The Politics of Diversion!

Lies?

maineman said:
again... the real humor here has always been that a guiy like YOU would post a thread like this!:pke:
Click to expand...

Gentlemen, he said confidently. Let me intrude.

It is a thin case indeed to quibble about words as to the guilt of Clinton. If he admitted he lied he is guilty in the larger real life sense as opposed to the legal sense of the word. It was not a question about lying about a blowjob. It was lying to under oath to an investigative body even though the questions were part of a fishing expedition that had far exceeded it original writ.

And why compare Clinton's lie with Bush’s. They both shine like dead mackerels in the moonlight except I don’t think Bush was competent enough to forge his lie on his own. I don’t believe he had a real understanding of what the lie meant or what he was getting us into.

After all, this is the president whose grasp of the history of the Middle East was so shallow that he saw nothing wrong in characterizing our Iraq adventure as a “Crusade”.

Winston Smith
 
maineman said:
thank you winston for that realistic perspective.:clink:
Click to expand...

Yeah, too bad it didn't comport with your unrealistic perspective that Bill Clinton wasn't guilty of perjury. As for Bush, he never lied, and (most importantly to Maine), he never said he lied... go ahead, just find me one quote from Bush that said he lied! So, we can conclude that Bush didn't lie about WMD's, the war, or anything else, because he never said he did. On the other hand, Clinton did indeed say he gave false testimony under oath, and according to Merriam-Webster, that is the definition of perjury.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, too bad it didn't comport with your unrealistic perspective that Bill Clinton wasn't guilty of perjury. As for Bush, he never lied, and (most importantly to Maine), he never said he lied... go ahead, just find me one quote from Bush that said he lied! So, we can conclude that Bush didn't lie about WMD's, the war, or anything else, because he never said he did. On the other hand, Clinton did indeed say he gave false testimony under oath, and according to Merriam-Webster, that is the definition of perjury.
Click to expand...

it did comport with my perspective. It merely acknowledged that they was another perspective. My perspective: using legal terms in a precise manner, is not the same as your perspective: using legal terms in a non-legal and imprecise manner. That is not a big surprise to me.

And your continued support and defense of the misleading statements made by Team Bush in the run up to the Iraq war is just as pathetic now as it ever was.

"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed stockpiles of WMD's" was a lie the moment it was uttered and remains so.
 
maineman said:
it did comport with my perspective. It merely acknowledged that they was another perspective. My perspective: using legal terms in a precise manner, is not the same as your perspective: using legal terms in a non-legal and imprecise manner. That is not a big surprise to me.

And your continued support and defense of the misleading statements made by Team Bush in the run up to the Iraq war is just as pathetic now as it ever was.

"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed stockpiles of WMD's" was a lie the moment it was uttered and remains so.
Click to expand...

Well if you want start a thread about Bush/Clinton/infamous quote Democratic lies go right ahead....you being both an expert liar, fact spinner, and clueless at the same time..it might be entertaining...
 
bravo said:
Well if you want start a thread about Bush/Clinton/infamous quote Democratic lies go right ahead....you being both an expert liar, fact spinner, and clueless at the same time..it might be entertaining...
Click to expand...

no democrats gave the order to send our troops into Iraq. Bush used lies to start a ground war that we are still fighting six years later.

I am not lying, bravo... I am not spinning and I am certainly not clueless...

and neither are you, so let's stop insulting one another...OK?
 
maineman said:
no democrats gave the order to send our troops into Iraq. Bush used lies to start a ground war that we are still fighting six years later.

I am not lying, bravo... I am not spinning and I am certainly not clueless...

and neither are you, so let's stop insulting one another...OK?
Click to expand...

Lets see if we can agree on some facts...

Nobody claimed Democrats gave the order to send troops into Iraq...but they did VOTE in sufficient numbers to ALLOW ground forces to be sent into Iraq...and in reality, Clinton was already using troops against Saddam forces for years....troops in aircraft and sailors firing missiles....

As for Bush lies....Bush, in general, used the same rhetoric about Saddam and Iraq that Clinton and his followers used about Saddam and Iraq...

