your question. You think that others believe in such a simplistic manner.

Because I think that Bush is a moron and that Cheny treats all of us Americans like we are morons, you think that I must be a polar opposite of you. You think that I must support all actions of Democrats and oppose all actions of Republicams. Therefore, you feel that you have caught me in an error, because I am opposed to an action by a Democrat.

How simplistic and simple minded of you. Are you for real?

Cheny treats you like a moron, and you lap it up with glee. Maybe he is right about you.

If you respond to this post, please do not do so as an aside to some other post. We all know that you are spouting dribble, and that you are preaching to yourself, but why not pretend that you expect someone to be listening?

Cite my repsonse to your question, and respond to it.

[JohnDubYa]

And actually, all the things we claim to be lies are really just honest slips of the tongue, including the response to the Harken insider trading charge. And thanks to you, we now realize that the President is not responsible for things said by the White House Press Sec, or Sec. Def or the Veep or the NSA - they're all rogue employees running wild, offering unbacked-up conjectures.

If the Secretary of Defense admitted to being a Communist, I don't think I would consider Bush a Communist.

As I said, people often make mistakes when speaking for others. Anytime you have a spokesman you run that risk. If you want to say that Bush lies, then you should provide quotes BY BUSH of falsehoods he knew were falsehoods at the time he told them. So far, I haven't seen much, if any.

[Prometheus]

actually, all the things we claim to be lies are really just honest slips of the tongue, including the response to the Harken insider trading charge. And thanks to you, we now realize that the President is not responsible for things said by the White House Press Sec, or Sec. Def or the Veep or the NSA - they're all rogue employees running wild, offering unbacked-up conjectures.

Okay, now that's been cleared up.
Now that you have seen the light, perhaps Dubya will get off your case.

[Prometheus]

Terrorism after the end of "major conflict" and during reconstruction is something Bush never addressed at all. That's certainly a failure in planning, but its not a lie as Bush never claimed there wouldn't be terrorism after the end of "major conflict."

I disagree. The war is still going on. Americans are dying daily. How can you contend that Bush was an idiot and did not even consider this major part of the action, rather than recognizing that Bush lied to the American people by hiding it.

Did you notice the citation about Cheny claiming that our occupation would be short?

Do you really think that Bush planned to have soldiers doing police duty, for which they were not trained, for long stints that are extended multiple times, and that he just forgot to tell us? No, you call it a failure in planning. Does Bush bear any repsonsilibity for this failure, in your opinion? If so, what responsibility?

[Prometheus]

If the Secretary of Defense admitted to being a Communist, I don't think I would consider Bush a Communist.

As I said, people often make mistakes when speaking for others. Anytime you have a spokesman you run that risk. If you want to say that Bush lies, then you should provide quotes BY BUSH of falsehoods he knew were falsehoods at the time he told them. So far, I haven't seen much, if any.
I think that you deserve every bit of the degree of respect that Cheny affords you.

[BobG]

My choice was pompous sneak who faked and cheated his way through the system. (And, by now, no one will have any idea how this post is relevant. :rolleyes: )

Never understood his appeal, other than a good TV personality and the ability to play the sax. Not a horrible president, but more like a president of small accomplishments - slightly above average in spite of being a pompous sneak (and the man most likely to have given the baseball player Scott "Will your sister" Leius his nickname).

Granted, I also realize I may still underestimate him, considering how the subject of Clinton still obsesses so many Republicans three-and-a-half years after he left office. I don't think anyone even remembered Carter three-and-a-half years after he left office.

[JohnDubYa]

Well, if Bush wins re-election the Democrats will be cursing him for decades as well. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both have this way of getting under people's skins. I don't sense it with Bush because I'm a supporter, but I think I understand it. I suspect Dems get the same creepy feeling that someone is taking them for a ride that we felt under Clinton -- that someone had just pissed on your lawn and was laughing while doing it.

[Gza]

I suspect Dems get the same creepy feeling that someone is taking them for a ride that we felt under Clinton -- that someone had just pissed on your lawn and was laughing while doing it.

