okie wrote:You need to listen to Hannity instead of reading the opposition's cookie cutter manufactured spin. I heard Dean and I heard Hannity and I formed my own opinion. I agree with Hannity. If you simply read the leftist spin on the internet about Hannity, that does indeed explain your confusion.
I do not always agree with Hannity, but I don't believe he is a liar, no way.
You guys do indeed have weird ideas of lies. You can make a lie into a non-lie and a non-lie into a lie to suit your pathetic brand of politics. Need I remind you of your buddy, Bill Clinton, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
And the grandest claim of all, Parados claimed Clinton did not have an opportunity to get OBL when he said he turned down the Sudanese "because he had no reason to hold him." or similar words. I would have to look it up, but I will never forget that debate with Mr. Parados. That was also alleged to be a lie by Hannity, and no way, as Hannity told the 100% truth again on that one.
I see you are back to parsing words rather than using their actual meaning okie. That's nice. Disingenuous but nice. Maybe you can try to add 2+2 for us and come up with 5 while claiming it is really 4.
Advocate wrote:You know when you catch a conservative in a lie -- they try to drag Clinton into the discussion. See Okie doing this above.
Hannity didn't divulge, and altered the information, that Dean told him that a president wouldn't be involved in such a scheme. This is similar to Bush's statement on yellowcake, when he knew that Iraq was not buying it.
Again, you twist what was said in all cases mentioned. I've already explained it to you. And Clinton is mentioned because your side defended the lout for the entire 8 years, a man known to be a pathological liar.
okie: "....a man known to be a pathological liar."
Definition: Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.
Some characteristics:
1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.
3. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs).
4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment.
5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior.
6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).
Here are some ways to tell someone is a pathological liar contributed by another FAQ Farmer:
They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying "I brushed my teeth today," when they didn't.
They add exaggerations to every sentence.
They change their story all the time.
They act very defensively when you question their statements.
They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't.
Okay, okie, show us evidence that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar? Personally, I find this definition to fit you much better.
Geez, I thought you were reading the diagnosis from your shrink C.I.
Advocate wrote:Wed, Aug 15, 2007 7:38pm ET
Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized Obama remarks, accused him of "political missteps"
Summary: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized Barack Obama's recent statements about the war in Afghanistan, the use of force against terrorists in Pakistan, and the use of nuclear weapons.
On the August 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized remarks by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), first during an interview with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and later during an interview with Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, author of the new book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007).
While interviewing Romney, Hannity played a video clip of Obama's August 13 campaign appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, during which Obama said, "We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." During the interview with Mendell, Hannity referred to Obama's purported "political missteps" and characterized Obama as "accusing" U.S. forces of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians." However, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. The Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama that "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents."
Hannity claimed that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan. However, as Media Matters for America repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
Hannity also claimed that Obama has said "he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country" and later claimed that Obama said he would use nuclear weapons "under no conditions." However, Obama actually said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically.
********
--Mediamatters.com
About the only error or slight inaccuracy if you can call it that, is to use the word "invade" instead of "bomb" Pakistan. You must keep in mind however that bombing inside a country can sometimes be tatamount to invading it.
In terms of air raiding villages and killing civilians, Obama makes it sound like that is our intent, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Lets face it, Obama has alot to learn before he has any credibility in terms of foreign policy. He wants to be nice to terrorists and talk to them on one hand, and then suggests bombing Pakistan, apparently unilaterally. Even Hillary recognizes how ridiculous some of his ideas are. Hannity has some very credible points. I have listened to them, and based on what I've heard Obama say, I think it is a fair assessment of a very confused man in terms of what he wants to do.
okie wrote:
About the only error or slight inaccuracy if you can call it that, is to use the word "invade" instead of "bomb" Pakistan. You must keep in mind however that bombing inside a country can sometimes be tatamount to invading it.
In terms of air raiding villages and killing civilians, Obama makes it sound like that is our intent, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Lets face it, Obama has alot to learn before he has any credibility in terms of foreign policy. He wants to be nice to terrorists and talk to them on one hand, and then suggests bombing Pakistan, apparently unilaterally. Even Hillary recognizes how ridiculous some of his ideas are. Hannity has some very credible points. I have listened to them, and based on what I've heard Obama say, I think it is a fair assessment of a very confused man in terms of what he wants to do.
Oh, so Hannity parses words to have meanings they don't normally have..
like using "Wilson claimed" when Wilson never said it. Like using "invade" when the person said "bomb". I see a pattern here okie. And then we see you attempting to defend the parsing.. "You must keep in mind however that bombing inside a country can sometimes be tatamount to invading it." Please provide one instance where bombing a country was the same as invading it. Be specific. Show us how bombing puts troops on the ground.
When asked for any evidence to support your statements or Hannity's, you continue to avoid providing it while bringing up red herrings and accusing others of what you are doing.
I don't believe you when you say "I see" anything. How could you?