You insist Bush lied and Dems didn't even though they said the same things...

I don't claim anybody lied, neither Bush nor Clinton....I think they believed what they claimed...
whether it was ,
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."(Gore)
or
"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed stockpiles of WMD's"(whoever)

So to play your word game is a waste of my time as well as yours....you being a hack and wrong from the gitgo....cause you actually drink the Koolade...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Lets see if we can agree on some facts...

Nobody claimed Democrats gave the order to send troops into Iraq...but they did VOTE in sufficient numbers to ALLOW ground forces to be sent into Iraq...and in reality, Clinton was already using troops against Saddam forces for years....troops in aircraft and sailors firing missiles....

As for Bush lies....Bush, in general, used the same rhetoric about Saddam and Iraq that Clinton and his followers used about Saddam and Iraq...

You insist Bush lied and Dems didn't even though they said the same things...

I don't claim anybody lied, neither Bush nor Clinton....I think they believed what they claimed...
whether it was ,
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."(Gore)
or
"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed stockpiles of WMD's"(whoever)

So to play your word game is a waste of my time as well as yours....you being a hack and wrong from the gitgo....cause you actually drink the Koolade...
Click to expand...

responding to him is a waste of time
 
bravo said:
Lets see if we can agree on some facts...

Nobody claimed Democrats gave the order to send troops into Iraq...but they did VOTE in sufficient numbers to ALLOW ground forces to be sent into Iraq...and in reality, Clinton was already using troops against Saddam forces for years....troops in aircraft and sailors firing missiles....

As for Bush lies....Bush, in general, used the same rhetoric about Saddam and Iraq that Clinton and his followers used about Saddam and Iraq...

You insist Bush lied and Dems didn't even though they said the same things...

I don't claim anybody lied, neither Bush nor Clinton....I think they believed what they claimed...
whether it was ,
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."(Gore)
or
"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed stockpiles of WMD's"(whoever)

So to play your word game is a waste of my time as well as yours....you being a hack and wrong from the gitgo....cause you actually drink the Koolade...
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to hear the Democrat response from this. Its all true- well said, Bravo.
 
bravo said:
Lets see if we can agree on some facts...

Nobody claimed Democrats gave the order to send troops into Iraq...but they did VOTE in sufficient numbers to ALLOW ground forces to be sent into Iraq...and in reality, Clinton was already using troops against Saddam forces for years....troops in aircraft and sailors firing missiles....

silly. nobody would be complaining about Bush continuing Clinton's policies in Iraq vis a vis maintaining the no fly zones.. And a majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq. The republican party voted overwhelmingly for it. It is YOUR party's war... my party wanted nothing to do with it and they voted that way.

As for Bush lies....Bush, in general, used the same rhetoric about Saddam and Iraq that Clinton and his followers used about Saddam and Iraq...

"in general"? Perhaps... however, his statements concerning the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's - when used in conjunction with his asinine assertions that a secular pan arab ba'athist would provide weapons of mass destruction to a islamic extremist whose overriding goal was Saddam's destruction - allowed him to scare America into supporting the invasion of Iraq before the weapons inspectors - who Bush had been victorious in getting back INTO Iraq in the first place - could tell us what we now all know: Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMD's and we didn't need to invade him in order to disarm him.

You insist Bush lied and Dems didn't even though they said the same things...

again...not the SAME things. Team Bush said "THERE IS NO DOUBT"....which is qualitatively different than "I have no doubt" or "we're pretty damned sure"... and regardless... Bush USED the rhetoric to DO what I completely disagree with: Bush USED the rhetoric to Invade Iraq. No democrat did that, and if they had, I'd be just as critical of THEM as I am of Bush

I don't claim anybody lied, neither Bush nor Clinton....I think they believed what they claimed...
whether it was ,
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."(Gore)
or
"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed stockpiles of WMD's"(whoever)
that last one is from Team Bush... no democrat, except Gore, to my knowledge ever expressed absolute certainty about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's...and NO democrat used that rhetoric as an excuse to order the invasion of Iraq. And the statement "there is no doubt" is not a statement of "belief" but a statement of "fact". And it wasn't a fact. Which is what makes it a lie. If Bush had told us, that there were differing opinions within our own intelligence community, that much of the raw intelligence was dated, or single sourced, but nonetheless, he strongly BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... and that would have sold the American people, I STILL would disagree with the invasion of Iraq, but I would NOT claim that Bush had lied in order to do it.

