Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:
I think maybe the public (me anyway) feels that all the emotion is a waste because no one is trustworthy anymore. It's almost as though we have just accepted that this is just the way it is here now.

You can thank Bubba for that.

Leaving aside Clinton deceits for a moment whose ratings remained high in spite of his sexual legal troubles (I am beginning to think there are a lot of closet Clinton lovers) Dubya campaigned on honesty and integrity. He failed to deliver and unlike Clinton his ratings have reflected that fact. Wonder why that is? Could it be that most normal people see the difference between deceiving about sexual matters and deceiving about matters of life and death?

0 Replies

Set

Setanta wrote:

I disagree . . . i still believe that most people simply don't care . . . i wish it were different, but i don't believe it is different, and wishing and believing must always be separate . . .

I think there are two types of Bush supporters in the last election. Those who believed his PR campaign of fear because they believed he would keep them safe from terrorism. They were wrong and the polls are beginning to demonstrate that loss of confidence in Bush.

Then there are those who blindly support Bush as long as he is against abortion, gay marriage, evolution, separation of church and state---and, for many, the submission of the white race. They see these social issues as more important than killing thousands of people, including our own, in a war that was based on lies and deception, and which puts us in more danger of terrorism than before.

I can understand the first category. I despise those in the second.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Set

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

And to Tico, you show your pitiful true stripes when you try to equate Clinton's lies about getting a blow job with lies to start a deadly war, one that can't be justified. Shame on you!

BBB

No, shame on you, BBB, for not understanding what I said. But your vision is so clouded by your seething hatred of Bush because you are convinced that "Bush lied to the American people and to the world to get us into a war with Iraq ..." blah, blah. I understand this is your bent; I understand you and most other Bush-hating liberals are so overtaken with hatred for the man that you can't see straight.

But when revel states that "it's almost as though we have just accepted that this is just the way it is here now," the inescapable parallel is to Clinton's prevarications in the 90's when he made it fashionable for a President to lie. The message Clinton sent to the American people was, "it's okay to lie," and the liberal's further spin was to add "when its only about sex."

Bush hasn't lied, and no amount of liberal screeching about it here is going to change that. But there's no question that the American attitude towards lying was affected by Big Bubba's deeds during his tenure.

0 Replies

Tico
Tico, your excuses for Bush would be laughable if they were not so pathetic. This is demonstrated by your consistent tactic of citing Clinton's lies about getting a blow job every time Bush is attacked. It's called diverting the attention. It doesn't work. It only makes you look ridiculous.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Tico

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Tico, your excuses for Bush would be laughable if they were not so pathetic. This is demonstrated by your consistent tactic of citing Clinton's lies about getting a blow job every time Bush is attacked. It's called diverting the attention. It doesn't work. It only makes you look ridiculous.

BBB

Revel beats a familiar drum when she "attacks" Bush by accusing him of lying. It's a favorite theme for you Bush-haters. I have no desire to continually debunk it ... I've done the debate concerning the self-admitted lies told by Clinton, and the "lies" you Bush-haters desperately want to be able to prove Bush told, but can't. You can't prove Bush lied, so you resort to frequent references to Bush's "lies" in the hope that your fantasies will be believed.

So my effort here was not to debunk this fantasy of yours again. It was to point out that when Revel speaks about "It's almost as though we have just accepted that this is just the way it is here now," she should be reminded of the desensitization to lying that was brought about by your hero, the self-admitted liar, Bill Clinton. So now, when you Bush-haters bring your spurrious charges that Bush "lied," you deal with a public that shrugs, and thinks, "Isn't that what Presidents do?"

And yes, we have Clinton to thank for that.

0 Replies

Tico
How far back do you want to go to identify presidents who have lied to the American people to support your phony theory? Washington said he couldn't tell a lie, so I guess that means you would have to start with Jefferson.

Be my guest.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Tico

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

How far back do you want to go to identify presidents who have lied to the American people to support your phony theory? Washington said he couldn't tell a lie, so I guess that means you would have to start with Jefferson.

