1
   

Lie by Lie Timeline

 
 
blatham
 
Reply Wed 30 Aug, 2006 04:22 pm
The Mother Jones Lie by Lie Timeline

Posted for information purposes

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,324 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:33 pm
As there's no need for this to be double posted, Mr Latham, I've deleted mine.

Great resource.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:44 pm
I'd tell you to specify one and only one lie, in your own words, clearly, or provide a link to a past post in which someone did, but I know I'd never get a straight answer.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Aug, 2006 10:55 pm
You serious about that? Some of us have pointed out lies to you, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 02:27 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You serious about that? Some of us have pointed out lies to you, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn

Give one link to such a post. Not so hard.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 05:07 am
"There are no war plans on my desk" June 13, 2002 Transcript here

Now, as I've noted earlier, it's possible he wasn't lying. The plans he had ordered up months earlier could have been in the Oval Office safe behind the framed portrait of James Wilkes Booth. Or Lucinda, the White House cleaning lady, could have waited for a signal from the folks in the next room who were monitoring Bush's speech and, at a quick and demanding finger wag, could have lifted the plans off the table with one hand while quickly dusting with the other, precisely as Bush spoke.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 05:17 am
Which lie are you and "Mother Jones" referring to?

Dan Rather's "Fake but Accurate" lie?

The bullshit claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

The Valery Plame lie?

The bullshit claim that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11 or the anthrax attacks which immediately followed it?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 06:09 am
The only verifiable LIE ever made by GW is when he said, I AM A CONSERVATIVE.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 07:50 am
blatham wrote:
"There are no war plans on my desk" June 13, 2002 Transcript here

Now, as I've noted earlier, it's possible he wasn't lying. The plans he had ordered up months earlier could have been in the Oval Office safe behind the framed portrait of James Wilkes Booth. Or Lucinda, the White House cleaning lady, could have waited for a signal from the folks in the next room who were monitoring Bush's speech and, at a quick and demanding finger wag, could have lifted the plans off the table with one hand while quickly dusting with the other, precisely as Bush spoke.

Okay. Now, if you'll just show that it was a lie when he said it, I'll concede that he lied.

If you can't, then you'd better find another example. Again, one and only one, and in your own words, not a cut and paste job. If he's such a big liar, you ought to be able to give one example, together with some evidence that it is a lie.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 11:46 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:
"There are no war plans on my desk" June 13, 2002 Transcript here

Now, as I've noted earlier, it's possible he wasn't lying. The plans he had ordered up months earlier could have been in the Oval Office safe behind the framed portrait of James Wilkes Booth. Or Lucinda, the White House cleaning lady, could have waited for a signal from the folks in the next room who were monitoring Bush's speech and, at a quick and demanding finger wag, could have lifted the plans off the table with one hand while quickly dusting with the other, precisely as Bush spoke.

Okay. Now, if you'll just show that it was a lie when he said it, I'll concede that he lied.

If you can't, then you'd better find another example. Again, one and only one, and in your own words, not a cut and paste job. If he's such a big liar, you ought to be able to give one example, together with some evidence that it is a lie.


Are you requesting evidence that he'd ordered up war plans long before?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 11:48 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You serious about that? Some of us have pointed out lies to you, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn

Give one link to such a post. Not so hard.


Sheesh, remember the thread you started on this?

There were several lies presented over the course of the thread, and when you couldn't argue against them, you said 'I don't know enough about that,' or some other evasion.

Here's a gem:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026552#2026552

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 12:15 pm
It may be a lie, although I believe the only warrantless wiretaps being used apply to the intelligence services' monitoring of calls originating overseas. I would like to know more about what warrantless wiretaps have been sought or used, because I don't know much about it.

Even if this is a lie, I believe that the picture painted of Bush as lying as easily of breathing is false. Possibly one can find some things he said which are not accurate - this may or may not be one - but I think that you have to look very hard at Mr. Bush, who speaks publicly many times each day, to find just a few marginal comments.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2006 12:42 pm
Sure, we can argue about Bush's charchter all day long. I was merely responding to this:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I'd tell you to specify one and only one lie, in your own words, clearly, or provide a link to a past post in which someone did, but I know I'd never get a straight answer.


I endeavored to provide you with a 'straight answer.' You know there were several posts on that thread which fall into the same category.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 01:42 pm
Ya might as well bang your head against a wall, for all the good it'll do you, Cy. This pathology, [explained in the following article] runs deep in RWAs like Brandon, Foxy, Tico, GS, McG, etc [I had to include McG because this describes him to a T]

It's as if there's a mental switch that turns off the ability to perceive facts, surrendering their brains to authority figures, no matter how wicked or corrupt these AFs might be.


