Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Appropriately so. He MAY have lied and/or intentionally misled. This is a serious charge, though, and until the evidence is unmistakable that he did, I won't be making it.>> <Of course you won't mind saying it over and over again. LOL!!! You're so objective. Silly bias!!> You are a curious one. I state flat out that I can't say "he lied," only that he may have (and indeed, about what politician can you not say "he may have lied?") and it's "bias" to you. Oookay.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>You're so objective. Silly bias!!<< LOL! And I'm certain that the posters on your side of the argument are paragons of impartiality.
Originally Posted By woody "I state flat out that I can't say "he lied," only that he may have (and indeed, about what politician can you not say "he may have lied?") and it's "bias" to you." What if I said.... Dabob may have hit his wife. (Obviously, it isn't possible so the example is ridiculously untrue.) The example implies many things that are completely outrageous. The mere fact that it is being said means ruining a reputations is the goal. That happens a lot in politics, but it is clearly wrong.
Originally Posted By woody >>"LOL! And I'm certain that the posters on your side of the argument are paragons of impartiality." No, but some of us are clearly influenced by factual information rather than innuendo.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<What if I said.... Dabob may have hit his wife. (Obviously, it isn't possible so the example is ridiculously untrue.)>> OK. Let's set the stage. Someone from the neighborhood reports that someone has hit Mr. Man's wife. You are the special prosecutor and need to find out if a crime has been committed and who did it. You have 18 hours to gather the evidence and build your case. While searching the home, you are met with the family dog. You attempt to continue your search for evidence but you can't contine because the dog keeps getting in the way with all of his barking and biting. Since you only have 18 hours, you don't have time to deal with this impedement. But nevertheless, the dog is preventing you from getting the answers that you need. You ask Mr. Man to remove his dog. He refuses and furthermore says it's not his dog. Now, Mr. Man is obstructing justice and possible lying. Well, your 18 hours are up and you never were able to find out if Ms. Man was hit, or who did it. However, you do have enough evidence to charge Mr. Man with lying and obstruction of justice. --------------
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here are some ABC news comments on some of the documents... <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Internat ional/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1</a> >>Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday. The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more. The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: <a href="http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.<<" target="_blank">http://fmso.leavenworth.army.m il/products-docex.htm.<<</a> Here is an interesting comment regarding the French and their desire to not allow UN action (wanting to keep the Oil for Food program going). >>Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document which suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.) <<
Originally Posted By DlandDug Dalmatians, obstructing the investigation at Mr. Man's house. (P.S. It was Saddam, in the Palace, with the Scud.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I state flat out that I can't say "he lied," only that he may have (and indeed, about what politician can you not say "he may have lied?") and it's "bias" to you.>> <What if I said.... Dabob may have hit his wife. (Obviously, it isn't possible so the example is ridiculously untrue.) The example implies many things that are completely outrageous. The mere fact that it is being said means ruining a reputations is the goal.> Nice try. But your example doesn't wash. To say "Dabob (or Harry Reid, or Bill Frist) may have hit his wife" would indeed be an example of slimy insinuation, because it would be based on NO evidence to that effect. It would be made up from whole cloth. However, to say "OJ Simpson may have beat his wife before her murder" is not in that same league. Was he ever convicted of beating her? AFAIK, he was not. But we did have those 911 calls from Nicole. So there is reasonable suspicion that he might have, even if he was never convicted of such. It is not really wrong to say "OJ may have beat his wife" even if there's no definitive proof or conviction - see what I'm saying? Simiarly with Bush's possible lies. There is legitimate suspicion that it may be the case, because several things he said have turned out to be untrue. Did he know they were untrue when he said them? Did he know they were untrue and did he shade them just enough to clearly imply one thing while leaving wiggle room if the truth actually got out? These are legitimate questions, and they haven't been answered definitively to my mind, which is why it's perfectly fine to say, as I have, that while I can't say for sure that he lied, I believe he may have.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Here's an important part of the ABCNEWS article that Darkbeer sort of forgot to include: (Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer There's another editor's note on page 2 referring to a different document (Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)
Originally Posted By woody "Simiarly with Bush's possible lies. There is legitimate suspicion that it may be the case, because several things he said have turned out to be untrue." This is not based on discovering Bush's true motivations. It is based on the insinuation that Bush has personal reasons in conducting his foreign policy. Some things may be untrue, but that does not mean it's a lie. UNTRUE and LIE are not equivalent. Nice try. I thought Dabob2 might care abou the truth, but he bought the insinuation as FACT.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<UNTRUE and LIE are not equivalent.>> Definition of "untrue" - not according with the facts Definition of "lie" - tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive Definition of "spin" - twist and turn so as to give an intended interpretation <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=o8k&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?h s=o8k&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla</a>%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3Auntrue&btnG=Search <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=o8k&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?h s=o8k&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla</a>%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3Alie&btnG=Search <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=Z9k&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?h s=Z9k&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla</a>%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3Aspin&btnG=Search
Originally Posted By woody bboisvert: You have to do better than that!!! Adding in SPIN is very telling. Twisting an UNTRUTH into a LIE. Deception as spin. You're so clever. I'll almost say you're crafty. Crafty: Skilled in or marked by underhandedness, deviousness, or deception.
