Cindy Sheehan Resigns...

[Drake Tungsten]

There's a difference between lying and arguing in bad faith.

[Gibsie]

Yes, it's possible to do the latter and still remain honest. You're not going to be the first to say you genuinely believe Bush was merely following the intelligence and was being honest at all times whilst talking about the invasion of Iraq are you?

At least Tony Blair has come out and said his support for the war was a mistake, in hindsight. Bush will never stop repeating the mantra, but will you keep believing it Drake?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gibsie
but that people will jump on someone for daring to call Bush a liar, when they KNOW Bush was bull****ting us all.

I don't think Bush lied, Gibsie. The Iraq still had WMD meme spanned more than just the Bush admin. So it strains credulity to assume that admins from different parties were lieing about the samething.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're not going to be the first to say you genuinely believe Bush was merely following the intelligence and was being honest at all times whilst talking about the invasion of Iraq are you?

I think he was following the intelligence, but intelligence is contradictory and I don't doubt he was making great hay out of the intelligence that supported his desired course of action while downplaying the intelligence that didn't.

At least Tony Blair has come out and said his support for the war was a mistake, in hindsight. Bush will never stop repeating the mantra, but will you keep believing it Drake?

I wasn't a great supporter of the war to begin with and it's been pretty clear that it was a mistake for a couple years now. I really don't understand where people get the idea that I'm some diehard supporter of Bush or the Iraq war...

[Gibsie]

That's good enough for me; as a scientist, picking and choosing which results to accept and which to ignore because they don't fit in with your ideas is considered as bad as lying. So even if he was only saying things that are true, or based off bad info, he's every bit as bad as a liar.

Right, now that's sorted out we can return the thread to the much greater causeof coming up with new words to insult a perpetually-grieving mother. How about "fvckslut"? Perhaps she's a "Jizzrag"? Ooh it makes me feel like such a big man using such naughty terms! Maybe we could pretend to piss on her... oh wait someone's already genuinely suggested that

[Drake Tungsten]

That's good enough for me; as a scientist, picking and choosing which results to accept and which to ignore because they don't fit in with your ideas is considered as bad as lying. So even if he was only saying things that are true, or based off bad info, he's every bit as bad as a liar.

Bush isn't a scientist and politics don't operate on the scientific method. Treating them as if they do is absurd.

[SlowwHand]

Firing on American aircrft and gassing, hanging and shooting thousands after acceptance of a cease fire isn't in anyone's imagination.

Now, AFTER Hussein was removed, now then you might have an argument for withdrawl of troops, except for one thing.
Iraq can't agree on what that want from us. Of course, we could say screw what you want, Hussein is gone, so are we.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Now, AFTER Hussein was removed, now then you might have an argument for withdrawl of troops, except for one thing.
Iraq can't agree on what that want from us. Of course, we could say screw what you want, Hussein is gone, so are we.

We make a crystal ball analysis about what Iraqis want all the time.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bush isn't a scientist and politics don't operate on the scientific method. Treating them as if they do is absurd.

You're telling me that "intelligence" has no scientific aspect to it? It's the same principle that courts of laws use, in different words you tart! Just when I was thinking you're smarter than the typical Bush apologist, you come up with a way to dig yourself back down the hole.

Let me say it nice and clear for you so you can't whack your foot back into your mouth:

Picking and choosing what evidence you wish to show others and which to ignore, based on what you think will benefit your agenda the best, is every bit as dishonest as lying. Politicians do it all the time, I'm sure- that doesn't make it okay. Or maybe it does for you... I'm coming to the concluison that you need to have low ethical standards if you support Bush's words and actions.

Perhaps we could make another thread for this if you wish to argue that the above is honest, fair behaviour? Those in favour of the war were also guilty of plagiarism, nicking bits off a PhD student's thesis because it told them what they wanted others to hear. I guess plagiarism isn't a bad thing when Bush does it either, after all

[Drake Tungsten]

Picking and choosing what evidence you wish to show others and which to ignore, based on what you think will benefit your agenda the best, is every bit as dishonest as lying.

Many people wouldn't agree. Our current mode of political discourse is heavily dependent on the picking and choosing evidence that will benefit your agenda the best. You can bemoan it all you want (and I certainly don't like it), but you can't expect a politician to be able to act at odds with the system they operate in.

[dannubis]

Sure Bush didn't lie. He only listened to what he wanted to hear and then presented the facts that came out of this analysis as being the truth.

If you do this in a court you are charged with perjury, and rightly so.

[SlowwHand]

He listened better than some people here do.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Many people wouldn't agree. Our current mode of political discourse is heavily dependent on the picking and choosing evidence that will benefit your agenda the best. You can bemoan it all you want (and I certainly don't like it), but you can't expect a politician to be able to act at odds with the system they operate in.

Like I said, higher ethical standards.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by dannubis
Sure Bush didn't lie. He only listened to what he wanted to hear and then presented the facts that came out of this analysis as being the truth.

If you do this in a court you are charged with perjury, and rightly so.

They now charge jurors and judges with perjury?

[Gibsie]

Judges and Jurors are the ones who decide what they're presented and get to tell others what they want to see ahead of time?

Care to try again?