Ok, I’m a fucking moron, for a given value of ‘fucking moron’.
(angel of truth and justice? tsk tsk tsk)
You did read my post?
What do you think I was trying to say?
[QUOTE=ASAKMOTSD]
I thought he said he was a “jelly donut”…
[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Time to put that urban legend to rest.
[QUOTE=askeptic]
Time to put that urban legend to rest.
[/QUOTE]
You missed the point. People in my hometown often call me a Coloradoan. I’m not, I’m a Coloradan. Before that a Michigander. Before that a Buckeye. See?
McClellan needs to be tortured into revealing whether or not he actually saw Bush’s pants on fire.
[QUOTE=Chefguy]
McClellan needs to be tortured into revealing whether or not he actually saw Bush’s pants on fire.
[/QUOTE]
You win this one.
How does one guy saying another guy lied constitute “proof”? Was he wearing a wire?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has released excerpts from his yet to be published book that charge President Bush with lying to the American public regarding the outing of Valerie Plame:Can we lynch him now?
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, unless you want to get riddled with bullets from the Secret Service I’d highly advise you not try to lynch the President of the United States.
Second, while I think Bush handled the Plame affair in a very partisan manner, I really couldn’t give a shit. Do I wish we lived in a perfect world? Yup. If we lived in a perfect world the President wouldn’t behave in such a partisan manner over something like that, but we don’t live in a perfect world and he acted how I think any President would have acted in his shoes.
Presidents lie, it’s part of their job. Ideally it wouldn’t be..
[QUOTE=Liberal]
You mean “proof” has been reduced to mean this?
[/QUOTE]
Guess it’ll have to do, until someone comes along with an ontological proof of Bush’s duplicity.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
One, technically true. Since ‘sexual relations’ have a definit legal meaning, and that meaning excluded oral sex, then it wasn’t a lie.
[/quote]
Actually “sexual relations” doesn’t have a definite legal meaning. While I can see where it might be defined by statute in some jurisdictions (perhaps in statutes concerning sex crimes) that would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the context of Clinton’s deposition it did. But when he hijacked the airwaves and made an unequivocal statement to the American people that, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” he was not in a court of law. He wasn’t at his deposition where he made it very clear what type of sexual relations were being talked about. He was talking directly to the American people, and pretty much all Americans from California to Virginia when talking to one another would consider oral sex a form of “sexual relations.”
The “I didn’t have sexual relations” comment wasn’t what he said in his deposition, it was what he said in a very-mocked television spot that he did in an attempt to hide from the fact he was having extra-martial sexual relations.
Agreed, not sure what the barb about treason has to do with the price of tea in China, but this is certainly a true statement.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Guess it’ll have to do, until someone comes along with an ontological proof of Bush’s duplicity.
[/QUOTE]
John Howard said Bush is intelligent. Lucky for him your proof threshold is subterranean.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
The blurb is released to cause maximum buzz. Knowing McClellan’s history, my guess is that the next few paragraphs will go on to blame primarily those people who were already charged with wrong doing (Libby) and just give vague statements about how the others were guilty for having been in charge at the time, but not accusing them of any specific wrongdoing.
[/QUOTE]
I’m even more convinced McClellan will not explicitly say Bush lied in this book. Here he is talking with Larry King just this March:
I guess its possible that he’s changed his tune since then, but I doubt it.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
John Howard said Bush is intelligent.
[/QUOTE]
Well. One shouldn’t believe everything one reads, after all.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
No, it can’t. It is crystal clear that McClellan is charging Bush, Cheney, Card, and Libby with deliberate lies. Spinning it any other way is just fatuous obfuscation.
[/QUOTE]
My question is, why on earth would he do this? Has he ever shown any sign of butting heads with his bosses in the past? AFAIK, he’s always seemed to be fairly loyal, if not a believer. Why would he so suddenly turn around now, especially when half the people you mention above are still in office?
Could be a ripoff, man. Like coming-week TV previews that show the main guy [losing all his powers | joining the “other side” | finally kissing the platonic-sexual-tension female lead | successfully performing autofellatio], then when you tune in, you find out it’s some two-minute throwaway dream sequence completely irrelevant to the plot.
[QUOTE=KGS]
Amen to that. I gave up giving a shit about GWB long ago.
I’ll bet most of America has, too.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, it`s the Long Lie (related to the Big Lie), lie for long enough and people will stop caring about the truth.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Bush Lied, and now we have proof.
Former Bush White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has released excerpts from his yet to be published book that charge President Bush with lying to the American public regarding the outing of Valerie Plame:Can we lynch him now?
[/QUOTE]
All we have “proof” of is that McClellan has made some rather vague claims. :rolleyes: How is that proof that Bush lied? :dubious: Maybe McClellan lied.
Not that I have any doubt that GWB has lied to us, but still, this is hardly “proof” of anything.
Would somebody please go blow that bastard so we can get rid of him?
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
How does one guy saying another guy lied constitute “proof”? Was he wearing a wire?
[/QUOTE]
I echo this question.
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
How does one guy saying another guy lied constitute “proof”? Was he wearing a wire?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I echo this question.
[/QUOTE]
Clearly, anyone ever convicted on eye witness testimony should be immediately released from prison.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Firstly, unless you want to get riddled with bullets from the Secret Service I’d highly advise you not try to lynch the President of the United States.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, since lynching generally involves a large group of people (hence “lynch mob”), it seems to me that the risk to any one person would be fairly low. The Secret Service likely wouldn’t waste time “riddling” any individual with bullets; they’d try to take down as many people as possible before the crowd rolled over them.