🚀 go-pugleaf

OrionCA <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:a19phvsgr1ljeodekfouge42gnhtje3s2j@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:03:53 -0000, Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>So repeating a lie you know a lie as if it is true is somehow not
>>lying? 
> 
> Did he know it was a lie? Does ANYONE know it is a lie?  Remember, the
> British STILL stand by their intelligence reports.  
> 
> If I tell people, "Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com has told me that George W
> Bush is a pedophile.", I have not lied.  Neither have I accused GWB of
> being a pedophile.  It goes back to your credibility, not mine.  If I
> know that Gene <Yahoo@nowhere.com is a flaming loser who is still sore
> about the 2000 election and has lied constantly about GWB ever since,
> and didn't point that out as well I would be telling a "half truth",
> but it still wouldn't be a lie.  
> 
> In the current case that wouldn't be a factor:  Unlike Gene
> <Yahoo@nowhere.com the British generally have a lot of credibility.
> When they say their spooks are sure Saddam Hussein is shopping for
> yellowcake all over Africa I tend to believe them.  Tony Blair
> wouldn't wake up one morning and say, "I think I'll tell the Yanks
> that Hussein is shopping for uranium even though I know it's not true:
> It will be quite a giggle watching their faces."  Ethics aside the
> political risk would be inconceivable.
> 
>>Amazing how unethical you folks are. He wanted to say it against the 
>>advice of others and he did. He did it for a reason - to hype a war. 
>>Young Americans were killed in that war. His lying ways caused their 
>>deaths. Easy, true, logical. 
>>Liars like mushrooms need the dark. The flood lights are on and I
>>can't wait to see how you folks explain the soon to be posted 9/11
>>report. The dam has to many hole to plug and the tidal wave is coming.
> 
> There is no "lie" here to hide in the dark.  The Brits were sure
> Hussein was shopping for nuclear material in Africa, Bush didn't have
> independent confirmation or would have said so.  He probably shouldn't
> have included those 16 words in the SotU address - not because "it was
> a lie and he knew it" but because lunatics like you would jump up and
> down and squeal at the top of your lungs.  
> 
> If this was a lie and was the main reason Bush attacked Iraq then you
> should "logically" argue that we should pull our troops out of Iraq,
> apologize to Hussein, and pay reparations.  As you're not doing that
> we can only suppose that you are doing this for political advantage
> rather than moral outrage.  IE;, you want to win the next election and
> you don't care how you do it.  See sig.
> --
> "Iraq was a brilliant campaign fought with minimal 
> casualties, 11 September was a humiliating failure 
> by government to fulfill its primary role of 
> national defence. But Democrats who complained that
> Bush was too slow to act on doubtful intelligence 
> re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he was too
> quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This 
> is not a serious party."
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue
> =2003-07-19&id=3319 

First, thanks for the discussion, rarely does the normal responder reply 
with thought. I can see your point but when I ask myself why do I tend to 
disbelieve Mr. Bush rather than give him the benefit of the doubt, I find 
the totality of the package rather than the single fact leads me to 
believe he is at best misleading or at worst lying. 

I have to catch a plane weds night and don't have the time presently to 
give you the full reasons. I will be back the end of the month. I will 
provide you with the thought process that makes me draw the conclusion I 
did. I think your response deserves that. You know and I know either of 
us could be wrong the unknown in this instance is large. I hope I am the 
wrong one, this country doesn't need another Nixon or Clinton scandal. I 
fear I am right. I look forward to you convincing me I'm not.