Quote:


Pathologizing Conservatism

Is it an unfortunate evolutionary holdover, or the product of bad upbringing?

Ronald Bailey

...

According to Professor Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians are cognitively rigid, aggressive, and intolerant. They are characterized by steadfast conformity to group norms, submission to higher status individuals, and aggression toward out-groups and unconventional group members.

...

Smith believes this tendency also explains the "rallying around" effect that occurs during attacks and wartime. Smith noted that polls taken on September 7-10, 2001, gave President Bush only a 51 percent approval rating, whereas his approval rating had jumped to 81 percent on September 15. The same phenomenon occurred after the Oklahoma City bombing under President Clinton and after the Marine barracks were blown up in Lebanon under President Reagan. He asked the not-unreasonable question, "Why do we rally around [them] when our leaders fail?" Smith evidently believes that evolution has hardwired humans to react that way.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb102004.shtml



Quote:


The Other Lies of George Bush
David Corn

George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest. In the run-up to the invasion, Bush based his case for war on a variety of unfounded claims that extended far beyond his controversial uranium-from-Niger assertion. He maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons and was directly "dealing" with Al Qaeda--two suppositions unsupported then (or now) by the available evidence. He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material). Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding.

But Bush's truth-defying crusade for war did not mark a shift for him. Throughout his campaign for the presidency and his years in the White House, Bush has mugged the truth in many other areas to advance his agenda. Lying has been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the forty-third President of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of opinion, not an inflammatory talk-radio device. Rather, it is backed up by an all-too-extensive record of self-serving falsifications. While politicians are often derided as liars, this charge should be particularly stinging for Bush. During the campaign of 2000, he pitched himself as a candidate who could "restore" honor and integrity to an Oval Office stained by the misdeeds and falsehoods of his predecessor. To brand Bush a liar is to negate what he and his supporters declared was his most basic and most important qualification for the job.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 01:46 pm
JTT,

It is because the modern Republican party has more to do with the Cult of Personality than it does any semblance of Conservatism.

Hell, the Repub. posters here will tell you that the current bunch isn't very Conservative. So what the hell are they? Authoritarian.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 01:52 pm
JTT wrote:
Ya might as well bang your head against a wall, for all the good it'll do you, Cy. This pathology, [explained in the following article] runs deep in RWAs like Brandon, Foxy, Tico, GS, McG, etc [I had to include McG because this describes him to a T]

It's as if there's a mental switch that turns off the ability to perceive facts, surrendering their brains to authority figures, no matter how wicked or corrupt these AFs might be....

If this is true, then it's awfully odd that whenever you folks are asked to specify one and only one lie that Bush has told, in your own words, not a cut and paste job, together with a bit of evidence that it is a lie, so that it can be debated in an orderly way, you can almost always be counted on to give an evasion or distraction, rather than the requested example.

The mere fact that you call someone a liar, or that you talk mostly to people who agree with you, should not be construed as indicating that it's actually the truth.

Cyclops has found one statement by the President that may be a lie, is apparently factually false, and which at the very least is an incomplete statement. This doesn't prove that Bush is a deliberate liar. If tens of thousands of people who hate you followed you around all day, every day, recording every single thing you said and trying to find some kind of contradiction, you'd look like a liar too.

You Bush haters are exceptionally resistant to simply listing his so-called lies, one at a time, in your own words, and responding on topic to on-topic arguments by his supporters. You can almost always be counted on to respond to a request for a citation with a personal comment about the poster making the request, and this is hardly a characteristic of people in the right.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 01:59 pm
What do you believe to be a universally accepted definition of a lie Brandon?
(and please, since you frown on cut and paste, break it down in your own words)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 02:14 pm
candidone1 wrote:
What do you believe to be a universally accepted definition of a lie Brandon?
(and please, since you frown on cut and paste, break it down in your own words)

A statement that the speaker knows is false as he speaks it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 02:19 pm
As we cannot know what people where thinking when they state statements, it is impossible to prove that people were lying. This is exactly the game that you are playing, Brandon, as I pointed out in the other thread; you have set the bar for 'lying' so high that it is almost impossible to prove that anyone is lying, ever.

There were several instances that you had no clear response to in the previous thread, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Sep, 2006 02:24 pm
It's easy to prove them wrong though. But, being wrong isn't a big enough of an event, especially when it comes to anyone that disagrees with the leftist agenda. So, they are labeled liars or other assorted offensive words to demonize them. It's all part of the liberal agenda.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lie by Lie Timeline
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/08/2025 at 05:52:43