humanityfirst@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<af187846.0307151440.2476ad1d@posting.google. com>...
> otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<t3j8hv4oggrinr8cl41pdvrm7tentn8e92@4ax.com>. ..
> > On 15 Jul 2003 11:39:26 -0700, pvos58@yahoo.com (Peter Vos) wrote:
> >
> > >Tazmanian Weasel <zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:<sm58hvsj2hkb2an2bqhhu34v845s97ckdt@4ax.com>. ..
> > >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:14:59 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On 15 Jul 2003 07:03:11 -0700, mogulah@hotmail.com (Transition Zone)
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>FACT: bush admits lying
> > >> >
> > >> >Nope. He didn't lie.
> > >> >
> > >> >Please state one lie GWB made here:
> > >>
> > >> "Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq"
> > >>
> > >> in meeting with EU, May.
> > >
> > >or
> > >
> > >"I'm the kind of person that likes to
> > >know all the facts before I make a decision."
> > >
> > >July 3, 2003
> > >
> > Funny,
> >
> > What President Bush actually said was *The British government has
> > learned* [emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But for some strange
> > reason, the DNC left out that whole "British government" part. Gee,
> > that changes the entire nature of the president's statement. You don't
> > think the DNC left it out on purpose, do you?
>
>
> The only trouble was that the White House knew at the time that the
> British Government (and indeed every other government involved) had
> "learned" it from the same dubious source as had the US.
>
> This is called dissembling, or in more common parlance, lying. The
> British government didn't point out either their "learning" that it
> was unreliable information.
>
> What is interesting is that the use of this method of telling a lie
> with a ready-made defence--citing someone else citing something you
> have no faith in --marks in time the latest moment you can deny
> knowing it wasn't true. After all, if you believe it to be true, why
> not simply say so? If you have to attribute the story to someone else
> to protect yourself from being accused of telling stories you know
> aren't true, then that moment shows that you were KNOWINGLY allowing
> to go forward something you knew to be false protected only by a
> semantic figleaf.
>
> Well Bush's figleaf isn't big enough. He's no "Statue of David". And
> Ari Fleischer aint no Michelangelo. His pubes are sticking out all
> over this one.
>
> PE

Now I know some of the more rabid polemicists will try to claim this
is a "single data point" or "just sixteen words" or "no big deal" or
some other trivializing dodge. But here is why it matters and here is
what is happening:

Leading the nation to war on a lie destroys the credibility of the
administration and damages the Presidency.

Promoting a radical new policy of preemptive military hegemony without
pristine intelligence turns you into a "rogue nation."

It's not just liberals or leftists or progressives or Democrats that
find this a problem. Clyde Prestowitz, a former REAGAN administration
official has published a book "Rogue Nation: Unilateralism and the
failure of good intentions"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...581669-6029546

It is a damning critique of the neo-con agenda. But wait! There is
more!!

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal - that bastion of commie pinko
anti-Americanism - it was reported that C. Boyden Gray, former council
to Poppy Bush, along with other members of dad's administration have
formed the "Committee for the Republic." They are circulating email
drafts of their principles. These include a complete rejection of the
neo-con fantasy of preemptive global war. They are specifically
concerned that global adventurism will destroy domestic liberties.

Just as Republicans took out McCarthy, I suspect that the Republican
establishment is looking at what this administration has wrought and
realized that they represent a domestic threat to the Constitutional
integrity of this Republic.

In 1950 - years before the McCarthy-Army hearings, seven brave
Republican Senators stood up to denounce him and his tactics. Their
words fell on deaf ears, but they are as relevant today as they were
half a century ago and bear repeating:

"It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans
and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as
Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is
high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian
techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely
end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life."

---
"The security we profess to seek in foreign adventures
we will lose in our decaying cities."
-Martin Luther King, Jr., from "The Casualties of the War in Viet Nam"

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f149f98$0$24528$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.c om>...
> <otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k959hvsm937c21a8r3a4kthafp3rp067om@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:13:26 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
> > <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ><otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:t3j8hv4oggrinr8cl41pdvrm7tentn8e92@4ax.com.. .
> > >> On 15 Jul 2003 11:39:26 -0700, pvos58@yahoo.com (Peter Vos) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Tazmanian Weasel <zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:<sm58hvsj2hkb2an2bqhhu34v845s97ckdt@4ax.com>. ..
> > >> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:14:59 -0400, otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >On 15 Jul 2003 07:03:11 -0700, mogulah@hotmail.com (Transition
> Zone)
> > >> >> >wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>FACT: bush admits lying
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Nope. He didn't lie.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Please state one lie GWB made here:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq"
> > >> >>
> > >> >> in meeting with EU, May.
> > >> >
> > >> >or
> > >> >
> > >> >"I'm the kind of person that likes to
> > >> >know all the facts before I make a decision."
> > >> >
> > >> >July 3, 2003
> > >> >
> > >> Funny,
> > >>
> > >> What President Bush actually said was *The British government has
> > >> learned* [emphasis added] that Saddam Hussein recently sought
> > >> significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
> > >
> > >Not when the CIA warned the British government not to use that report
> MONTHS
> > >before the State of the Union Address, you know--the same CIA that
> reports
> > >to Bush.
> >
> > Did the CIA warn GW?
>
> They pulled the 'information' out of earlier speeches.
>
> Does George Bush know how to read?
>
> > I suggest looking at the entire situation.
>
> I suggest you stop trying to apologize for George. It's Waaaaay too late
> for that.