McGentrix wrote:I don't believe you when you say "I see" anything. How could you?
So rather than explain how someone can "claim" something while never saying it you want to make snide comments.
Crawl back in your hole McG.
parados, McG and tico are flamers who do not contribute anything to any discussion. They are spammers who have no ideas of their own, but post flaming remarks without addressing anything. Ignore them!
cicerone imposter wrote:We've been over this rotting road before. Try to buy and bought are two different activities. DUH! If one doesn't buy something, they don't go home with it. Some people can't see the simplest of logic. If I go to a store and "don't" buy a gun, I simply don't own a gun. Shopping is not buying. I'm not considered a "animal killer" with a gun.
Just to set the record straight.
George Bush did NOT say in his SOU speech that Iraq had bought yellowcake.
What he said was...
Quote:The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Emphasis mine.
So,nobody claimed that Iraq bought yellowcake, and to this day nobody has, only that they sought it.
BTW,I took that right from factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:We've been over this rotting road before. Try to buy and bought are two different activities. DUH! If one doesn't buy something, they don't go home with it. Some people can't see the simplest of logic. If I go to a store and "don't" buy a gun, I simply don't own a gun. Shopping is not buying. I'm not considered a "animal killer" with a gun.
Just to set the record straight.
George Bush did NOT say in his SOU speech that Iraq had bought yellowcake.
What he said was...
Quote:The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa
Emphasis mine.
So,nobody claimed that Iraq bought yellowcake, and to this day nobody has, only that they sought it.
BTW,I took that right from factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
In a week you will have to set the record straight again, and again, and again, and again...
Liberals have certain idea's in their heads that have become like gospel to them. You can show them they are wrong and it goes in one ear and out the other.
This is a good example. Another is the 2000 election. Despite the fact that the NYT and a group of independent liberal news sources performed a recount and confirmed Bush won Florida, Bush will forever have lost the election in their small minds. In a week, what is written today will be forgotten and C.I. will again be saying the same thing about Wilson and Bush.
The lie in Bush's statement arises because, at the time of speech, Bush knew from Wilson, a U.S. general, and the Niger ambassador, that Iraq was not seeking yellowcake in that time period. The White House even admits now that the statement should not have been made. In its totality, it was a lie.
Okie, you need to find a new hero. Here is a discussion of more, and serious, lies by Hannity.
Thu, Aug 16, 2007 8:10pm ET
After suggesting Vince Foster was murdered, Hannity praised caller who accused Clinton of multiple rapes
Summary: While discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's newest campaign ad, Sean Hannity agreed with a caller who argued that "Monica Lewinsky and all those other women that Bill Clinton raped were invisible to her." Hannity replied, "I wish I'd thought of that."
During the August 15 edition of his ABC Radio Networks talk show, Sean Hannity agreed with a caller who argued that "Monica Lewinsky and all those other women that Bill Clinton raped were invisible to" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). The caller was referring to Sen. Clinton's recent campaign advertisement, in which she stated that families without healthcare "are invisible to this president." The caller added: "So, how can we expect her to see, you know, hundreds and thousands of Americans?" In response, Hannity said, "I wish I'd thought of that," and went on to ask, "[W]hat about all those women that accused her husband of being a serial abuser? Oh, she didn't pay any attention. Were they invisible?"
Beyond saying that he wished he had thought of the caller's smear against Clinton, in the past month, as Media Matters for America documented, Hannity has also suggested that, "n the minds of some," there may have been "a motive for foul play" behind the death of former deputy White House counsel Vince Foster. Indeed, while teasing the segment on the July 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, Hannity asked: "Did a close friend of Hillary Clinton commit suicide, or was it a massive cover-up?" But, although several conservative outlets have suggested that the Clintons were somehow involved in Foster's death -- as Media Matters has documented (here, here, and here) -- numerous investigations determined that his death was a suicide. The Office of the Independent Counsel -- then headed by Kenneth Starr -- completed its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Foster's death with a report issued on October 11, 1997, which concluded that "based on investigation and analysis of the evidentiary record, that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park."
From the August 15 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: All right, Sean Hannity Show: I'm going to tell you about this in the next hour. Feminist Fonda -- Jane Fonda -- Gloria Steinem stiffing employees at their women's radio network, just like "Airhead America." Let's go to [caller] in Texas. Hey [caller], how are you?
CALLER: Hey, how you doing, sir?
HANNITY: Got 30 seconds, my friend, but they're all yours. Go.
CALLER: OK sir, yeah, I just had a quick comment to make about that invisibility ad about Hillary Clinton.
HANNITY: Yeah.
CALLER: She said something about -- I just wanted to make a comment about how, you know, Monica Lewinsky and all those other women that Bill Clinton raped were invisible to her. So, how can we expect her to see, you know, hundreds and thousands of Americans?