Be my guest.

BBB

No ... I'm quite comfortable pointing out that it was Clinton who swore an oath then lied, who looked straight at the American People and then proceeded to lie through his teeth. He only fessed up when it was going to be proven that he had intentionally lied.

Then, instead of you liberals chastizing that behavior, you looked it over and said, "Well, he was only lying about sex. It's okay to lie if it's only about sex." Talk about pathetic.

0 Replies

Tico, I think the American attitude towards lying, especially being lied to by politicians, was formed long before Bubba came around. We've been lied to by politicians since politicians started running this country. Most of us (and I never voted for or liked Clinton) just didn't care what the answer to that question was in the first place and so didn't care that he lied. We didn't feel like he was lying to us, no matter how hard the righties tried to tell us that he did. And many conservatives agree with me on this, so it's not a partisan observation. However, being lied to, or at the very least misled, or having our emotions played to so that we give the appearance of support for a war that is shakily justified, just enough support to put pressure on Congress in order to obtain war powers, that's a whole other level of betrayal.

0 Replies

Tico
You should be a fiction novel writer, you are so good at making up things.

Where did you ever read at any time that I said it was OK for Clinton to lie about getting a blow job?

For a very smart man, I thought he was really stupid and his behavior was juvenile and hurtful to his family.

And another thing, where ever did you get the idea that I was a liberal or pro Democrat? Wrong again! The only time I voted for a Democrat for president was when Bush was a candidate. I feared for my country in the hands of one of the most corrupt presidents in our history. Turns out my fears were justified.

BBB

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:
I think maybe the public (me anyway) feels that all the emotion is a waste because no one is trustworthy anymore. It's almost as though we have just accepted that this is just the way it is here now.

You can thank Bubba for that.

Or Tricky Dick... Twisted Evil

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

... We didn't feel like he was lying to us, no matter how hard the righties tried to tell us that he did.

You didn't feel he was lying to you whan he said this:

Quote:

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

That was Clinton on TV on January 26, 1998. Here's the VIDEO, in case you've forgotten.

How could you think he wasn't lying to you?

FD wrote:

However, being lied to, or at the very least misled, or having our emotions played to so that we give the appearance of support for a war that is shakily justified, just enough support to put pressure on Congress in order to obtain war powers, that's a whole other level of betrayal.

Not a lie. If you are going to accuse Bush of lying, you need to accuse many, many Democrats and foreign intelligence services of doing the same thing.

0 Replies

Re: Tico

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Where did you ever read at any time that I said it was OK for Clinton to lie about getting a blow job?

For a very smart man, I thought he was really stupid and his behavior was juvenile and hurtful to his family.

That was the collective use of "you liberals." If I intended to say "you, BBB" I would have done so.

Quote:

And another thing, where ever did you get the idea that I was a liberal or pro Democrat? Wrong again! The only time I voted for a Democrat for president was when Bush was a candidate. I feared for my country in the hands of one of the most corrupt presidents in our history. Turns out my fears were justified.

I can understand your not wanting to be called one, but the fact remains that you are a liberal. Whether you became a liberal a year ago or more, matters not to me. You are now, your protestations notwithstanding.

But prove me wrong. I'm willing to believe you. Point me to any of the many pro-conservative postings you've made.

0 Replies

The Plame leak was a surface feature - a symptom of something much more generalized and negative. Just as Watergate was a surface feature.

This entire discussion, at the level preferred by Tico, is just plain stupid. Who lied first, to whom, about what. Childish.

While Setanta discussed how the American people don't care about this issue, and revel speaks about how we may have come to expect so little from our leaders, the real problem, I fear, is much more ominous.

The real problem is many of us. The American people. Who don't give a damn about very much at all.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
... We didn't feel like he was lying to us, no matter how hard the righties tried to tell us that he did.

You didn't feel he was lying to you whan he said this:

Quote:
Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

That was Clinton on TV on January 26, 1998. Here's the VIDEO, in case you've forgotten.

