If Kerry lied, would it matter?

mporter wrote:

If anyone but Kerry were running against Bush in the light of the not yet revived economy, the 9-11 investigations, and the bad month in Iraq, he would be twenty points ahead of Bush. He is not. He is behind Bush by a few points in every major poll. That is a guess pretending to be a truth claim, and there's rather a lot of reasons to considerate it a bad guess (we'll note that the RNC and Rove were hoping to have Dean as the competition...and that there's little reason to suspect Gephart's freckles would be getting more support...perhaps you are thinking of Carol Mosely Braun or Sharpton?) And, no, not EVERY poll has that result, that a falsehood.
Timberlandko is absolutely correct that there have been no proven lies that have come from President Bush. Timber is absolutely credulous in his faith and absolutely dodging anything like a realistic appraisal of both what has come out of Bush's mouth and any sort of grown-up notion of the responsibility a president bears for those in his circle, and of course, Bush has lied (drunk driving) The hypocracy of some on the far left can be observed when their reactions concerning President Clinton's testimony came to light during his impeachment. President Clinton indicated that there was no sexual activity that took place between him and Ms. Lewinsky in his deposition in the Paula Jones hearing. Technically, he was correct since the clumsy lawyers did not properly define sexual activity before they question President Clinton in that hearing. Yet, the far left continued to scream--"No one has proven perjury" Did they? I didn't. But it is a silly strawman argument anyway...as most Americans understood (by poll after poll) and as the entire remainder of the world outside of Lubbock understood. The moral question - for anyone with any degree of discernment or adult sense of moral questions - appreciates...it is what one lies about, and why, and in what context, and in light of consequences which is important. Simple, easy moral point.
It is quite clear that the claim that President Clinton lied in that case is far far more compelling than any allegation that President Bush lied with regard to WMD's. This is simply a silly comparison.

As any good Law Dictionary will tell you--a lie is an intentional statement of an untruth designed to mislead another. I await proof of intentionality and knowledge of untruth on the part of President Bush.

It is not enough to claim that he "lied". Proof that he lied must be given.

Has there ever been a clearer case of 'can't see the woods for the trees'?

0 Replies

Foxfire
Im a retiree. Used to be middle class when I worked. Saved some money to suplement my income for when I retired to go with my social security and such. Tell me again how well Im doing because when I check my cash inflow it no longer seems to match my outgo. Acording to my government the cost of living is only going up at about 2% a year. MY doctors just increased his charges about 30% this year. So did the hospital I go to. The grocer has raised his prices 10 to 20% this year because his prices have been raised. Just got a new water heater and the price went up on it $100 in the last 30 days. Drugs that I take go up about $5 each every time I renew them for the month. You can claim all you want that the economy is gitting better, and use government stats but here on the front lines of life I can tell you this is a bunch of politicle garbage. For someone like you who dosent know what politicle garbage is it is lies.

0 Replies

They WILL NEVER see it, bern.

Shoving the feces in their faces is a complete waste of time.

And let's stop kidding ourselves about who was sworn and what the lie was about. Let's just heretofore acknowledge that both men are liars.

Because they are, after all, and it is denial of the deepest psychological disorder to continue to insist that they didn't.

Now then: who died for Clinton's lie?

(See why they cannot ever acknowledge the prevarication of their boy?)

0 Replies

rabel

You might point these guys to Krugman, but I guess they aren't very likely to grant his economic expertise credibility because he doesn't much like this administration, so he can't be correct being a Bush non-liker. Better data, for them, is available from folks who have no economic training, but who think Bush's strut means 'resolve'.

0 Replies

Rabel, my husband and I also are median middle class and 'retired' awhile back. We didn't like the reduction in our lifestyle so we went back to work. We also are affected by ever escalating medical costs and inflation that has occurred throughout my entire lifetime.

The difference is, we don't blame George Bush for the problem but put the blame where it rightfully belongs.

0 Replies

No, kickycan ... in error, perhaps, though even that is as yet undetermined, but statements predicated on the intelligence assessments available at the time. As to " ... aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Queda", every word of that, as has been thoroughly documented and widely reported, is true. In aid of terrorists, for example, Saddam's regime paid hefty sums to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, and of course, there is Abu Nidal. The training facility at Salman Pak was devoted to terrorist skills. There is no disputing that Abu al Zarqawi and his Ansar al Islam found refuge in Iraq following the destruction of Afghanistan's Taliban and are al Queda affilliates.

What is true is that there are folks who refuse to see the truth, and who project their preconceptions and assumptions onto it. The available evidence does not support the challenges posed by The Left.

