All hyped up from the Inagural, are we? (BTW, I hope you and the missus had fun)
De minimis, counselor. Next?
Whoa there, Ravenman. Bricker has never made any argument about what standards should apply to the consequences of a particular lie. Instead, Bricker has only made argument about what should or should not be classified as a lie.
Bricker is most certainly not saying (at least in this thread) that all lies/misstatements are equally outrageous - that issue has indeed never come up. Instead, he is simply arguing that whether a statement is the truth or a lie should be judged by the same standard, whether the statement addresses lunch or affairs of state.
Sua
Well, as my first post suggested (before I even read the resolutions), the OP seemed to imply such an equivalence; I got the impression that Bricker was challenging anyone to explain why they found Bush’s actions objectionable when they didn’t find Boxer’s objectionable. Even if Boxer’s statement were as egregiously wrong as Bush’s, the fact that her statement won’t result in thousands of deaths is a morally relevant point.
Daniel
I saw the exchange between the two, and was thinking about pretty much the same thing (the mistatement, though not the comparrison to Bush’s statements) having become familiar with the text of the resolution. But I think it’s stretching it beyond reasonableness to put this in the same category with those who claim “Bush lied”. This was a simple exchange between 2 people and Condi was certainly in a position to dispute Boxer’s claim (which she did, though very weakly) and resolve the situation then and there.
I don’t buy the “Bush lied” argument either, Bricker, but to imply that there would have been even the remotest chance of that resolution passing w/o the WMD argument is just silly. The other stuff was filler to show what a mean guy Saddam was. Boxer exagerated, as all politicians do.
OK, let’s start over.
Bush: “You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.”
Fact: Completely inaccurate. His statement that he had found them - not seen evidence of, but found - can only be interpreted as a lie, or at the very least, misleading falsehood. You can only interpret “found” in so many ways before you start turning into a weasel.
Boxer: “Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period.”
Fact: Exaggeration. The resolution contained other reasons in one paragraph, but was overwhelmingly focused on illegal weapons posing a direct threat to America justifying a pre-emptive war.
Actually, re-reading that, I realized something… she said she didn’t read it, so by the Bush-defender’s position, she couldn’t have been lying, because she didn’t know for sure. She was relying on what was told to her. Probably a foolish way to vote on issues (I dislike her anyway, so whatever), but nonetheless, that makes this case somewhat moot, doesn’t it?
Actually, I’m pretty sure she was saying that she didn’t vote for it, not that she didn’t read it. The misplaced modifier strikes again!
Daniel
Demorian,
The “which I did not” is in reference to supporting the war, not reading the resolution. Boxer voted against the resolution.
Quite right, both of you. What is funny is that I read it right the first 5 times I read it, but it popped out the last time. (I still wish she hadn’t read it, it’d make her look incompetent and maybe we could vote her out finally)
Please disregard the relevant post.
Certainly a systematic, pre-meditated arrray of lies cannot be compared to a technical lie made in a somewhat off-the-cuff (though on-the-record) manner?
The inescapable conclusion I draw from the OP is that if Bush-bashers are not also Boxer-bashers, then they have a double standard for lies (and the implication is that they are hypocrites, of course). Not only is that a false dilemma, it ignores the fact that reasonable people can see white lies and big lies as deserving different levels of condemnation, regardless of what the consquences of the lies may be. I, too, never mentioned consequences in my post.
If there is any point to the OP other than trying to get Bush-bashers and Bush-bashers alone (with whom I disagree on this issue) to quibble over the term “lie,” I don’t see it. That kind of debate certainly does not shed any light whatsoever on the legitimate question of whether Bush lied, hyped, or was deceived by intelligence about WMD in Iraq.
Amusing as it is to watch you wriggle, I find the mental decline necessary to make such a comparison even more so.
Bush swore hand-on-heart that he had in his personal possession precise knowledge of the nature, place, volume and composition of the Iraq confectionary inventory. The evidence admitted of no ambiguity.
Unnnnnfortunately for security reasons … not able to share … &etc.
By contrast, Ms Boxer offerred an analysis of a document in the public domain, evidence freely available to all who may have an interest in her opinion.
Bush, knowingly, freely and with malice aforethought engaged in conspiracy to defraud the public trust.
Ms Boxer offers her honest and informed opinion in public debate and Bricker dares impugn an honourable Woman with comparison to a worm like George W. Bush.
Fair enough.
Let’s take the aluminum tubes claim.
President Bush pointed to aluminum tubes imported by Iraq which they say are for use in making nuclear weapons. Lie? Or not? (Assuming we agree that Senator Boxer’s statement was NOT a lie.)
…which HE said were for use in making nuclear weapons.
Please amend my post as indicated.
I don’t think that can reasonably be considered an error – in the absence of WMDs, Saddam’s Iraq had as much ability to effectively attack us as the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.
Oh. I thought the typo was due to the proximity of the “er” and "o keys. 
Timothy McVeigh didn’t have WMD.
Neither did Al-Queda.
That specific instance? Not a lie, it is just a wild ass speculation based on nothing. It isn’t like a friggin’ tube is a rare thing to come across.
We’re (the Bush lied crowd) more targetting those instances where he said, you know, that they had found them, and they are there, for sure, 100%, no doubt, because they had proof.
Bricker, you’ve just rationalized the “liberation” of Oklahoma. :rolleyes:
You might want to ask a mod to fix your thread title, then.
Neither did Saddam.
A trifecta!