so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-01-2003, 07:54 AM   #196
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:44 AM
I'd say all Bush's lies fit into one or more of these definition.

Definition of "Lie" And "Lying."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

big lie, the
1. a gross falsification or misrepresentation of
the facts, with constant repetition and
embellishment to lend credibility
2. the propaganda technique, as in politics, of
using this device


lie{2} vi. lied, ly'ing
1. a) to make a statement that one knows is
false, esp. with intent to deceive b) to make
such statements habitually
2. to give a false impression; deceive one
[statistics can lie]
vt. to bring, put, accomplish, etc. by lying [to
lie oneself into office]
n.
1. a false statement or action, esp. one made
with intent to deceive
2. anything that gives or is meant to give a
false impression
3. the charge of lying --give the lie to
1. to charge with telling a lie
2. to prove to be false; belie --lie in one's
throat (or teeth) to tell a foul or
outrageous lie


Especially these 2:

. a) to make a statement that one knows is
false, esp. with intent to deceive b) to make
such statements habitually

2. anything that gives or is meant to give a
false impression
Everything he told the American people, Congress, and our Allies was LIES.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-01-2003, 11:54 AM   #197
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Scarletwine,

For anything to be a lie, you have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person KNOWINGLY MADE FALSE STATEMENTS. None of your alleged evidence does this. Not a single one. If there was anything slightly credible, Democrats would already be preparing the groundwork for impeachment. Despite the fact there is no credible evidence of any Lies, I have no doubt that the fantasy and conspiracies will continue to exist for many.

By the way, 12 years after the Gulf War had ended, how many resolutions did the United Nations say Saddam had complied with of the 17 passed against him?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-01-2003, 12:28 PM   #198
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


By the way, 12 years after the Gulf War had ended, how many resolutions did the United Nations say Saddam had complied with of the 17 passed against him?
Once again absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

But, yes you are right without proof we can only assume if Bush lied or not. Time will tell if he knowingly ignored the facts. I have no doubt that people in his administration lied, but if it was Bush or his advisers, no one but them and God will know the absolute truth.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-01-2003, 03:52 PM   #199
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 AM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"Once again absolutely nothing to do with the debate."

"But, yes you are right without proof we can only assume if Bush lied or not. Time will tell if he knowingly ignored the facts. I have no doubt that people in his administration lied, but if it was Bush or his advisers, no one but them and God will know the absolute truth."

The UN Security Council Resolutions have everything to do with the debate because they are the Bush administrations central and legal basis for military action against Iraq.

The FACTS were that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM. It does not matter if the administration had a shred of "evidence" or finds any WMD in Iraq ever! It is not the administrations responsiblity to prove there were WMD in Iraq. It was Saddam's responsibility to prove he did not have WMD through VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT. Those were the conditions and requirements of the UN 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement and multiple UN Resolutions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-01-2003, 04:50 PM   #200
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The UN Security Council Resolutions have everything to do with the debate because they are the Bush administrations central and legal basis for military action against Iraq.

It does not matter if the administration had a shred of "evidence" or finds any WMD in Iraq ever! It is not the administrations responsiblity to prove there were WMD in Iraq.
Read back through this thread and see if there was one statement being debated that stated any of the resolutions. I'm not debating the legality of the war. This debate is based upon statements made by Bush and his administration. We're debating if Bush knowingly spoke in non-truths. There are things he said, that have turned out not to true. No one debates that. What's in debate is if he knowingly did it. Has nothing to do with resolutions.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-01-2003, 08:44 PM   #201
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 AM
If you look back through this thread you will find several statements in regards to the resolutions. There are certainly things that have not been found yet in Iraq, but that does not mean they do not exist. The idea that Bush lied about WMD to go to war against Iraq is rubbish on several points, chiefly being that the basis for war existed already because of Saddam failure to comply and this was the Administrations central arguement for military action. The other statements that are called into question now are primarily done so because WMD has not been found yet. The simple fact that WMD has not been found yet does not disqualify any of Bush's statements. His questioned statements were based on the best intelligence, the same intelligence used by Clinton Administration officials in their actions against Iraq. Finally, if there was a piece of intelligence that was clearly false, you'd have to prove that the President created or knew it was false and used it. These allegations are essentially worthless and could probably be made against virtually anyone in office. Before one screams liar or dishonesty, you'd better have the proof to back it up. I defended Clinton down the line until it was proven that he lied.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-01-2003, 11:18 PM   #202
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If you look back through this thread you will find several statements in regards to the resolutions. There are certainly things that have not been found yet in Iraq, but that does not mean they do not exist. The idea that Bush lied about WMD to go to war against Iraq is rubbish on several points, chiefly being that the basis for war existed already because of Saddam failure to comply and this was the Administrations central arguement for military action. The other statements that are called into question now are primarily done so because WMD has not been found yet. The simple fact that WMD has not been found yet does not disqualify any of Bush's statements. His questioned statements were based on the best intelligence, the same intelligence used by Clinton Administration officials in their actions against Iraq. Finally, if there was a piece of intelligence that was clearly false, you'd have to prove that the President created or knew it was false and used it. These allegations are essentially worthless and could probably be made against virtually anyone in office. Before one screams liar or dishonesty, you'd better have the proof to back it up. I defended Clinton down the line until it was proven that he lied.
Well I'm sorry I haven't found one statement in this thread that Bush said "due to resolution ____ we can go to war." And Sting I'm agreeing with you that Bush quoted the intelligence offered to him, but neither one of us know absolute 100% that he used this intelligence before or after it was considered false. We may never know. But there are people who claim that the falacy of such intelligence was brought forth before he quoted it and that brings certain people to question it, that's all I'm saying. I believe Bush used and exagerated outdated information to get this nation and others to back him in this war, but you are right I can't say for 100% that he lied. But personally, presenting old information as being currently up to date, "we know this as true" is deception. If Bush just came forth and said, "according to resolution ____ I'm allowed to go to war", then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he didn't, he presented the situation as being we're in danger right now.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-02-2003, 12:13 AM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 AM
"Well I'm sorry I haven't found one statement in this thread that Bush said "due to resolution ____ we can go to war.""

