I’m not sure but wasn’t it kinda important to Clinton-haters that he said stuff in public that turned out not to be true, and he violated all sorts of moral standards by insisting that it was? What do you call Bush’s furrowed-brow promises to find out who leaked the material when (I think even you’ll have to concede) he must have had a pretty good idea of the leak’s source if it was actually he who did the leaking. Isn’t that called a lie? Isn’t lying immoral? Didn’t you guys have a problem with Clinton over this a few years back?[
Well, I’m not a Clinton hater, so you’ll have to drag one of those into this thread. But I thought what was important, in a legal sense, was that he lied under oath.
Who are “you guys”? You need to de-straw your argument here, pal.
In Clinton’s case, btw, he did lie (or mislead) the public about his affair with Monica, and he admitted that he lied to us (or that he mislead us). As we said in the Pit thread, IF you believe Libby and IF you believe what Cheney told Libby, then it’s true that Bush knew something about Libby “leaking” the info to Miller. Tell me why “you guys” suddenly think both Libby and Cheney are the font of truth? Libby is already charged with obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, and perjury before the grand jury. So, he was lying then, but now he’s telling the truth? How do you know that?
Political? Is everything that contradict’s the official position politically motivated?
The FACT was that, despite Bush’s position, Niger had NOT sold, or even attempted to sell, Saddam uranium yellowcake. Wilson went public with that fact. Shouldn’t decisions to go to war be based on facts? Isn’t the suppression of fact in an attempt to go to war “immoral”? Isn’t the very dismissal of facts as “political” immoral as well?
John, do you really see wars and blowjobs as morally equivalent? Speaking of strawmen, as you were, that is. One might have thought we’d all be past that stage by now, but obviously not.
He’s using his executive powers to score political points, which is why I think many of us find the event immoral. As prez, he can sift through the data gathered by several gigantic federal agencies, find the bits that support him, then declassify those bits without letting anyone else get a look. This sort of hacking apart CIA documents to make a case is not what we, as taxpayers, intend our intelligence dollars to be spent on.
Of course, it’s largely a matter of what you think about Bush (or politicians in general). If you think that what was released was a fair summary of the information, and that the administration was merely trying to inform the public, then it seems an allright thing to do. I don’t know for a fact that this wasn’t the case, but I don’t really trust any politician to release a fair summary of what they know about a contentious political issue.
John, so far the White House has not corrected anything Libby has said: they have basically nodded and launched right into a defense of why it was okay. What reason does anyone have at this point to think that Libby is lying? No one, other than you, is suggesting that he did in this case.
The WH is saying the NIE report was declassified. In Libby’s account, it’s not clear that it was. There is a potential 10 discrepancy there. My newspaper is reporting today that the report was not officially declassified at the time that Libby talked about it do Miller, although they don’t say how they know that.
I’m suggesting that he might not be telling the truth, but that’s not really the biggie in terms of indicting Bush. That hinges on whether or not Cheney told the truth to Libby. But even then, if the stuff was in fact declassified then this is much ado about nothing. “Leaking” something to the press that the president wants the press to know is perfectly kosher. It’s done all the time. Unauthorized leaking of classified material is a crime.
So either Bush lied to all of America when he said that he didn’t know where the leak came from, or Cheney lied, or Libby lied. At what point does Bush take any responsibility for anything? The buck doesn’t go any further up. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting mighty tired of Bush maintaining his saintlike innocence while everyone around him is maliciously screwing up- but nossir, none of it’s Bush’s fault!. At what point do you say, “Hmm… maybe Bush SHOULD be held responsible for his underlings’ screwups”?
I supervise three people in my office. If one of them screws up, he gets into trouble- but so do I, because, ultimately, it’s MY responsibility.
Either Bush lied, or he’s incompetent and surrounds himself with people we can’t trust. Which is it?
