It's Hard Work Screwing Up The Greatest Country In The World

So, then you disagree with Frank's proposition as well then Cycloptihorn?

0 Replies

I think McG, that we could list the things that were said and implied that were purposefully misleading and untrue. We would refer to these as lies, but you would disagree and attempt to show how, technically, they are not exactly lies as defined in the RNC Websters. It's an old argument and it's always a waste of time. I believe that he lied, that his characterisation of the Iraq situation was more than just wrong but wrong on purpose and part of a carefully choreographed campaign to build support for a war that might not have been supported otherwise. You don't agree with me. We will never agree on this. Save your breath and lets not waste time making this a Bush lied vs. Did not thread.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, then you disagree with Frank's proposition as well then Cycloptihorn?

McG

Here is what I wrote in response to your question. It has been cut and pasted...no alterations:

"Goddam near everything he said as prelude to going to war with Iraq, McG. Goddam near everything! "

Here is what Cycloptichorn wrote:

"Well, a whole lot of it is lies. But you know as well as I do that the most effective lies are always mixed with truths and half-truths. "

What specifically do see as the "disagreement" with what I wrote...in what Cycloptichorn wrote?

And this is how you characterized what I wrote:

"So, it is yours and Franks belief that everything Bush and his administration said leading up to the war in Iraq to have been a lie? "

Why do you see what Cy wrote as agreeing with that?

You do understand how debate goes, don't you, McG?

You are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, are you?

0 Replies

Frank, you stated you do not give a rat's ass about what I thought so I stopped questioning you. I told you that I found your answer to be unacceptable to my question of "What lies?"

You haven't changed your answer and I still find it unacceptable. If you wish to actually discuss the lies the Bush administration has told, you need to actually provide one. Instead, you give a blanket statement and wave your hands in the air as though there is actually something substantial in your answer when there is nothing more than a puff of air.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank, you stated you do not give a rat's ass about what I thought so I stopped questioning you. I told you that I found your answer to be unacceptable to my question of "What lies?"

You haven't changed your answer and I still find it unacceptable. If you wish to actually discuss the lies the Bush administration has told, you need to actually provide one. Instead, you give a blanket statement and wave your hands in the air as though there is actually something substantial in your answer when there is nothing more than a puff of air.

Okay...if you want to duck the fact that I just called attention to your creation of a strawman...

...do so.

I don't blame you.

But if you are going to pretend I said something I did not say...so that it seems something someone else says agrees with your position over mine...

...I am going to respond.

Now...if you have any guts or integrity...why not simply acknowledge that you have mischaracterized what I said...and that Cy and I are in much, much, much closer agreement than your silly mischaracterization makes it seem?

Did I mention that you should only do that if you have any guts or integrity?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Which lies did Bush tell?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, [b]we'll call for a vote[/b]. Q No matter what? THE PRESIDENT: [b]No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote[/b]. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

White House press conference, March 6, 2003

Bush never called for a vote in the UN Security Council. US and coalition forces invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Frank, you stated you do not give a rat's ass about what I thought so I stopped questioning you. I told you that I found your answer to be unacceptable to my question of "What lies?"

You haven't changed your answer and I still find it unacceptable. If you wish to actually discuss the lies the Bush administration has told, you need to actually provide one. Instead, you give a blanket statement and wave your hands in the air as though there is actually something substantial in your answer when there is nothing more than a puff of air.

Okay...if you want to duck the fact that I just called attention to your creation of a strawman...

...do so.

What strawman? You mean when I responded to Kickycan? Laughing

Follow the conversation Frank, that shouldn't be too hard for someone of your obvious intelligence.

Quote:

I don't blame you.

But if you are going to pretend I said something I did not say...so that it seems something someone else says agrees with your position over mine...

I would ask you to point out where that happened, but I know you don't like answering questions with anything more than a blanket statement so I will just assume you mean everything I have said in this thread.

Cycloptichorn speaks for himself, he does not beleive that everything Bush said leading up to war with Iraq to have been lies, rather he believes it was only a mixture of lies and truth. I still disagree with Cyc's analysis, but, I agree with his more than yours. Does he agree with me more tha you? Hardly likely, yet you seem to actually give a rat's ass about that. Strange.

Quote:

...I am going to respond.

Now...if you have any guts or integrity...why not simply acknowledge that you have mischaracterized what I said...and that Cy and I are in much, much, much closer agreement than your silly mischaracterization makes it seem?

Did I mention that you should only do that if you have any guts or integrity?

I have mischaracterized nothing except your ability to clearly answer a question. I thought you could, and thus far have been proven wrong. I will take that under advisement for future interations Frank.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Frank, you stated you do not give a rat's ass about what I thought so I stopped questioning you. I told you that I found your answer to be unacceptable to my question of "What lies?"

You haven't changed your answer and I still find it unacceptable. If you wish to actually discuss the lies the Bush administration has told, you need to actually provide one. Instead, you give a blanket statement and wave your hands in the air as though there is actually something substantial in your answer when there is nothing more than a puff of air.

