What best describes Bill Clinton

What best describes your perception of Clinton

  • Brilliant, a great leader, a bit of a scoundrel

    Votes: 21 67.7%
  • Brilliant, a lying sneak

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • A pompous sneak who faked and cheated his way though the system

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • An inconsequential pawn for the real power

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Was likely involved in the murder of Vince Foster

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
  • #76
343
0
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #77
Gza
437
0
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.
 
  • #78
343
0
Gza said:
Assuming Bush to be literate,
I think that your problem is that you make unfounded assumptions of this type.
 
  • #79
Gza
437
0
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:
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
343
0
russ_watters said:
Define "major combat operations" and substantiate why your definition is preferable to Bush's.
amp said:
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.
 
  • #82
russ_watters
Mentor
19,710
6,050
Ivan Seeking said:
He didn't move entire facilities. How did he hide those?
I'd really like to know the answer to that question as well.
 
  • #83
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
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.
 
  • #84
russ_watters
Mentor
19,710
6,050
Prometheus said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #85
russ_watters
Mentor
19,710
6,050
Gza said:
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.
 
  • #86
343
0
russ_watters said:
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.
 

Related Threads on What best describes Bill Clinton

  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
9K
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Top