Bush has not proven that WMD's are in Iraq. Therefore he is in violation of
international law. That is why Europe won't help with Peacekeeping.

"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty1Ford@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in message
news:vmCdnW5iW7XaRYmiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net...
>
> <otis_p_driftwood@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2u49hv80t5nl8icobutu6bofmkctailnvc@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:12:49 -0700, "Fifty1Ford"
> > <Fifty1Ford@Speed-Racer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Well..
> > >Here is a lie he told YESTERDAY!
> > >He told it in defense of the lie he told about the nuke claim!!!!
> > >
> >
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...4.html?nav=hpt
> o
> >
> >
> > Where in the article does it state that Bush lied?
> >
>
> Excuse me???
> The part that I posted.
> If you are asking me where the word "lied" is, go ask mommy what
> "independent thinking" and "deduction" mean.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >"Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president
> said
> > >the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow
the
> > >inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." "
> >
> > As stated before the passage of 1441.
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with 1441.
> Bush said, yesterday,on the 14th of July, 2003, that we had to go to war
> because BUSH, gave Saddam a chance to let inspectors in, and "he wouldn't
> let them in."
>
> This is a lie.
> Inspectors were there, they were inspecting, and then Bush said he did not
> want to wait and he launched the war.
> His excuse that the war started because Saddam refused BUSH'S chance at
> inspection is the biggest, undeniable lie that Bush has yet told.
>
> > ..
> > >
> > >"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not
admit
> > >inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this
> spring:
> > >Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed
> extending
> > >their work because he did not believe them effective."
> >
> > A part of, but not the entire story. Read the *entire* State of the
> > Union address for the entire case.
> > >
> > >So....
> >
>
> We are not talking about the *State of the Union address*.
> Are you that lacking in your reading skills?
>
> We are talking about something that Bush said YESTERDAY.
>
>
> > Oh, sorry, didn't you see? Knocked your straw man down 'way back
> > there.
> >
>
> What straw man?
>
> Bush, YESTERDAY, said:
>
> "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
> them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove
> him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a
> threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region"
>
> And yet, Saddam was fully cooperating with the inspectors.
> That makes this statement untrue... In other words, a _lie_.
>
> > >Here is a specific lie that Bush told yesterday.
> > >Another in a long line of lies.
> >
> > A lie is the result of deliberate intent to make statements *you know
> > beforehand* aren't the truth.
>
> Oh....
> Like what he said YESTERDAY?
> "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
> them in."
>
> See...
> There it is.. The fact that he did indeed let them in..
> And the crazy thing is that Bush said this in defense of the Nuke claim.
>
> >
> > Like saying "I did not have sexual relations.........".
> >
>
> Oh, look at the cute little puppy....
> Roll over.. Fetch...
> OK now..
>
> The hard one...
>
> Clinton.. Clinton.. Clinton...
>
> Good puppy, that's right...
> Bring up someone's failing and use that to excuse someone else's...
> Good puppy..
>
> ??
> Still using the Clinton defense I see.
> Pathetic.
> Get some new tricks.
>
> > See? Now *that's* a lie!
>
> Well...
> Now that bush is reduced to excusing his own Nuke lies by claiming that it
> was "technically correct", by claiming that because they were quoting
> someone else's report (a report know to probably be false), that he didn't
> _really_ lie..............
> What?
> Now is the argument: "But, but.. Well I'm not any worse than Clinton!
See...
> "
>
> Do you see it?
> If you consider what Clinton did.. Use a technicality in the definition of
a
> word to lie, do you not see that your logic must also hold Bush as lying
> about the Nuke claim?
>
> What he said yesterday leaves no room at all for word games or
> interpretation.
> He very specifically said that the chance that HE gave him, not the UN,
not
> right after the Gulf war... HE said "he wouldn't let them in."
>
> This is a lie.
> If you can not see it, you do not know what a lie is.
>
> > >I don't hear any crickets...
> >
> > I don't hear any crickets either now, but I have yet to see you prove
> > Bush lied.
> >
>
> Then open your eyes.
>
> > Until you do PROVE bush lied; I will be waiting right here.
>
> There is nothing for me to PROVE.
> The truth is self evident.
> Read what Bush said yesterday.
>
> OK, fine..
> A little something for your education.
> It applies perfectly and the source seems ironic to me in this case.
> http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/relativemorality4.htm
>
> "That the truth is self-evident means that no proof is necessary to affirm
> the proposition as true; the subject need only comprehend the proposition
> and he naturally and absolutely affirms it is true. Other examples of
> self-evident truths: "Parallel lines never touch", and "A cannot equal
> non-A". These need no proof. They only need to be comprehended in order
for
> their truth to be affirmed by the intellect."
>
>
> Wait away.
>
> Fifty1Ford

Well...
I guess you are waiting for black to be white and up to be down and a lie to
be the truth......
Figures.

Fifty1Ford.