So to play your word game is a waste of my time as well as yours....you being a hack and wrong from the gitgo....cause you actually drink the Koolade...
Click to expand...

I realize all to well that I can not jump into the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody and go back to 2003 and "unfuck" what George Bush fucked up. We did, in fact, invade Iraq....and time will tell just what a terrible decision it ends up being. I could be wrong, and, quite frankly, I hope I am...I hope against hope that, when American troops finally DO leave Iraq, that the Iraqi sunnis and shiites will gather for a giant group hug in downtown Baghdad and sing multiple verses of Kumbaya.... but I don't believe that will happen. I believe that sunnis and shiites in that country will be at one another's throats tearing apart their fragile "democracy" within a short time after our departure... I do NOT believe that the war in Iraq has made us any more safe and I do NOT believe that it has served to weaken the islamic extremist movement in any way. Like I said...I hope I am wrong, and if I am, I will gladly - joyously - admit that I am wrong. What will YOU do if all hell breaks loose in Iraq after we leave and sunnis and shiites resume their civil war? What will YOU do if Iraq closely aligns itself with Iran after our departure? Will YOU admit that YOU were wrong? I doubt it.
 
maineman said:
I realize all to well that I can not jump into the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody and go back to 2003 and "unfuck" what George Bush fucked up. We did, in fact, invade Iraq....and time will tell just what a terrible decision it ends up being. I could be wrong, and, quite frankly, I hope I am...I hope against hope that, when American troops finally DO leave Iraq, that the Iraqi sunnis and shiites will gather for a giant group hug in downtown Baghdad and sing multiple verses of Kumbaya.... but I don't believe that will happen. I believe that sunnis and shiites in that country will be at one another's throats tearing apart their fragile "democracy" within a short time after our departure... I do NOT believe that the war in Iraq has made us any more safe and I do NOT believe that it has served to weaken the islamic extremist movement in any way. Like I said...I hope I am wrong, and if I am, I will gladly - joyously - admit that I am wrong. What will YOU do if all hell breaks loose in Iraq after we leave and sunnis and shiites resume their civil war? What will YOU do if Iraq closely aligns itself with Iran after our departure? Will YOU admit that YOU were wrong? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

One thing I think we can all safely count on, you will never admit you were wrong about anything. Hell can freeze over... pigs may fly... but you, admit you're wrong? Never gonna happen! Even when you are proven thoroughly wrong, you resort to some silly semantics game, and argue that you are right, based on gross misinterpretations of words and phrases.

Even IF Iraq were to become the shining example of democracy for the Middle East... even if ALL the ME nations credited lasting ME peace to the example set by Iraq... you would still be here claiming you never said that wasn't a specific possibility... but you will continue to insist, you never approved of the way in which we went into Iraq! That's not ever going to change, regardless of the outcome in Iraq.
 
Dixie said:
One thing I think we can all safely count on, you will never admit you were wrong about anything. Hell can freeze over... pigs may fly... but you, admit you're wrong? Never gonna happen! Even when you are proven thoroughly wrong, you resort to some silly semantics game, and argue that you are right, based on gross misinterpretations of words and phrases.

Even IF Iraq were to become the shining example of democracy for the Middle East... even if ALL the ME nations credited lasting ME peace to the example set by Iraq... you would still be here claiming you never said that wasn't a specific possibility... but you will continue to insist, you never approved of the way in which we went into Iraq! That's not ever going to change, regardless of the outcome in Iraq.
Click to expand...

not so. As I said...I would LOVE to be proven wrong about Iraq. I would LOVE it if the sunnis and shiites there were able to sustain a multi-ethnic jeffersonian democracy in the absence of American troops... and if they do, I will be the first to say I was wrong. I would LOVE it if Iraq remained our strong ally and shunned any alliances with its shiite neighbor to the east, and if they do, I will be the first to say that I was wrong. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on both of those issues, isn't it?
 
