3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 12:27 pm
I agree with you, that is a good one. Of course telling the world about the secret program underway would not have been wise, he should have just not said anything about it.

**************************************

Bill Clinton, June 8 1996
"I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:03 pm
Yeah, we all know how false memories can be. Perhaps he was thinking of a movie he had seen.

Here's another memory issue:

Quote:


FACT: Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:09 pm
Yes memories are sometimes foggy.

Bill Clinton, 6/11/92
"I would support a balanced-budget amendment"

Bill Clinto, 2/23/97
Clinton urges GOP to drop balanced-budget amendment
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:11 pm
McGentrix wrote:
One rule. It must actually be a lie, which means that one knows that what they are saying is a lie, not that what they have said later proves to be untrue based on further investigations.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Let's start with an easy one:



Translation: Let me start with the only one I have that arguably meets the stated criteria.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:27 pm
I don't know, Tico, I think they are about even. Two clear lies. Two clear faulty memories. The last one was more of a "I changed my mind in the last 5 years".
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:31 pm
We've got more on Clinton, so it ain't even. I'll post 'em if McG hasn't when I get back.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:47 pm
Incorrect, Tico; there are many examples which fit the criteria.

Here's one:

Quote:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01


Wanna argue about this one? Let's ask Bush himself:

Quote:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:48 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
We've got more on Clinton, so it ain't even. I'll post 'em if McG hasn't when I get back.


Maybe so, but I was only commenting on what's been posted. Two against one, though, is that within the rules, McG?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 02:17 pm
It wasn't intended to be one-on-one, feel free to join in FD!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 02:19 pm
Let's try and keep to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton format though, if you please.

That being said; it's your turn.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 02:35 pm
Hmm, tempting but I'll pass. I think all politicians lie their asses off. The more power they have, the more they lie.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 02:54 pm
"I intend to have a legislative program ready on the desk of Congress on the day after I'm inaugurated. I intend to have an explosive 100-day action period."
President Clinton - June 23, 1992.

"People of the press are expecting [us] to have some 100-day program. We never ever had one."
Dee Dee Myers, January 12, 1993.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 02:55 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Incorrect, Tico; there are many examples which fit the criteria.

Here's one:

Quote:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01


Wanna argue about this one? Let's ask Bush himself:

Quote:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


Cycloptichorn


Why does the fact that the priority changed in the 6 month period between those quotes mean Bush lied?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 03:19 pm
Because something that is our, quote, 'number one priority' cannot go unsolved and become 'not a priority' at all in just sixth months, especially in an instance such as capturing the people responsible for attacking us on 9/11! It is obvious that capturing Bin Laden was never our number one priority.

Various statements made by Admin officials on 9/11 and 9/12 re: attacking Iraq prove the truth that Iraq was far more important to them, even then, then Bin Laden.

So it stands as a lie.

Now, McG: Should I start including statements by Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan as counting towards Bush lies? Because the number then jumps extremely high.

I'll leave the decision up to you; if you say yes, then I will accept your last entry and move on to one of my own; if no, then please pick another lie from Clinton as your third entry.

Thanks

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 03:47 pm
Ok, that seems fair.

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because something that is our, quote, 'number one priority' cannot go unsolved and become 'not a priority' at all in just sixth months, especially in an instance such as capturing the people responsible for attacking us on 9/11! It is obvious that capturing Bin Laden was never our number one priority.

Various statements made by Admin officials on 9/11 and 9/12 re: attacking Iraq prove the truth that Iraq was far more important to them, even then, then Bin Laden.

So it stands as a lie.

....


Heh. Might seem inconsistent, but hardly a lie.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 04:52 pm
No offense, Tico, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with ya; I understand there are certain factors which prevent you from being honest about the situation and force you to nitpick.

Quote:
I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 10:10 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No offense, Tico, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with ya; I understand there are certain factors which prevent you from being honest about the situation and force you to nitpick.


Could this possibly be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

In regard to Bin Laden, Bush has a point with both statements cited. Sure, it is a high priority to catch Bin Laden. I think it would be great in terms of public relations and an emotional victory, so in that sense it is a high priority. And it may temporarily demoralize the followers for a time. But common sense tells us, or at least it should, that if he were captured or killed, his terrorist network is not even going to begin to fold up and call it a day, so really the battle is against the terrorist network and whether we catch or kill Bin Laden is not going to affect the overall war on terror.

So to capture the essence of what Bush meant by his statements, killing or capturing Bin Laden is a high priority, as one aspect or battle of the overall war, but also it is not the highest priority of the overall war. To call the statements a contradictory lie is really a case of nitpicking. You really need to find better examples of lies.

A more damaging and notable lie is the one perpetrated by the press and the Democrats that Bush knowingly lied about WMD. Furthermore, one needs to prove that even if there were no WMD, Bush would need to be proven to have known it. The information being found now is vindicating Bush concerning WMD, on both counts, that he did not knowingly misrepresent the WMD, and also now evidence likely shows that Hussein was deeply involved with WMD leading up to the war. Even though no evidence was ever found to prove the intelligence was totally wrong before the war, the press and the Democrats have nevertheless drawn that conclusion based on what - simply political spin, and published it as a fact, and have been doing so now ever since the war started. And I think it has been perpetrated knowingly by them for political advantage. Such a lie has hindered and damaged our efforts in a very real way. It is not only despicable, but dangerous.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:56 am
Quote:
The information being found now is vindicating Bush concerning WMD, on both counts, that he did not knowingly misrepresent the WMD


What, exactly, is the evidence being found now showing that Bush didn't knowingly mislead about WMD in Iraq?

I have plenty of evidence to show you that he and his team did; but I would like to see what evidence

McG, it's your turn.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 01:52:34