Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[Ben Kenobi]

Man, sheesh, you are a piece of work!

The citizentry is not the "subordinates" of the president, and neither is Congress.

Did I say either were?

And once you've been shown to have been lying, you can never get the trust back again.

Exactly. So show me how Bush lied. The evidence is inconclusive.

[chequita guevara]

rah, if someone lied repeatedly to you about other things, then misled you about something else but said he was trying to tell you in good faith, would you believe him? Bush has been prooven to be a liar about many things. Why should we believe him when he says he was mislead?

As for what he lied about: tax cuts, faith based initiatives, the supposed damage to the White House by the Clinton staff, Harken energy, no child left behind, the state of the military under Clinton, the anti-terrorism policy given to them by Clinton, missile defense, ANWAR, the cost of Iraq, his record as Tex gov, his military record, etc. After all these lies (only some of which were campaign lies--which shouldn't let him off the hook), at what point should I stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Furthermore, if he mislead the nation in good faith, why has he not sacked those that gave him the false info?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
rah, if someone lied repeatedly to you about other things, then misled you about something else but said he was trying to tell you in good faith, would you believe him? Bush has been prooven to be a liar about many things. Why should we believe him when he says he was mislead?

As for what he lied about: tax cuts, faith based initiatives, the supposed damage to the White House by the Clinton staff, Harken energy, no child left behind, the state of the military under Clinton, the anti-terrorism policy given to them by Clinton, missile defense, ANWAR, the cost of Iraq, his record as Tex gov, his military record, etc. After all these lies (only some of which were campaign lies--which shouldn't let him off the hook), at what point should I stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Furthermore, if he mislead the nation in good faith, why has he not sacked those that gave him the false info?

My sentiments exactly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Che:

tax cuts, faith based initiatives, the supposed damage to the White House by the Clinton staff, Harken energy, no child left behind, the state of the military under Clinton, the anti-terrorism policy given to them by Clinton, missile defense, ANWAR, the cost of Iraq, his record as Tex gov, his military record,

Just one will suffice. Pick the one you feel has the best evidence.

[rah]

Then It's your opinion he lied about it. See, wasn't that simple. I don't care what is proven prior, you don't have proof this is a lie, It's your opinion. You're probably right, but it's still JUST AN OPINION>

I just find it funny that GEPEP bases everything he says on his fact that BUSH LIED, when it's just his opinion.

I see the same trait in bigots.

[MrFun]

Rah, surely you're not naive enough to not realize that politicians will put any kind of imagineable spin on whatever issues they make decisions on??

[rah]

NO, He probably did lie. or spin. BUT I DON"T KNOW FOR SURE AND EITHER DO THEY. OPINION IS NOT FACT, that's the only point i'm trying to make.

[chequita guevara]

Okay, that's a valid point.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
NO, He probably did lie. or spin. BUT I DON"T KNOW FOR SURE AND EITHER DO THEY. OPINION IS NOT FACT, that's the only point i'm trying to make.

Well, I don't think any of us can argue with your point that opinion is not a fact -- of course it's not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Then It's your opinion he lied about it. See, wasn't that simple. I don't care what is proven prior, you don't have proof this is a lie, It's your opinion. You're probably right, but it's still JUST AN OPINION>

I just find it funny that GEPEP bases everything he says on his fact that BUSH LIED, when it's just his opinion.

I see the same trait in bigots.

Hey, I have PEP! now, yeah!

As I told Ned, go look at oedo's post in the otherr Kay thread, and read what the administration said, which was : we KNOW saddam has WMD's, which is a lie (they could not have known, 1, and 2, the evidence shows this to have been false). then look at MtG statement: the president is responsible for his subordinates.

So, to repeat: the admin. stated it KNEW saddam had WMD's. This was false. But those statemenst were part of a deliberate campaign to make the American people think there was a dramatic threat from Iraq as of Maxrh 2003 than had to be taken out.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Che:

Just one will suffice. Pick the one you feel has the best evidence.

How about this. Go pick up Paul Krugman's book The Great Unraveling. Mr. Krugman definately has an axe to grind, but he is a tranied economist and easy to read and understand. He details the Prez's lies (both before and after his selection) about the details of his tax cut schemes. You might want to check out Molly Ivans if you want more info on Bush's record in Texas, and what he said about it during his campaign. In some cases, the Texas legislature passed laws over Bush's veto, and he later took credit for the laws. Ivans also has an extremely anti-Bush bent, but let's face it. There are no neutral books on Bush. Either you fawn over him or you froth at the mouth at the thought of him.

edit: added more hyperbole.

[rah]

If the president believed someone that told him that they were sure they had wmd and the President used it in a speech, he is just wrong and did not lie. The outcome might be the same and it's tragic, but you have no PROOF that he LIED. And you haven't presented any absolute proof, just some possible evidence.

AGAIN, it's just your opinion he lied. THAT"S THE ONLY POINT I"M TRYING TO MAKE. At least the more reasonable posters are willing to admit that. And as expected, you're not. AND again, it is my opinion that something sounds fishy also.

[rah]

Molly Ives, What a hoot. I read her stuff for the humor. Needless to say, we don't share many opinions.
If she didn't have such an anti-bush bias, more people would take her seriously. Her hatred for bush is so obvious, she loses credibility with anybody that doesn't share her hatred. Which is a shame because sometimes she has some real good things to say. And if she was a little bit more subtle with her hatred, she could probably get more people to agree with her and dislike bush also. Her hatred makes her ineffective at accomplishing what would make her most happy. People that already hate bush don't need her column to continue to believe that way.

I think GEPAP is the same. He has some good things to say every now and then but his hatred is so obvious and powerful that he comes off worse then bigots. He will never convince anybody. I'm usually willing to listen and have been known to change my mind occasionaly. Che or MrFun have the ability and the skill to do that. GEPAP does not. If anything, his hatred makes me want to stick to my guns because to agree with him is to share the hatred.

You never win any arguements by calling your oponent an idiot. It's best that they don't figure it out for a few days.

[Arrian]

edit: added more hyperbole.

Awesome "edit" line, Che.

As for the rest, I have little doubt that Bush and those in the administration who were pro-war spun information to support their pro-war bias. There were plenty of powerful people who wanted to nail Saddam before 9/11, and saw the opportunity to do what they thought needed doing.

So, to this I say "duh."

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
AGAIN, it's just your opinion he lied. THAT"S THE ONLY POINT I"M TRYING TO MAKE. At least the more reasonable posters are willing to admit that. And as expected, you're not. AND again, it is my opinion that something sounds fishy also.

BUt its based ona false premise: that becuase people in the admin. were using intelliegence being given to them, if they said something based on it, they could not have lied (you are implying no deliberate falsehood was perpetrated). BUT the fact is that members of the admin. knew that the intelliegence they were getting was not unanimous, that disagreements existed, and that fundamentally they could never say they KNEW as FACT iraq had WMD's, because given their position, they had no real PROOF.

So when they said "we know" or "we have proof", they were deliberately stating things they knew not to be possible. That is a lie.