Check some of my postings. Yes, it was the central legal case for war against Iraq. Bush started his campaign to enforce the resolutions on September 12, 2002 at the United Nations specifically citing the resolutions and Saddams failure to comply and recieved authorization from the US Congress on October 11, 2002 to take military action.

The central US case for war was not that Factory x or y was producing Chemical a or b, it was Iraq's failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions. Yes BUSH stated this before the UN on September 12, 2002 and to the nation several times.

"Outdated" or "Exagereted" intelligence is irrelevant to the Bush Administrations case for military action. Its not about US intelligence, but about Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of his WMD.

The UN determined in March of 1991 that Saddam's possession of WMD was an imminent threat to the region and the world and was there for required by the United Nations to 100% disarm of all WMD programs and materials back in March 1991. Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions did mean the international community was in danger "right now". Saddam at any time could use WMD against his neighbors or others. Until Saddam was VERIFIABLY DISARMED, the threat continued to exist.

Saddam's failure to Verifiably Disarm of WMD has been the Bush Administration central position on the need to use military force all along. It is the legal justification presented to the international community by the administration, in resolution 1441!

If those that are against Bush want to argue over what he said or how he said this or that, after the US congress already had given Bush the authorization to use military force, fine. But this is simply political nit-picking that after months has not produced a single grain of sand. Until indisputable evidence shows otherwise, people should be treating the President as honest and giving him due respect.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-02-2003, 12:46 AM   #204
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"Well I'm sorry I haven't found one statement in this thread that Bush said "due to resolution ____ we can go to war.""

Check some of my postings. Yes, it was the central legal case for war against Iraq. Bush started his campaign to enforce the resolutions on September 12, 2002 at the United Nations specifically citing the resolutions and Saddams failure to comply and recieved authorization from the US Congress on October 11, 2002 to take military action.

The central US case for war was not that Factory x or y was producing Chemical a or b, it was Iraq's failure to comply with 17 UN resolutions. Yes BUSH stated this before the UN on September 12, 2002 and to the nation several times.

"Outdated" or "Exagereted" intelligence is irrelevant to the Bush Administrations case for military action. Its not about US intelligence, but about Saddam's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of his WMD.

If those that are against Bush want to argue over what he said or how he said this or that, after the US congress already had given Bush the authorization to use military force, fine. But this is simply political nit-picking that after months has not produced a single grain of sand. Until indisputable evidence shows otherwise, people should be treating the President as honest and giving him due respect.
I still haven't seen or heard a quote out of Bush's mouth that said "due to this resolution we can go to war." Ok so no WMD's, false intelligence, and a huge misprophecy...you still believe Bush did this with a pure conscience?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-02-2003, 09:53 AM   #205
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:44 AM
His other lies:

He lied when he said the estate tax forced families to sell their farms. When he said he only got to know Kenneth Lay after becoming governor. When he said that budget deficits were the result of 9/11. When he said he would produce a plan to "reduce" global warming emissions. These were all lies. Yet most media outfits did not see it as their mission to stamp "lie" on a demonstrably untrue Bush remark or to question Bush's truthfulness.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-02-2003, 11:25 AM   #206
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
His other lies:He lied when he said the estate tax forced families to sell their farms. When he said he only got to know Kenneth Lay after becoming governor. When he said that budget deficits were the result of 9/11. When he said he would produce a plan to "reduce" global warming emissions. These were all lies. Yet most media outfits did not see it as their mission to stamp "lie" on a demonstrably untrue Bush remark or to question Bush's truthfulness.
Interesting. You should consider your definition of "lie" and see if you apply it consistently in all areas.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-02-2003, 04:54 PM   #207
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 AM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"I still haven't seen or heard a quote out of Bush's mouth that said "due to this resolution we can go to war." Ok so no WMD's, false intelligence, and a huge misprophecy...you still believe Bush did this with a pure conscience?"

I've never heard a quote out of Bush's mouth which said "due to the purchase of Uranium from Niger, we can go to war".