Clinton may have been pissing on my lawn, but Bush is pissing off the world. :tongue:

[Prometheus]

Where are the quotes? Show us the quotes.
Some people still contend that Bush told only the truth, and that any errors are the fault of others, who merely exercised their freedom to make honest "conjectures". Based on his and his aides' "conjectures', it was Bush who led us to war for reasons that have not proven true. Should he be held responsible for his decision, or should he be forgiven because, after all, he is not smart enough to have dreamed up these reasons by himself?

To look up any of the following, or to search for a path for more quotes, cut and past the words of each quote into google.com

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction.—Dick Cheney—August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used
for the production of biological weapons. —George W. Bush—September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is
once again misleading the world.—Ari Fleischer—December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.—Ari Fleischer—January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent. —George W. Bush—January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass
destruction, is determined to make more.—Colin Powell—February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized
Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the
dictator tells us he does not have.—'George Bush —February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons
of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment
has to be clearly not.—Colin Powell—March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.—George Bush—March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical
particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the
operation, for whatever duration it takes.—Ari Fleisher—March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons
of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be
identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who
guard them.—Gen. Tommy Franks—March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction.—Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman—March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a
number of sites.—Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark—March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.—Donald Rumsfeld—March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of
mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty. —Neocon scholar Robert Kagan—April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials,
a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass
destruction will be found.—Ari Fleischer—April 10, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . .
. so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that
country.—Donald Rumsfeld—April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.—George Bush—May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had
weapons of mass destruction.—Colin Powell—May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction
in that country.—Donald Rumsfeld—May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. —George W. Bush—May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and
find" weapons of mass destruction.—Condoleeza Rice—May 12, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them
to be found. I still expect them to be found.—Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps—May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating,
I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.—Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff—May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.—Donald Rumsfeld—May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one
reason everyone could agree on.—Paul Wolfowitz—May 28, 2003

[JohnDubYa]

Again, it comes down to whether or not Bush knew the statements he made were false at the time. That is what is meant by a lie.

And no one has proven that no WMDs existed at the time of the invasion.

[Gza]

And no one has proven that no WMDs existed at the time of the invasion.

are you sure?


After returning to Iraq after a four-year hiatus in late November, UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1375792,00.html

We had the issue pretty much sorted out before the invasion. There was no evidence of any WMDs. And this was a large part of the rationale for the war. It took the blind arrogance, as well as the lies of the Bushies to push us all into it.

[JohnDubYa]

Where did the sarin-filled cannon shell come from? (I haven't followed the story since it first broke.)

But back to the point -- proving something doesn't exist is hard. Real hard. Ask any paranormal skeptic. Not finding WMDs is no proof (it isn't even conclusive evidence) that they did not exist.

[russ_watters]

I disagree. The war is still going on. Americans are dying daily. How can you contend that Bush was an idiot and did not even consider this major part of the action, rather than recognizing that Bush lied to the American people by hiding it. Hiding what? Hiding the outcome of events that hadn't happened yet? Sorry, Prometheus, but our differing interpretations of how a "war" works and differing predictions on how long events over which he doesn't have complete control will take does not constitute a lie. Did you notice the citation about Cheny claiming that our occupation would be short? And...? How can a prediction ever be a lie? Are you saying he said this while at the same time planned for a long occupation? Do you have evidence of that?Do you really think that Bush planned to have soldiers doing police duty, for which they were not trained, for long stints that are extended multiple times, and that he just forgot to tell us? No, I don't think he planned that - do you? No, you call it a failure in planning. Does Bush bear any repsonsilibity for this failure, in your opinion? If so, what responsibility? Absolutely - he's the one who got us into this mess and he's therefore soley responsible for it.

[russ_watters]

We had the issue pretty much sorted out before the invasion. There was no evidence of any WMDs. And this was a large part of the rationale for the war. It took the blind arrogance, as well as the lies of the Bushies to push us all into it. You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

[Gokul43201]

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?

Yes, that is a worrisome question...but it's not the question. The teeth of the WMD claim was that new programs had been set up; that there was renewed activity; that there was more destructive capability than what could be had from the leftovers.

[Gokul43201]

How can a prediction ever be a lie?

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has. (A 'lie' is something that is intended to mislead.) If the teller himself/herself has more confidence in the prediction that the respective intelligence agencies, then he/she is delusional - but not a liar.