Originally Posted By woody >>(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)<< What did Bush say? Bush did not make the case of collusion. He said Iraq is aware of al Qaeda and has helped them individually. Since the document proves that Iraq is aware of al Qaeda members and activities, the leap to collaboration could be a real risk. ----------- <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news /releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html</a> "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." "Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network." "Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both." ----------- The aftermath of the Iraq War proves terrorism is alive and well in Iraq.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Here's an important part of the ABCNEWS article that Darkbeer sort of forgot to include: (Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.) >> LOL Tom!! Since when has ABC been concerned about the accuracy of a document or a source?Sounds like Dan Rather got a job at ABC! What's amazing is that this surprises anybody. The down side is that all those "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper stickers will now have increased value for irony purposes. I'm still trying to accept that there really are grownups who seem to honestly think Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004. Another example of this phenomenon is Maddy Albright saying Bush had Osama socked away to produce at the 11th hour in the 2004 campaign. She was serious!! Then people wonder why the libs are called moonbats and people make fun of them? The list of the baseless claims these people make defies belief but yet they get discussed with furrowed brows and much concern by these seemingly smart, but in reality, mentally ill peeps. As always happens, facts will triumph, but it certainly is aggravating to have people make Twilight Zone-ish claims (Gore won! Bush lied!) and mere documentation and citations fail to move them for literally years ( Tom ) until the moutain of evidence continues to grow and finally crushes them. This is what is starting to happen regarding Saddam and Iraq.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau--Out of my myriad pet peeves the claims that Gore won or had the election stolen is my biggest. Just plain insane in a country of laws and not people for people to make that claim.
Originally Posted By woody The claim that Gore won is most unfortunate because it undermines our elections. The elections are not perfect. If it was, we wouldn't have gerrymandered districts, punch ballots, and lawsuits. I think the lawsuits are the worst abuse of the elections. No judge should make the decision on how the ballots are counted especially after the elections. The Democrats should get wise. They lack legitimacy for their own arguments when they go batty. I can't wait for more impeachment and censure talk.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Simiarly with Bush's possible lies. There is legitimate suspicion that it may be the case, because several things he said have turned out to be untrue.>> <This is not based on discovering Bush's true motivations. It is based on the insinuation that Bush has personal reasons in conducting his foreign policy.> I never made the insinuation that Bush based his foreign policy on personal reasons. Never. <Some things may be untrue, but that does not mean it's a lie. UNTRUE and LIE are not equivalent.> You rather spectacularly missed the fact that this was exactly my POINT in #102. We know Bush has said things that are untrue. We do not know for sure that he lied, because an untruth and a lie are different things. That's exactly what I said in #102, and you missed it completely. <Nice try. I thought Dabob2 might care abou the truth, but he bought the insinuation as FACT.> Amazing. You confused your own reading of what someone said for what they actually said. And hardly for the first time.
Originally Posted By woody "You rather spectacularly missed the fact that this was exactly my POINT in #102. We know Bush has said things that are untrue. We do not know for sure that he lied, because an untruth and a lie are different things. That's exactly what I said in #102, and you missed it completely." I didn't miss it. I was making a point that the insinuation was a pretty serious charge in itself AND YOU MISSED MY POINT. That's why I used the example of you hitting your wife. That's a strong insinuation only designed to hurt someone's reputation. The alleged lie has not been proven and this lie has been around years with no relief. Time to give it a rest.
