Lie by Lie

[sirs]

As brought to us by Lanya.  Lie by Lie: http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Now, without having looked at yet another Bush lied link, what i do find very interesting, and perhaps telling, is when someone like myself, or Plane, or Ami, or Bt tries to get someone on the left to document a Bush lie and why it's a lie, you frequently get these fingers pointing to a mass of accusations, and supposed lies, with their own supposed validation techniques, but rarely do you ever get one of those same folks sitting down and saying "Look, Bush lied about X, and this is why".  Oh sure, you get a ton of innuendo and Tee-like irrational "connecting of dots", but rarely do you get a validated lie, since when it does happens, it's unable to stand up to the scrutiny that trying to validate a lie requires. 

Which is probably why they so often just point to Bush lied web sites, and say "See?  He lied dammit"

[_JS]

I don't really understand why it matters so much to some people to pinpoint where Bush lied and why it matters so much to you to defend Bush as someone who never lies.

Seriously, an honest and sincere question to both sides, what is the point?

Surely Bush can be judged by either side on the merits of his policies and what he has or has not achieved as president versus whether or not he has lied.

[sirs]

I don't really understand why it matters so much to some people to pinpoint where Bush lied and why it matters so much to you to defend Bush as someone who never lies.  Seriously, an honest and sincere question to both sides, what is the point?

I've already referenced long ago that I doubt very seriously that Bush has "never lied". As President, he's probably bent the truth in some places as well.  The "problem" becomes when the rabid left begin making claims that Bush overtly lied us into war, thus our soldiers are all dying needlessly & in vain, and that the motives are completely nefarious, thus dragging our country thru the mud even more.....all because.....well apparently because they hate Bush's guts, that much.  I'm unable to deduce any other rational reason, since so much of their Bush lied crud is just that, dren.  Yet its repeated over and over, adnauseum.  THAT's the point of why I bring this up & my above observation

Surely Bush can be judged by either side on the merits of his policies and what he has or has not achieved as president versus whether or not he has lied.

You'd think, but apparently that's too difficult, for too many.  I've been criticising a ton of his domestic policies and decisions, as well as some of the Post Saddam decisions, yet Im still deemed some Bush cool-aide drinker, since I don't burn his name in effigy, completely denounce the war, and accept that he supposedly "lied us into war".  Now, how do you explain that?

[Michael Tee]

<<but rarely do you ever get one of those same folks sitting down and saying "Look, Bush lied about X, and this is why". >>

Well in a recent thread (which I now can't find anywhere) as recently as yesterday I pointed out a major Bush lie shortly before the invasion of Iraq (basically that Saddam and his WMD were a threat to America) and not only pointed out the lie but the detailed reasons why it was very UNLIKELY to be an honest mistake.

<<Oh sure, you get a ton of innuendo and Tee-like irrational "connecting of dots">>

No, with all due respect, I gave you exact  quote, date and place, not a ton of innuendo and in that case, no connecting of the dots. 

But about "Tee-like irrational connecting of the dots," I would like to ask YOU a question:  how is it, if my connecting of the dots was so "irrational" you never once sought to challenge me on how I connected them, never once pointed out any specific instance of irrationality in my method?

Your claim that my attempts to connect the dots is characteristically irrational would be a lot more credible if you had been able even once to challenge it with anything other than an ad hominem attack.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't really understand why it matters so much to some people to pinpoint where Bush lied and why it matters so much to you to defend Bush as someone who never lies.

<<Seriously, an honest and sincere question to both sides, what is the point?>>

The POINT is that this lying little prick lied his country into a war which has killed 3,000 Americans and 600,000 Iraqis.  THAT is a very serious offence which should result in criminal charges and impeachment.

How would you feel if your son or daughter had been killed in this war, only to find out later that the whole thing could have been avoided, was totally unnecessary (as well as doomed to failure) and that your son or daughter would still be alive and well but for the lies and schemes of this little prick?  Would you still be wondering what is the point of proving that he lied and what difference it all makes?

[Michael Tee]

Just for you, sirs - - "a ton of innuendo and Tee-like [irrationality]" - -


<<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

 <<President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
<<The East Room
<<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . . Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>

[Plane]

<<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . . Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>

No longer true because Saddam is in jail.

Saddam is directly responsible for Indefaddath killing in Israel , it was in Saddams intrest that no unrest ever be resolved as long as it was harm to his enemys.

He isn't there now and some things have improved, his threat doesn't seem like much of a threat because he is now in jail.

But if he were not in jail this truth would still be true.

[Michael Tee]

<<No longer true because Saddam is in jail.>>

Never true because Saddam was never a threat.

<<Saddam is directly responsible for Indefaddath killing in Israel . . . >>

Bullshit, it was the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians that resulted in the Intifada, it was an illegal military occupation and settlement that lasted since 1967 till now that forced the Palestinians to rebel and fight for their land and their freedom.  Saddam had nothing to do with it.

<< it was in Saddams intrest that no unrest ever be resolved as long as it was harm to his enemys.>>

Why should the unrest be resolved if it leads to a permanent injustice?  The Palestinians have every right to fight their oppressors and Saddam has every right to back their struggle.

<<He isn't there now and some things have improved . . . >>

On balance the situation since his removal is exponentially worse than before, not better.  If "some things" have improved, a hell of a lot more things have gotten much worse.