HANNITY: You know, what a -- I wish I'd thought of that. Hang on a sec. Maybe it's 'cause I didn't go to bed till 6 o'clock. All right, you get credit. You know what? Yeah, what about all those women that accused her husband of being a serial abuser? Oh, she didn't pay any attention. Were they invisible?
From the July 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: And coming up: Did a close friend of Hillary Clinton commit suicide, or was it a massive cover-up? It's the mysterious death of Vince Foster in this week's "Clinton Chapter."
[...]
HANNITY: And welcome back to Hannity's America. Of all the "Clinton Chapters" we've covered so far, well, this week, we delve into one of the darkest and most mysterious.
[begin video clip]
HANNITY: Chapter eight: the mysterious death of Vince Foster, part 1. Foster served as deputy White House counsel during the first Clinton administration for six months before his death. But before heading to the nation's capital, he spent most of his life in Hope, Arkansas, where he and childhood friend and future president Bill Clinton were neighbors.
Now, he worked at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and became close with Hillary Clinton, who called him "Vincenzo," and when the Clintons went to Washington after the 1992 election, Foster went with them.
But Foster's term in the White House was an introduction to hard-knock Beltway politics. He was largely responsible for handling the Travelgate scandal and was responsible for dealing with all the first family's paperwork related to Whitewater.
Those first months of 1993 were tough on Foster. He was targeted by a series of Wall Street Journal editorials and battled with clinical depression. All of that changed on July 20, 1993. That was the day that Vince Foster got in his car and drove to Fort Marcy Park in Virginia, and he supposedly walked through the woods -- and depending on which version of the story that you believe -- he took his own life.
[...]
HANNITY: Now, these are just some of the mysteries surrounding the death of Vince Foster. Did he have in his possession papers that could have impacted the Whitewater investigation? How was the suicide note missed?
In the minds of some, these questions may have provided a motive for foul play. But the most heated debate over Foster's death wasn't political, it had to do with old-fashioned police work -- and that's where we'll pick up next week when we open up another chapter in the Clintons.
--mediamatters.org
Advocate wrote:The lie in Bush's statement arises because, at the time of speech, Bush knew from Wilson, a U.S. general, and the Niger ambassador, that Iraq was not seeking yellowcake in that time period. The White House even admits now that the statement should not have been made. In its totality, it was a lie.
But was it a lie on Bush's part?
After all,the CIA read the speech beforehand and said nothing.
Quote:A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
But what he said - that Iraq sought uranium - is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
Those quotes come from factcheck.org, at the link I posted earlier.
So,unless you are going to say that factcheck.org is a repub party website,I will take their word for it over yours.
Read the link I posted and you will see that factcheck even says that Bush was wrong.
However,since at the time he had no reason to doubt what he was being told,he cant be faulted for relying on that info.
Its like you, having no reason to distrust what you are told, were to tell other people that the sky was purple with green polka-dots, because thats what ci was telling you.
Are you lying when you repeat what you are told,or are you simply repeating what someone else told you?
I am not defending what Bush said,nor am I agreeing with what he said.
I am challenging your calling him a liar,when he trusted his intelligence and when the British intelligence also was telling him the same thing.
That the intelligence community "assumed" that Saddam was in Niger in 1999 to purchase uranium (yellow cake) is the central issue. Shopping is not buying. How many times do I need to repeat that?
Otherwise, according to Factcheck, it is evident that Bush really didn't know the truth when he spoke those 16 words. All we had were Wilson's accusations - that most of us believed, since he was "there."
We really can't fault Bush for trusting the (often incompetent) intelligence agencies of our country. They've screwed up enough times to question their competence.
Bush gets a pass on this one - as far as I'm concerned. It's my fault for my bias in believing the media info on this issue.
CI, I, and I think most respectable sources, would disagree with you. Bush had very strong info that, after the '90s, Iraq was not seeking yellowcake. If you really study the issue, this is not very hard to determine. In Niger, it was quite open on who was, and who was not, seeking yellowcake. One reason for this is that it is quite an undertaking to secure and transport the yellowcake, and pretty much everyone was aware of what was happening. Thus, it wasn't difficult for Wilson, and the others, to determine there was no threat.
I am not sure who runs Factcheck. However, if it said what we are told, it was wrong.
Factcheck has been pretty accurate in the past, and I don't see much to question what they said about what was told to Bush at the time of his speech. Maybe, you can provide some evidence that refutes what Factcheck claims.
I have to admit I was biased in my reading on this issue (who wouldn't be?), and gave no credence to opposing views and opinions.
cicerone imposter wrote:Factcheck has been pretty accurate in the past, and I don't see much to question what they said about what was told to Bush at the time of his speech. Maybe, you can provide some evidence that refutes what Factcheck claims.
I have to admit I was biased in my reading on this issue (who wouldn't be?), and gave no credence to opposing views and opinions.
I am taking the word of factcheck.
I am not refuting what they said,I am agreeing with it.
You and advocate seem to be trying to refute what factcheck said.
Some people can't understand simple English.