Well, it is possible that they’re all telling the truth, too. If Bush authorized Cheney to tell Libby to give the info to Miller, then there wasn’t any leak of calissified information.
That’s a false dichotomy, but I’ll take imcompetent for $500. I don’t undestand why refuting a charge against Bush turns a person into a Bush supporter. I can’t stand the guy. I think he’s a failure as a president, and I can hardly wait until he’s out of office. But this thread isn’t about whether Bush is incompetent. If you want to debate that, start a thread: Resovled: Bush is incomeptent. I’ll be happy to join in.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re advancing a logical fallacy. We all do it all the time in “real life” as a matter of practicality. But it’s a fallacy nonetheless.
I saw the ‘debate’ on this in the Pit. I really must be missing something here.
Are you disputing that the president has the legal right to declassify information as he see’s fit? I don’t just mean Bush…I mean PotUS? Assuming you say its not legal, could you expand on that point. If you say its legal, how is it equivelent to claiming Bush can legally tap my phone in the US (and as an aside where does it say he can in the Constitution)?
Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to cheat on your wife?? (pursuit of happyness clause?? ) And whats this got to do with the current situation? I’m totally lost here…throw me a bone!
Are you saying that PotUS has exactly the same rights and powers as the average citizen? Is that what you are getting at here?
BTW, are we all on the same page with what exactly WAS released? I get the feeling that some people are still under the impression that the Plame outing was part of this. Assuming that everyone IS on the same page…what specifically is wrong with the information that WAS released? Why all this tempest in a tea cup over it? How does it ‘prove’ Bush lied that he released what he did? I really am struggling to understand here.
I think you’re assuming Libby asserted something that he did not. As I said in the other thread (to repeat myself), Bush’s actions, by definition, can’t authorize an unauthorized leak of classified information. I don’t think this is a weightless, semantical distinction.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something, Bush said he’d fire anyone who leaked Plame’s status, then he changed his wording and said that, “if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA leak case, that person will ‘no longer work in my administration.’” The change in wording notwithstanding, nothing about what Libby admitted suggests that Bush set a different standard for himself. Why? Because Libby has not said that Bush (or Cheney) declassified Plame’s CIA status, period.
That’s why I’m perplexed when this last piece of news–Libby states Bush ultimately authorized the declassification of the NIE report–prompts people to suggest a double standard, or that Bush is walking a fine line, or whatever. Even if one accepts what Libby said at face value, if we hold it as gospel truth, it does not suggest that Bush was inconsistent. Libby has not stated what some people seem to think he did.
Wow, you got me there. I can really only say with any confidence that you have identified yourself as a proponent of this school of thought in this thread.
I retract my inclusion of you in the population of those subject to human nature. Very irresponsible of me to suggest that without solid evidence. From now on, when I use a phrase like, “We all do this,” you can assume I mean all humans, in general, except you. I hereby amend my position to assert that you have only advanced this logical fallacy in this particular thread. I have no opinion if you have done so elsewhere.
Good. Now if you applied that thought consistently to everything you’d attain the high standards you demand of everyone else.
As I have said before, if you claim that certain things haven’t been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that a phrase such as “is it right that Bush did X” should really be replaced by “is it wise to trust him when it is claimed that Bush did X”, you will find no argument from me. Not that I see that in the OP of course.
But if you limit discussion to only that which can be rigorously, scientifically proven, well, you’d have almost no political discussion in GD is what you’d have.
Sorry, don’t agree. One can have healthy political discussion without resorting to logical fallacies. An unproveable opinion can still be logical. “Is it wise to trust him when it is claimed that Bush did X,” is a practical question, but it does not prove or disprove whether or not Bush is telling the truth on a given issue.
To ask whether or not we should believe Bush on topic X, based on our assessment of the character he has displayed in the past, is a logical fallacy. In fact, it is called the Genetic Fallacy. Or is it possible to interpret this statement any other way?:
) And whats this got to do with the current situation? I’m totally lost here…throw me a bone!