🚀 go-pugleaf

"T.Carr" <TCarr13397@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > Actually it's Democrats growing a backbone and doing to the
Republicans
> >  what
> > > > they've been doing for years.
> > > > One difference - the Democrats don't have to lie
> > >
> > >   Lies of omission are no different than lies of comission..unless one
> > > is a partisan 'dem
> >
>
> abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com
>
> > A "lie of ommision" in a campaign advertisment is normal in the USA.
>
>   So you admit the 'dem campaign is a lie?
>   Its a good beginning

Any time people use part of a quote it's not exactly "honest".
However it isn't a LIE because Bush did say the words.
Certainly the IMPRESSION Dubya was trying to create was that WE KNEW that
Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials from Iraq. The FACT is that the
WH carefully choose their words so that what they said was not technicly a
lie, but correct impression. This was no accident - they wanted to mislead
the people.
So the Democrats pointing out that the WH misled the people of the USA in
his SOTU speech is OK by me.

> > Certainly they never bothered you when Republicans have used them in
past
> > campaigns.
>
>   How would you know? I'm not aware of GOP ads that require the
> selective parsing and editing to make their point

LOL
The day I see an honest Republican ad, I'll eat my cats (all four of them).
I'm surprised that you'd even say that one!

> > However to pretend that the Democrats are being particularly awful for
using
> > this one is just plain silly.
>
>   Actually the hypocrisy factor provides a high degree of humor. Your
> party defends Clinton to the mat, attacks Bush about "lies" and
> prompty goes on the offensive with lies of its own

Totally untrue.
I don't recall a single Democrat excusing President Clinton for the "Ah
nevah had mah dick sucked by that woman" lie. Not once. I don't recall
people saying "well, he really meant....." or "he was told this last
October...". President Clinton was roundly (and rightly) dumped on for that
whopper.
Of course, that lie doesn't compare to
"we're winning the Vietnam War"
"we're not trading arms for hostages"
"Tax cuts will not raise deficit spending"
"THomas is the most qualified person we could find for the USSC"
etc.
SOmehow you guys find none of those lies damaging or bad, but lying about a
BJ is the WORST LIE IN HISTORY.

> > And I'd bet that you'd agree (if nobody were watching) that using
Dubya's
> > quote (most of it at least) is a lot more honest then how Dubya and
company
> > sold the "war"
>
>   Not in the least. Parsing 16 words out of the totality of the
> argument is pretty weak and lame.

Well, the rest of Dubya's argument had fallen apart, so "those 16 words" are
important.
And they weren't parsed very much - Dubya was trying to say that Iraq was
getting nuclear materials from Niger, something we KNEW was based on very
questionable information.
Are you saying that the WH was being honest?

>   The best case for the war was provided by Thomas Freidman (NY
> Times).

And that same case can be made for Liberia, Congo, Burma, etc.
You volunteering to go over and save those people? Seems like we can't even
keep the peace in Afganistan and Iraq, and over 1/2 of our army is now
overseas (which is totally against standing US policy).

Later :-)