Dixie said:
One thing I think we can all safely count on, you will never admit you were wrong about anything. Hell can freeze over... pigs may fly... but you, admit you're wrong? Never gonna happen! Even when you are proven thoroughly wrong, you resort to some silly semantics game, and argue that you are right, based on gross misinterpretations of words and phrases.

Even IF Iraq were to become the shining example of democracy for the Middle East... even if ALL the ME nations credited lasting ME peace to the example set by Iraq... you would still be here claiming you never said that wasn't a specific possibility... but you will continue to insist, you never approved of the way in which we went into Iraq! That's not ever going to change, regardless of the outcome in Iraq.
Click to expand...

not so. As I said...I would LOVE to be proven wrong about Iraq. I would LOVE it if the sunnis and shiites there were able to sustain a multi-ethnic jeffersonian democracy in the absence of American troops... and if they do, I will be the first to say I was wrong. I would LOVE it if Iraq remained our strong ally and shunned any alliances with its shiite neighbor to the east, and if they do, I will be the first to say that I was wrong. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on both of those issues, isn't it? Care to address the last two sentences of my post, btw?
 
maineman said:
not so. As I said...I would LOVE to be proven wrong about Iraq. I would LOVE it if the sunnis and shiites there were able to sustain a multi-ethnic jeffersonian democracy in the absence of American troops... and if they do, I will be the first to say I was wrong. I would LOVE it if Iraq remained our strong ally and shunned any alliances with its shiite neighbor to the east, and if they do, I will be the first to say that I was wrong. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on both of those issues, isn't it? Care to address the last two sentences of my post, btw?
Click to expand...

Well, so far you have been completely wrong about Iraq. The sunnis and shiited along with the kurds, have established a functioning jeffersonian democracy, with a constitution and a parliament. One of the reasons we are still in Iraq, is to stabilize the country, to eliminate as many detriments as possible for them to be able to focus on their functioning democracy. If all hell breaks loose after we leave, it will prove we left too soon.

And let's be clear, that's what you'd really LOVE to see happen, isn't it? Because, then, you'd be able to come here and rail on Bush's War some more, and blame the right for the mess. No, I'll safely predict you will continue to do as you have consistently done regarding Iraq, play down the good and play up the bad. Admit you're wrong? HAhahahahahahahahahh.... ahhhahahahahahahahahaahah.... omglmfaoooo...... hahahahahahaah.... RIGHT! that's a good one!
 
Dixie said:
Well, so far you have been completely wrong about Iraq. The sunnis and shiited along with the kurds, have established a functioning jeffersonian democracy, with a constitution and a parliament. One of the reasons we are still in Iraq, is to stabilize the country, to eliminate as many detriments as possible for them to be able to focus on their functioning democracy. If all hell breaks loose after we leave, it will prove we left too soon.

And let's be clear, that's what you'd really LOVE to see happen, isn't it? Because, then, you'd be able to come here and rail on Bush's War some more, and blame the right for the mess. No, I'll safely predict you will continue to do as you have consistently done regarding Iraq, play down the good and play up the bad. Admit you're wrong? HAhahahahahahahahahh.... ahhhahahahahahahahahaahah.... omglmfaoooo...... hahahahahahaah.... RIGHT! that's a good one!
Click to expand...


no. If I am proven wrong by an Iraqi government that funtions effectively and gives equal rights to sunnis and kurds AFTER American troops leave...if I am proven wrong by an Iraqi government that shuns alliances with Iran in favor of staying an American ally and being part of the solution in the middle east instead of part of the problem, I will GLADLY admit that I was wrong. I would love nothing more than to be forced to say that Bush's Iraq adventure had ended positively. That would be a great thing for the region and for the world.
 