[JohnDubYa]

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has.

Well, if he INTENTIONALLY gives the readers more confidence than he really has.

Once war breaks out, I find nothing wrong with expressing optimism, even if somewhat unwarranted. As a leader, you are supposed to inspire confidence in your troops. What kind of leader would tell his army that he doesn't have much faith that they will carry out the job in a timely manner?

[Gokul43201]

But back to the point -- proving something doesn't exist is hard. Real hard. Ask any paranormal skeptic. Not finding WMDs is no proof (it isn't even conclusive evidence) that they did not exist.

True, the lack of evidence is not a proof. But, it definitely is more reason to get some real evidence before going to war. And if the case for WMDs is not really strong, but there were other, equally compelling reasons for going to war, the people desrve to have heard them. The argument for war was based almost solely on WMDs and the al-Qaeda link. We heard little about saving the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator, until after the war started.

It's not the words themselves that constitute a lie, but their effect on the people. Half the people in the coutry thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Many people still see the "mushroom cloud" picture, as the reason for immediate action. To let the people gain false ideas is being dishonest.

[JohnDubYa]

But, it definitely is more reason to get some real evidence before going to war.

Given that Saddam never cooperated in providing evidence that WMDs did not exist in his country, I disagree. He went out of his way to make himself look guilty, so I hardly think we can be blamed for acting on that suspicion.

To let the people gain false ideas is being dishonest.

I agree. The question is whether the administration knew the ideas were false. Again, you are being very presumptuous.

And I hope you're not a Michael Moore fan with that last quote.

[russ_watters]

A prediction can be a lie, if it gives the listeners more confidence in the prediction that the teller has. I'd generally agree with that, but that's a fuzzy thing - and one that requires evidence. But you are trying to have it both ways: if he expected the "insurgency" and downplayed it, he's a liar. If he (or his advisors) didn't expect it, but should have, he's (or his advisors are) incompetent. He cannot be both at the same time. (A 'lie' is something that is intended to mislead.) I share that view (it actually goes beyond the real definition), but I'm surprised to see it from a democrat. Perhaps you'd like to go back and re-open the Michael Moore thread...? If the teller himself/herself has more confidence in the prediction that the respective intelligence agencies, then he/she is delusional - but not a liar. Granted, but thats not really functionally dis-similar from being incompetent.

[amp]

This is fairly recent lie. CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

Site given by Prometheus: http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM

[Prometheus]

Absolutely - he's the one who got us into this mess and he's therefore soley responsible for it.
We agree that he is repsonsible.

Hiding what? Hiding the outcome of events that hadn't happened yet? Sorry, Prometheus, but our differing interpretations of how a "war" works and differing predictions on how long events over which he doesn't have complete control will take does not constitute a lie.
Bush led the county to war. He made a number of statements about cause and he made a number of assurances about how the war would go. You may consider these mere predictions, about which he has no control. I consider that he made purposeful statements designed to convince people to accept and adopt a course of action that they otherwise might not support, and he promoted these statements as the truth, and it turns out that many of them are not the truth. If we consider him an idiot, and therefore do not hold him responsbile for the incorrectness of the statements that he made, so what. He made statements to the American people that were not true. Statements that are not true are lies. Bush made untrue statements, which I consider are lies. I do not forgive him because he is an idiot. Feel free, if you wish.

How can a prediction ever be a lie?
He made statements in a voice of absolute certainty, with no room for doubt. He did not preface his statements with "I think" or "I guess". How can you contend that his statements, which were designed to convince people to a course of action, and which did lead us to a course of action as planned, and which have been shown to be untrue, were not lies merely because they were statements about the future, which can never be known with 100% absolute certainty?

Are you saying he said this while at the same time planned for a long occupation? Do you have evidence of that? No, I don't think he planned that - do you?
So, you recognize that he was a bumbling incompetant? Fine. My point is this:

He made clear, unequivocal statements. These statements were designed to convince people to a course of action. If people had known that these statements were not true, they might not have followed the recommended course of action. We now know that the statements were false. Statements that are not true are lies. They are certainly lies in my mind in this case, because of his motives and his abuse of power. His stupidity cannot be used as an excuse for pushing untruths.