0 Replies

What Timber said Kicky....sorry, I missed your post. Didn't mean to ignore you. Smile

0 Replies

timber

Are you planning to pick up Clarke's book? It's really quite extraordinary. I've come away with a large helping of respect for many of the folks in this story, eg Armitage.

0 Replies

I've read Clarke's book, blatham ... and O'Niels, and I'm wading through Woodward's latest at the moment. We all have opinions.

0 Replies

I wonder if Blatham plans to read Woodward's book? I have it on order; should be here any day now.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

What is true is that there are folks who refuse to see the truth, and who project their preconceptions and assumptions onto it. The available evidence does not support the challenges posed by The Left.

Timberlandko,
You conveniently left out the fact that Ansar al Islam was in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurds, our allies, not in any way affiliated with Sadam.

0 Replies

I have an opinion on the weather, too. Today started out here bright and sunny, if cool. Now it is snowing lightly.

0 Replies

mesquite, I left nothing out. You may choose to assume as you wish. The evidence, and logic, brings me to conclude differently.

0 Replies

coastalrat

like i said, if you are not doing well economically in your own household you will know it the same is true in reverse. Nearly everyone that I know is either middle class or lower and to a one they are worse off now than they were when Clinton was in office. I know that States are worse off now and things like college tuition and grocery bills and health care not to mention the ever sky rocketing gas prices are all high and most everyone I know wages have not increased enough if at all to keep up with those rising prices. Those are facts in every day living that normal people can judge for themselves and no amount of rosey pie in the sky is going to fool them. But then on the other hand if things are not as bad as that and it is just bad luck for our family and everyone that i have ever talked to lately then they will know that too and you won 't have to worry about me telling lies as facts. Like I said, people's pocketbooks is one thing that can't be spinned.

0 Replies

Timberlandko,

Your evidence is lacking. First of all, that article about Abu Al Zarqawi doesn't say that he is an Al-Qaeda operative. It says that "The original bounty on Mr Zarqawi's head - $5m - was doubled after American authorities intercepted a letter which, they claim, confirms he is working with al-Qaeda to drive the US out of Iraq." So they claim he's working with Al-Qaeda now, but what about when Bush made the statement I quoted? There is nothing in this article, written this month, that shows proof of ties to Al-Qaeda then.

Also, everything in this article after that says that the U.S. claims he was in league with Al-Qaeda. Your own article refutes that.

"In the run-up to the Iraq war in February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Mr Zarqawi was an associate of Osama Bin Laden's who had sought refuge in Iraq.

Intelligence reports indicated he was in Baghdad and - according to Mr Powell - this was a sure sign that Saddam Hussein was courting al-Qaeda, which, in turn, justified an attack on Iraq.

But some analysts contested the claim, pointing to Mr Zarqawi's historical rivalry with Bin Laden."

How does that prove he was in league with Al-Qaeda, let alone an Al-Qaeda operative, which is the exact term that Bush used, at the time Bush made his statements?

Of course, it's possible that it's all true, but what I'm saying is that they had no proof of it at the time, and he used the phrase "intelligence leaves no doubt", which is a lie. You don't see that?

0 Replies

It is not a lie if the proponderance of the evidence shows a thing to be true and therefore it can be believed. In political rhetoric, qualifying every statement isn't reasonable. No president in my lifetime would say - 99 experts agree to this, 1 does not. All would say, according to the evidence, it is indisputable....or according to the evidence, there is no doubt.....

A lie is intent to mislead or deceive.

I have to wonder though why it is that the anti-Bush people keep focusing on Bush and refuse to deal with the 'prevarications' of John Kerry?

0 Replies

"The evidence leads us to believe" is what he should have said - but it wouldn't have been nearly as persuasive.

0 Replies

No, kicky, I don't see as you wish me to. Thousands of articles relating to al Zarqawi exist, and while I've not read them all, I've read scores if not hundreds, and on that evidence I base my conclusion.

0 Replies

revel writes:

Quote:

Nearly everyone that I know is either middle class or lower and to a one they are worse off now than they were when Clinton was in office.

Unless you can say with a straight face that things would have been better under Clinton if 9/11 and the resulting financial tailspin and artificially induced recession had happened on his watch, it is illogical and unfair to blame personal financial problems on George Bush. The Bush policies will be shown to have addressed the problem and the economy is now growing at an astounding rate and all the good things associated with that are happening. Also some of the 'bad' things associated with a booming economy are also happening or will no doubt soon be happening such as moderate inflation and moderately rising interest rates.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have to wonder though why it is that the anti-Bush people keep focusing on Bush and refuse to deal with the 'prevarications' of John Kerry?

I don't wonder at all. I've come to expect nothing else.

0 Replies

If Kerry lied, would it matter?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know