Oh, but see.... that is the whole thing in a nutshell Maine... YOU can't be proven wrong! It's impossible! When you can retain the right to modify definitions of words and context after the fact, you can just completely flip-flop whatever you say, so proving you wrong becomes quite the exercise in futility! It's like trying to pick up mercury!

Will Iraq have difficult times ahead? Well, being the only functioning democracy in the region is not a template for good times, that's for sure. Having a radical religious movement dead set against your success, devoted to your demise, and sponsored by the neighbor states, is not very promising for a peaceful future in Iraq.

From a realistic perspective, we can already see Iraq will have problems... and from your history, we can assume you will be right there to point each and every one of them out, and proclaim yourself "right all along" about Iraq, and it really doesn't matter how well it goes. I think the fact that 25 million people can now participate in fair elections, and enjoy freedom for the first time in world history, is one hell of an accomplishment. I think the fact that sunnis, shiites, and kurds, have all come together under one roof, to organize and function in a democratic way, is monumental! As I recall, this was another thing you have been WRONG about, we should be in the midst of an all-out civil war in Iraq by now! That's what you said would happen, but..... hmmmm.... didn't happen!

Oh yeah, you railed on and on for days and weeks about how sunnis and shiites couldn't get along, they would never be able to work out their differences, and Iraq was on the verge of a civil war as we spoke! Then you railed and railed on their Constitution, claiming they had formed a theocratic government just like Iran.... but that wasn't the case either. They took the same template we used for our own democracy, and forged a democracy suitable to Muslims. It didn't make you happy, but that was not the purpose.

So, here I have, pointed out at least two things you were just completely wrong about, and I haven't seen a single post by you, admitting you were wrong. And again, I predict I won't see that, because you are the Artful Dodger! You can twist words and meanings, and craft new context on the fly, or just outright lie through your teeth if you must, but you will never admit you are wrong.
 
Hmmmm....looks like this might be a good time to go over some of Dixie's past predictions regarding Iraq. I'll work up a draft...
 
Dixie said:
Oh, but see.... that is the whole thing in a nutshell Maine... YOU can't be proven wrong! It's impossible! When you can retain the right to modify definitions of words and context after the fact, you can just completely flip-flop whatever you say, so proving you wrong becomes quite the exercise in futility! It's like trying to pick up mercury!

Will Iraq have difficult times ahead? Well, being the only functioning democracy in the region is not a template for good times, that's for sure. Having a radical religious movement dead set against your success, devoted to your demise, and sponsored by the neighbor states, is not very promising for a peaceful future in Iraq.

From a realistic perspective, we can already see Iraq will have problems... and from your history, we can assume you will be right there to point each and every one of them out, and proclaim yourself "right all along" about Iraq, and it really doesn't matter how well it goes. I think the fact that 25 million people can now participate in fair elections, and enjoy freedom for the first time in world history, is one hell of an accomplishment. I think the fact that sunnis, shiites, and kurds, have all come together under one roof, to organize and function in a democratic way, is monumental! As I recall, this was another thing you have been WRONG about, we should be in the midst of an all-out civil war in Iraq by now! That's what you said would happen, but..... hmmmm.... didn't happen!

Oh yeah, you railed on and on for days and weeks about how sunnis and shiites couldn't get along, they would never be able to work out their differences, and Iraq was on the verge of a civil war as we spoke! Then you railed and railed on their Constitution, claiming they had formed a theocratic government just like Iran.... but that wasn't the case either. They took the same template we used for our own democracy, and forged a democracy suitable to Muslims. It didn't make you happy, but that was not the purpose.

So, here I have, pointed out at least two things you were just completely wrong about, and I haven't seen a single post by you, admitting you were wrong. And again, I predict I won't see that, because you are the Artful Dodger! You can twist words and meanings, and craft new context on the fly, or just outright lie through your teeth if you must, but you will never admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...

their constitution is not theocratic in nature? really? Here is the text of Article Two:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.


I railed about sunnis and shiites not being able to get along without an occupying army present. If and when we leave, and they get along, I will gladly admit I was wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top