How could you think he wasn't lying to you?

Because I didn't want to know and didn't care -- and because I didn't have a television and never saw that video. But when it comes to war, I do want to know and I do care what's the truth and what isn't because it directly affects my country, my family, my neighbors and a whole bunch of other human beings across the globe whose lives are about to end. Misleading the public to get support for mass killing is unforgivable, IMO.

Tico wrote:

FD wrote:
However, being lied to, or at the very least misled, or having our emotions played to so that we give the appearance of support for a war that is shakily justified, just enough support to put pressure on Congress in order to obtain war powers, that's a whole other level of betrayal.

Not a lie. If you are going to accuse Bush of lying, you need to accuse many, many Democrats and foreign intelligence services of doing the same thing.

No, I don't. There were a lot of people who wanted war with Iraq, but the president led the way. A lot of people had little bits of evidence that may or may not have meant anything, but the president put them all together and drew the conclusion for us and set about convincing us.

You like to focus on the word 'lie' the way Clinton focused on the word 'is' because it is the only part you have any hope of refuting, by technicality. But I also said "misled" and "having our emotions played to". Those are valid means of deception. We can call it 'being manipulated' if you like, the effect is the same.

0 Replies

FreeDuck, Good post; articulated simply and succinctly.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

No, I don't. There were a lot of people who wanted war with Iraq, but the president led the way. A lot of people had little bits of evidence that may or may not have meant anything, but the president put them all together and drew the conclusion for us and set about convincing us.

You like to focus on the word 'lie' the way Clinton focused on the word 'is' because it is the only part you have any hope of refuting, by technicality. But I also said "misled" and "having our emotions played to". Those are valid means of deception. We can call it 'being manipulated' if you like, the effect is the same.

That's because Bush didn't lie, and Clinton did. I don't believe Bush intentionally mislead the American People. I think that is a fundamental difference between what Bush did, and what Clinton did.

I can't speak to the issue of whether you feel you had "your emotions played." I'm sure you do.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

That's because Bush didn't lie, and Clinton did.

This remains to be seen and I'm pretty confident that you will live to eat these words.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
That's because Bush didn't lie, and Clinton did.

This remains to be seen and I'm pretty confident that you will live to eat these words.

I'm pretty confident I won't.

0 Replies

Political dirty tricks go back at least as far as the Conway cabal in the Continental Congress before the revolution was even won. When Washington convinced Jefferson to join his cabinet, Jefferson came in all smiles and happy to help out, and did his damnedest behind the scenes to undermine Hamilton, Adams and Randolph. It has gone on ever since. Free Duck's very cogent point remains, despite Tico's attempt to pollute the discussion with references to Slick Willy and the obsessional, frantic effort of the far right to get him for something, anything. Bush wanted to invade Iraq before the vote was in in 2000. He awaited his opportunity, and when it looked like one was available, he and his handlers tried every pressure tactic and deployed every half-truth and lie they could cobble together to get his dirty little war. I'm not going to get in a pissing match with Tico about who was worse, nor about a silly allegation that the Shrub acted in good faith.

The sad fact remains, however, that voter turn-outs, and reactions to Fitzgerald's investigation strongly suggest that most Americans don't care. I hope that will change in the near future, but i don't look for that to happen. Which takes us back to my original exchange with Aunt Bee--i don't believe that firing Fitzgerald, nor launching a smear campaign against him, would result in an event like the Saturday Night Massacre.

0 Replies

The primary difference between Watergate and the Plame Game is that Watergate was a real issue.

Oh, and re Bubba's impeachment - the issue, despite the Democrat's spin is not and never was what he lied about, the issue is that he lied under oath, and did so while Cheif Executive of The United States. Whether the background of the felony was illicit sex or jaywalking is immaterial. That The Democrats fail to recognize this is illustrative, and is but one reason for the situation in which today they find themselves; they've engineered, and perpetuate, their own disadvantage.

0 Replies

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know