Okay...if you want to duck the fact that I just called attention to your creation of a strawman...

...do so.

What strawman? You mean when I responded to Kickycan?

Follow the conversation Frank, that shouldn't be too hard for someone of your obvious intelligence.

Quote:
I don't blame you.

But if you are going to pretend I said something I did not say...so that it seems something someone else says agrees with your position over mine...

I would ask you to point out where that happened, but I know you don't like answering questions with anything more than a blanket statement so I will just assume you mean everything I have said in this thread.

Cycloptichorn speaks for himself, he does not beleive that everything Bush said leading up to war with Iraq to have been lies, rather he believes it was only a mixture of lies and truth. I still disagree with Cyc's analysis, but, I agree with his more than yours. Does he agree with me more tha you? Hardly likely, yet you seem to actually give a rat's ass about that. Strange.

Quote:
...I am going to respond.

Now...if you have any guts or integrity...why not simply acknowledge that you have mischaracterized what I said...and that Cy and I are in much, much, much closer agreement than your silly mischaracterization makes it seem?

Did I mention that you should only do that if you have any guts or integrity?

I have mischaracterized nothing except your ability to clearly answer a question. I thought you could, and thus far have been proven wrong. I will take that under advisement for future interations Frank.

I pointed out the strawmen, McG. Deal with it. Don't rant. It doesn't look good.

And since JoeFromChicago is actually going to humor you and give some specifics...I guess I should also.

Here is a link to several dozen other Bush lies leading up to the Iraq war.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

0 Replies

our opinion of a strawman must differ.

buzzflash has interesting material. They are wrong, but interesting. If I point out where they are wrong, does that mean they are liars and that they lied on purpose?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Which lies did Bush tell?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, [b]we'll call for a vote[/b]. Q No matter what? THE PRESIDENT: [b]No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote[/b]. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

White House press conference, March 6, 2003

Bush never called for a vote in the UN Security Council. US and coalition forces invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003.

Hmmm...I wonder what this is? Must be some strawman argument...nevermind.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

our opinion of a strawman must differ.

Here is the material I consider questionable once again:

McG

Here is what I wrote in response to your question. It has been cut and pasted...no alterations:

"Goddam near everything he said as prelude to going to war with Iraq, McG. Goddam near everything! "

Here is what Cycloptichorn wrote:

"Well, a whole lot of it is lies. But you know as well as I do that the most effective lies are always mixed with truths and half-truths. "

What specifically do see as the "disagreement" with what I wrote...in what Cycloptichorn wrote?

And this is how you characterized what I wrote:

"So, it is yours and Franks belief that everything Bush and his administration said leading up to the war in Iraq to have been a lie? "

Why do you see what Cy wrote as agreeing with that? [/quote]

Deal with it!

Quote:

buzzflash has interesting material. They are wrong, but interesting. If I point out where they are wrong, does that mean they are liars and that they lied on purpose?

Deal with the one Joe brought up...and if you do that with any degree of success...I will point out my two favorites in the buzzflash area...and see how you do with them.

But deal with the one Joe raised!

0 Replies

The 'dodge' maneuver in full force

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
our opinion of a strawman must differ.

Here is the material I consider questionable once again:

Ok, Let's take a look.

Quote:

McG

Here is what I wrote in response to your question. It has been cut and pasted...no alterations:

"Goddam near everything he said as prelude to going to war with Iraq, McG. Goddam near everything! "

When asked what this meant, you refused to answer thus leaving me to interprete what you meant. Judging from your previous posts regarding Bush, I interpreting this to mean everything Bush said leading up to the war in Iraq was a lie.

Kickycan reinforced that belief when he said "He did answer. He's referring to all of them. My god, some people are just thick." I responded to kickycan and then Cycloptichorn chipped in.

Quote:

Here is what Cycloptichorn wrote:

"Well, a whole lot of it is lies. But you know as well as I do that the most effective lies are always mixed with truths and half-truths. "

Cyc was redirecting my statement regarding Kickycan's statement. At this point, you were a nothing more than a catalyst for discussion, but you decided to get back involved and continue your mindless rant.

Quote:

What specifically do see as the "disagreement" with what I wrote...in what Cycloptichorn wrote?

How about the fact that you believe everything Bush said was a lie and Cyc doesn't? Seems obvious to me, yet you appear to have missed it. You were given a chance to say what you meant, but you chose to grandstand in your typical way instead.

Quote:

And this is how you characterized what I wrote:

"So, it is yours and Franks belief that everything Bush and his administration said leading up to the war in Iraq to have been a lie? "

No, that is how I characterized what Kickycan wrote in translation to what you wrote. If you have an issue with what kickycan has done, perhaps you should take it up with him.

Quote:

Why do you see what Cy wrote as agreeing with that?

Deal with it!