Again, read Bush's speach at the UN on September 12, 2002. The US government was the author of the resolutions brought to the UN against Iraq. The Resolutions are the US governments #1 basis both legal and political for the use of military force against Iraq. Bush's speech months after Congress already gave Bush authorization to use force against Iraq in which he said somethings that have been questioned is light years away from the central and legal basis for war against Iraq presented by the government of the United States.

It is not a requirement of the Bush administration that it find WMDs in Iraq in order to justify its use of military force. Saddams failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM was a material breech of the 1991 UN Ceacefire Agreement that he signed onto to stop the first Gulf War from continueing to Baghdad. It has nothing to do with any member of the international community presenting evidence of WMD. The only one required to produce Evidence of WMD is SADDAM. Evidence of the destruction or the WMD itself. There is no middle ground and dispute about that. The only one required to prove anything was SADDAM. Nothing in any of the resolutions or the 1991 Ceacefire agreement said that it was a requirement of member states of the UN to produce any type of evidence. Saddam is the one that was in violation of multiple resolutions passed against him by the UN. Compliance consisted of him proving that he had completely disarmed of WMD. This was supposed to be accomplished through a verification process by the UN. Saddam did not complete the process. Failure to verifiably disarm was a violation of multiple resolutions under which case member states of the UN were authorized to use military force to bring about compliance.

Where the WMD's are now, what state they are currently in, is irrelevant to the case for the use of military force. The decision to use military force or not carefully rested on whether Saddam VERIFIABLY disarmed all WMD or not.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 08:17 AM   #208
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:44 AM
At least the closest allie of the Bush administration - Mr. Blair knew that he was fooling the public - according to Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary.

From NY Times / International

Quote:
Blair Doubted Iraq Had Arms, Ex-Aide Says
By WARREN HOGE
Published: October 6, 2003

LONDON, Oct. 5 Prime Minister Tony Blair conceded privately that Iraq did not have quickly deployable weapons of mass destruction as the British government was claiming as justification for war, says Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary.

Mr. Cook, who quit his post as leader of the House of Commons in March because of Britain's decision to join in the American-led war in Iraq, says Mr. Blair also made it clear to him in a conversation two weeks before combat began that he did not believe Saddam Hussein's weapons posed a "real and present danger" to Britain.

Mr. Cook's account was made public in extracts published in The Sunday Times of London from "Point of Departure," a book based on his diary entries from the period.

An intelligence dossier published in September 2002 argued that Iraq had unconventional weapons that could be used within 45 minutes of an order being given. Mr. Cook said that he had no reason to doubt that Mr. Blair believed the claim at the time it was made but that in their conversation on March 5, Mr. Blair told him the weapons were only battlefield munitions and could not be assembled by Mr. Hussein for quick use because of "all the effort he has put into concealment."

Mr. Cook wrote, "If No. 10 accepted that Saddam had no real W.M.D. which he could credibly use against city targets and if they themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a credible time scale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did they really think Saddam represented?"

In response, a 10 Downing Street spokesman said: "The idea that the prime minister ever said that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction is absurd. His views have been consistent throughout, both publicly and privately, as his cabinet colleagues know. Robin Cook's views are well known and have been expressed many times before."

The failure to find unconventional weapons and the public suspicions, aired during six weeks of hearings this summer, that the government doctored intelligence to win support for an unpopular war have caused Mr. Blair's popularity to slump to its lowest point since he came to power in 1997.

Mr. Cook said he and other cabinet members worried that Mr. Blair's decision was motivated more by his desire to maintain Britain's influence in Washington than to protect British interests against a possible terror attack.

"I am certain," Mr. Cook wrote, "the real reason he went to war was that he found it easier to resist the public opinion of Britain than the request of the president of the United States."

A year before, Mr. Cook wrote, Mr. Blair had instructed the cabinet: "We must steer close to America. If we don't, we will lose our influence to shape what they do."

Mr. Cook served as foreign secretary during Mr. Blair's first term in office. Unlike the other cabinet member to quit over the war, Clare Short, the international development secretary, he declared himself a Blair loyalist in his resignation speech to the Commons and said he hoped to see him remain in office.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-06-2003, 01:21 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Even if Tony Blair really said that it does not change the chief basis for war which was Iraq's failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. UN resolutions passed against Saddam required him to do this. They were passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow military force to be used to ENFORCE the resolutions.

If one could show that Saddam had VERIFIABLY DISARMED then one might have a point. But I know of no member State in the United Nations that has made that claim. Saddam Hussien has still failed to account for 30,000 Bio/Chem shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas. When how or in what way such unaccounted for WMD is irrelevant to the fact that it was required that Saddam be VERIFIABLY Disarmed of such material or face disarmament through military force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-07-2003, 01:55 PM   #210
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:44 AM
If it was about Disarming them because Iraq did not verifiably dissarm...
...why did they talk about self defense, unprooved al-quaida and 9/11 connections and why did they need faked "facts" from their security agencies.

And why - if they did it under the UN rules is the UN not in control of the whole operation?
Why was the threat of Iraq (against other countries) so imminent that they couldn't wait that unmovic finished its work?
Why wasn't even the time to wait 3 more days were France and Germany said they would present an alternative at the UN forum?

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com