[Prometheus]

You're forgetting The Question (the ugly little question no one wants to ask): What did he do with all of his WMD?
How do you know what he is forgetting? How do you claim that no one wants to ask, when you and many others have asked it.

WMDs have a shelf life. None of the weapons of 1991 would have been usable, they would have "disappeared" on their own. Therefore, nothing need have been done with all of his WMDs of 1991.

Is there any evidence that he has recent WMDs, which were still potent? This is the ugly little question that you seem to not want to ask.

[russ_watters]

This is fairly recent lie.

"CLAIM: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03." Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. Then explain how its not allowed that the situation be able to change any time later. He made statements to the American people that were not true. Statements that are not true are lies. We're going around in circles now - the fallacy in that has been pointed out to you a number of times and no matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't get any less wrong. He made statements in a voice of absolute certainty, with no room for doubt. He did not preface his statements with "I think" or "I guess". Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction? He made clear, unequivocal statements. These statements were designed to convince people to a course of action. Certainly. Things like 'The war will be short' or 'I will make sure the war is short' (not exact quotes) are clear, unequivocal predictions. That doesn't change the nature of what a "prediction" is. If people had known that these statements were not true, they might not have followed the recommended course of action. Well hang on there - since these statements were made before anything happened, how is the word "true" even applicable? People choose to follow the course of action or not based on whether they think he is capable of following through on his prediction. That's pretty much the definition of leadership. We now know that the statements were false. Statements that are not true are lies. Again, how can the statement 'the war will be short' possibly be false at the time it is stated? You're not suggesting that a statement that wasn't a lie when he said it can become a lie later, are you?

[russ_watters]

How do you know what he is forgetting? How do you claim that no one wants to ask, when you and many others have asked it. I have not once ever seen anyone who was against the war bring it up.

[Ivan Seeking]

He didn't move entire facilities. How did he hide those?

[Prometheus]

Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. Then explain how its not allowed that the situation be able to change any time later.
You ask for his definition, yet you have none of your own. Instead, you accept that the status quo implies his defintion.

We're going around in circles now - the fallacy in that has been pointed out to you a number of times and no matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't get any less wrong.
This statement says nothing. There is no content to this statement.

Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction?
You are arguing over semantics. He made statements that were not true. You defend him by quibbling over whether or not they were lies. Why don't you try a little critical thought? Can you? Of course, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but that is not the question, is it. He framed his statements as though he were absolutely certain, and attempted to instill such certainty in everyone else.

[Gza]

Jeez, now you're just sounding naive: how you can possibly see "absolute certainty" in a pre-war prediction is beyond me. Try attaching a little critical though to it: is there ever such a thing as "absolute certainty" in any prediction?


A report came out on October 1, 2002 by the National Intelligence Council with an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments" with this interesting info:

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930


We were sure as hell "absolutely certain" of the above facts before the war.
Assuming Bush to be literate, he should have read this and acted accordingly. He didn't. His knowledge of the report, and subsequent ignorance of its contents to me is a clear indication of lying.

[Prometheus]

Assuming Bush to be literate,
I think that your problem is that you make unfounded assumptions of this type.

[Gza]

I think that your problem is that you make unfounded assumptions of this type.


I guess the false premise invalidates the rest of the argument. :rofl:

[amp]

Russ: (Though both of the defs are subjective).
Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's.

I take it to mean all thats left to do is 'sweep up' the loose ends, that there are no significant operational objectives to be met.

[Prometheus]

Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's.

I take it to mean all thats left to do is 'sweep up' the loose ends, that there are no significant operational objectives to be met.
You failed. Oh sure, you have an excellent definition. And sure, most of us would agree with you. However, you completely failed to substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. He is president, and you are not. That makes his definition better than yours. You failed completely, and russ_watters can gloat.

[russ_watters]

He didn't move entire facilities. How did he hide those? I'd really like to know the answer to that question as well.

[BobG]

He didn't hide them.

In poker, you're as likely to hide what you don't have as you are to hide what you do have.

He obviously had some chemical weapons capability at some time because he used them. Whatever he had he got rid of (because of the inspections?), but didn't want to appear to have given in.