<< . . . his threat doesn't seem like much of a threat because he is now in jail.>>

Well that's total bullshit because he never was a threat to the U.S.A. in the first place.

<<But if he were not in jail this truth would still be true. >>

Well, Kofi Annan says that when he wasn't in jail things were much better. 

[Plane]

<<No longer true because Saddam is in jail.>>

Never true because Saddam was never a threat.

<<Saddam is directly responsible for Indefaddath killing in Israel . . . >>

Bullshit, it was the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians that resulted in the Intifada, it was an illegal military occupation and settlement that lasted since 1967 till now that forced the Palestinians to rebel and fight for their land and their freedom.  Saddam had nothing to do with it.

<< it was in Saddams intrest that no unrest ever be resolved as long as it was harm to his enemys.>>

Why should the unrest be resolved if it leads to a permanent injustice?  The Palestinians have every right to fight their oppressors and Saddam has every right to back their struggle.

<<He isn't there now and some things have improved . . . >>

On balance the situation since his removal is exponentially worse than before, not better.  If "some things" have improved, a hell of a lot more things have gotten much worse.

<< . . . his threat doesn't seem like much of a threat because he is now in jail.>>

Well that's total bullshit because he never was a threat to the U.S.A. in the first place.

<<But if he were not in jail this truth would still be true. >>

Well, Kofi Annan says that when he wasn't in jail things were much better. 

So you don't think that I am lieing?

I am simply wrong?

I think you are wrong too , should we think each other liers?

[Lanya]

JS, I can hardly imagine anyone who thinks it does not matter, to have a president tell us lies in order to lead us into a war.
That matters to me, and I await your explanation of why it does not matter to you. 
I guess I can't tell you why it matters except to say it just DOES.  Deeply.  People are dead as a result of lies....and that matters to me.

[sirs]

Just for you, sirs - - "a ton of innuendo and Tee-like [irrationality]" - -

<<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

 <<President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference
<<The East Room
<<Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. . . Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.>>

And the "irrationality" remains that this is supposedly Bush talking about Saddam attacking the U.S. proper with his WMD.  If that WERE the case, then you MIGHT have a leg to stand on.  Too bad that's not

[sirs]

in a recent thread (which I now can't find anywhere) as recently as yesterday I pointed out a major Bush lie shortly before the invasion of Iraq (basically that Saddam and his WMD were a threat to America) and not only pointed out the lie but the detailed reasons why it was very UNLIKELY to be an honest mistake.

No, you pointed out how it could be a lie, if he actually meant Saddam was planning to attack America, with his WMD.  In the context that he has ALWAYS been using it has continued to be the threat that Saddam's WMD are, if allowed to get in the hands of terrorists who then could USE it on America.  You always seem to be ommitting that substantive portion of context.  I understand why as it blows your theory out of the water, but it goes back to when you start with a false premice.......

<<Oh sure, you get a ton of innuendo and Tee-like irrational "connecting of dots">>

No, with all due respect, I gave you exact  quote, date and place, not a ton of innuendo and in that case, no connecting of the dots.  

A date of a quote is NOT a "connecting of dots".  Connecting of dots would be a plethora of quotes/references of Bush claiming that Saddam was about to unleash his WMD on America.  Note that's not analogus to trying to prevent Saddam from aquiring a nuke, or trying to prevent any WMD being offloaded or sold to terrorists.  Your innuendo continues to be that Bush was making this out as Saddam was trying to attack america, then you post quotes and articles refuting that, and claiming "seee?".  The seee? part is starting with a false premise, in that you have yet to prove with any sense of circumstantial evidence that Bush was claiming it was Saddam who was about to attack Boston.

I would like to ask YOU a question:  how is it, if my connecting of the dots was so "irrational" you never once sought to challenge me on how I connected them, never once pointed out any specific instance of irrationality in my method?

Been there done that.  It's easy to refute irrational accusations.  I (and many others) simply post the facts of the matter, such as all the other world leaders and intel organizations that saw Saddam's WMD threat for what it was.  Your rebuff of that is to continue to claim that Bush really meant X, minus any assemblence of evidence or logic to perseverate in the allegation

[Plane]

"Well, Kofi Annan says that when he wasn't in jail things were much better. "   


They certainly were for Kofi Anan's son who was doing a lot of good Oil for Food business.
 

[sirs]

"Well, Kofi Annan says that when he wasn't in jail things were much better. "   


They certainly were for Kofi Anan's son who was doing a lot of good Oil for Food business.

D'OH.....Plane with a stinging jab

[Plane]

I don't really understand why it matters so much to some people to pinpoint where Bush lied and why it matters so much to you to defend Bush as someone who never lies.

Seriously, an honest and sincere question to both sides, what is the point?

Surely Bush can be judged by either side on the merits of his policies and what he has or has not achieved as president versus whether or not he has lied.

I think it is just the political football.

Not everyone wants the President to acheve anything and to some there are no fouls.

I would have loved to see the rest of the nation have something like the TSP system that I am useing , but when Bush tried to apply a miniature patch to the Social Security system he was shot down , I can voutch for the value of such a system as he proposed because I am in one, and the Social Security System needs more patching than anyone dares to do. But in political football you never give up a point without a fight.  All of the points are like that.