I don't. I see what cyc wrote as disagreeing with what you wrote. I doubt Cyc has agreed with a thing I have ever stated on A2K.

I have, and I will continue to "deal with it". Perhaps next time someone asks what you mean, you will be a man and answer instead of trying this silly crap you have done in this thread.

Quote:

Quote:
buzzflash has interesting material. They are wrong, but interesting. If I point out where they are wrong, does that mean they are liars and that they lied on purpose?

Deal with the one Joe brought up...and if you do that with any degree of success...I will point out my two favorites in the buzzflash area...and see how you do with them.

But deal with the one Joe raised!

Joe's link couold be construed as a lie, but to me it appears to be a political decision based on changing facts. If you recall, the only reason it wasn't brought to a vote was because France had let it be clearly known they would veto anything brought forth that would clear the US from attacking Iraq. I believe a political choice was made, not a lie. Besides that, is this really the lie you were so vocal about three pages back? That Bush swore to bring the US case to the UN for a vote? I doubt it.

0 Replies

Okay...so me saying "damn near everything" is "all" in your book...

...and Bush saying he would "bring it to a vote no matter what" is the same as "I'll bring it to a vote unless it cannot win."

Do you use logic in this peculiar way all the time...or just when you are awake?

By the way...this came up just a few minutes ago. I had forgotten who originally posted it, but....

<http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17921>

0 Replies

MSG
The lies have it. . As for Blair when he becomes president of the US i will comment on his actions. Until then it is for the British to make that judgment.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay...so me saying "damn near everything" is "all" in your book...

...and Bush saying he would "bring it to a vote no matter what" is the same as "I'll bring it to a vote unless it cannot win."

Do you use logic in this peculiar way all the time...or just when you are awake?

By the way...this came up just a few minutes ago. I had forgotten who originally posted it, but....

<http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17921>

I asked you to clarify, you refused. I believe you said you didn't give a "rat's ass".

0 Replies

Love is in the air...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Joe's link couold be construed as a lie, but to me it appears to be a political decision based on changing facts.

Well, Bush's statement was regarding a political decision -- the decision to seek a UNSC vote regardless of the potential outcome. To say, then, that his decision not to seek a vote was also a political decision doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know. Presumably they were both political decisions. The real question is whether Bush was being truthful on March 6, 2003 when he said that he would seek a vote "no matter what the whip count."

McGentrix wrote:

If you recall, the only reason it wasn't brought to a vote was because France had let it be clearly known they would veto anything brought forth that would clear the US from attacking Iraq. I believe a political choice was made, not a lie.

France had already made its opposition to a US-backed resolution known at the time Bush made his statement. As such, Bush knew, at the time he made his statement, that France (and Russia) might veto the resolution. Nevertheless, he promised that he would submit the resolution to a vote (indeed, his "whip count" remark can only be understood as an acknowledgment that he expected strong opposition to the resolution). Furthermore, the political calculus did not change between March 6 (the date of his press conference) and March 19 (the date of the invasion), the time during which Bush could have submitted the resolution to the UNSC "no matter what the whip count."

The notion, then, that Bush was being truthful on March 6 but that he made a political choice to go back on his promise in the ensuing 13 days is a little hard to understand, given that he faced the same amount of opposition in the UNSC on March 6 as he did on March 19. He promised the American people that he would submit the resolution to the UNSC even though he knew that there would be opposition, so saying that he changed his mind when subsequently faced with opposition doesn't make any sense at all. After all, he promised to put the matter to a vote despite the expected opposition.

In sum, if Bush was being truthful on March 6 when he promised to submit the resolution to the UNSC "no matter what the whip count," then he should have submitted the resolution, since nothing changed in the subsequent 13 days. The only conclusion I can reach, therefore, is that Bush was not being truthful, and that he never intended to submit the resolution unless he could have been assured of winning the vote. His statement, therefore, was a lie.

0 Replies

You know what? I agree. That does look rather damning.

But, let me run this by you.

He was honest. He did intend present the resolution when he said what he did. Then, upon advice from his cabinet and advisors decided not to present it before the UN due to circumstances he had not considered or conditions that had changed. Thereby leading Bush to change his mind. Not really a lie at all.

0 Replies

Oh yes...these Internet fora are more fun than a Three Stooges movie.

The thoughts running through my mind right now are:

Will Joe eventually acknowledge that it probably would have made more sense to treat this issue and McG the way I was treating it and him...rather than with the respect and attempts at logic and facts he is now bringing to the bargain?

If "yes"...will Joe continue to produce facts and explain his position logically...and not make that acknowledgement until after many such attempts and failures...or will he see the way this is going...that McG will never acknowledge that Bush lied through his teeth often...and come to resignation on the issue without much further ado?

If "no"...

...well, if "no"...I guess the best thing to do is to wonder why we don't have to pay for entertainment of this quality!

0 Replies

It's Hard Work Screwing Up The Greatest Country In The World

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know