[russ_watters]

You ask for his definition, yet you have none of your own. Instead, you accept that the status quo implies his defintion. What are we, in grade school? I asked you first. :biggrin:

Personally, I'd define he end of "major combat operations" to be the point at which Saddam was toppled (or, perhaps, when he was captured) and the Iraqi army surrendered. That fits with amp's definition too, imo.
You failed. Oh sure, you have an excellent definition. And sure, most of us would agree with you. However, you completely failed to substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's. He is president, and you are not. That makes his definition better than yours. You failed completely, and russ_watters can gloat. Gee, Prometheus, his definition looked pretty good to me. :confused: :confused: Do you disagree with it?

Anyway, to continue, the so-called "insurgency" is a new and, it would seem, unexpected phase. Even with a high death toll (relative only to the public's unrealistic expectations) , its still at least an order of magnitude less intense than the "major combat operations" phase. This statement says nothing. There is no content to this statement. You have stated several times now that a statement that is not true is a lie. There is a third possibility that has been pointed out to you and you are ignoring.
You are arguing over semantics. He made statements that were not true. You defend him by quibbling over whether or not they were lies. Well, that's precisely the question, isn't it? At the time the statements were made, they were neither true nor false. If a statement that is neither true nor false becomes false at a later date, is it retroactively a lie?
Of course, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but that is not the question, is it. He framed his statements as though he were absolutely certain, and attempted to instill such certainty in everyone else. I'm sorry, Prometheus, if you can't tell the difference between a confident prediction and a statement of fact, there is no way to resolve this. The difference is critical here.

[russ_watters]

We were sure as hell "absolutely certain" of the above facts before the war.
Assuming Bush to be literate, he should have read this and acted accordingly. He didn't. His knowledge of the report, and subsequent ignorance of its contents to me is a clear indication of lying. Gza, that's not what we were discussing here. We're discussing Bush's statements/implications about the length of the war.

[Prometheus]

Personally, I'd define he end of "major combat operations" to be the point at which Saddam was toppled (or, perhaps, when he was captured) and the Iraqi army surrendered.
You do not consider the daily battles and the daily American deaths to be major. You certainly have the right to your opinion. Surely you recognize that not everyone agrees with you here.

Gee, Prometheus, his definition looked pretty good to me. Do you disagree with it?
No, I like it. I am surprised that you do, as it seems to differ from your opinion, and it certainly does not satisfy the conditions that you demanded.

Anyway, to continue, the so-called "insurgency" is a new and, it would seem, unexpected phase.
Are you saying that because Bush is such an idiot that he completely unexpected that the U.S. forces would not be welcomed as liberators from god that he has no blame for the unexpectedness? It seems to me as though you are.

Even with a high death toll (relative only to the public's unrealistic expectations) ,
I disagree with your portrayal. It is the public's unrealistic expectations only because Bush and company mislead the public due to their unrealistic expecttions.

its still at least an order of magnitude less intense than the "major combat operations" phase.
I disagree again. Battles everyday, and American deaths everyday. The difference is not sufficient to claim that the battle that is going on now is not major. If it were not major, then the conclusion would not be so in doubt or of such tremendous importance.


There is a third possibility that has been pointed out to you and you are ignoring.
Nice try. Because I reject it, you claim that I am ignoring it.

I'm sorry, Prometheus, if you can't tell the difference between a confident prediction and a statement of fact, there is no way to resolve this. The difference is critical here.
How cute. You are sorry. We all believe you. If you can't tell the difference between hyping evidence to promote a war, and then later claiming that no statements about the future can be lies because the future is unknown, then I am not sorry to tell you that you are wrong in my opinion.

Bush told us that war was necessary. He told us why. His statements were not true. His justifications for the war were not true. Your claim that he cannot know the future is ridiculous. The administration claimed that they knew for a fact that there were WMDs and they knew exactly where they are. They could not have known this, because they were not there. Even if we assume that they did actually believe their statements, these were not statements about the future, they were statements about the then present.

I think that you are arguing over whether Bush intentionally and knowingly lied to you. You do not want to believe that. Fine, follow him to the death. More than 1,000 Americans have done so so far. His claims were not true. They were lies. Whether the lies were deliberate or not does not change the fact that they were lies.