Ever since the build up to the invasion of Iraq I’ve learned more about the nuances and fine distinctions between and amongst the various types of non-true statements than I had previously learned throughout my entire life. (Some of which I’ve been glad to learn. For instance, I’m glad that I now know what a negative pregnant is.) Growing up in my world, much of what politicians do, including negative pregnant, would’ve gotten me a whupping for lying. So, I suppose I should be obligated to place some of the blame for my ignorance about the variety of untrue statements on my parents. But, to be fair, they were just kids- naive country folk at that- back then. They themselves prob’ly had no idea of the wide world of untruths available to modern man.
I ask the Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backers who’re more schooled in the ways of untrue statements than my humble self to give me clarification on this issue:
Now that Bush has publicly denied having done something that he’s on video tape doing (the unconcerned about Osama debacle), can it finally be said that Bush has lied?
I mean, ‘lied’ in the appropriate technical sense, not in the relatively unnuanced, naive, hillbilly sense that I grew up with.
Basically, Kerry quoted Bush to Bush and Bush denied haviong said it and implied that Kerry was deliberately trying to create a false impression.
KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.
Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden? " He said, "I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned. "
We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?
BUSH: Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.
Damn!
I feel like such a rube.
I try and I try to get all sophisticated and shit; but, my hillbilly roots keep coming out. Too bad I didn’t know about all of this stuff when I was a kid. I’m sure if I could’ve just explained to my parents about how I wasn’t actually telling a lie I couild’ve been spared a spanking and thereby acquired greater leeway in my daily activities.
Ok, I’d give that a good old “liar” designation. It’s one thing to bash a guy for not remembering one of 1000 quotes he may have made over the past 3 years, but this quote is about his state of mind regarding Public Enemy #1, which he should not forget. Just a poor attempt at spin over a bad situation, we shouldn’t have stopped until we had that guy in chains, or in a box.
That is un-beeee-leeev-able. For accuracy’s sake, here’s the whole quote:
Uh, it appears to be quite in context. The reporter asked why the Prez doesn’t talk about UBL anymore, and the President said that his whole war on terrorism thing has made UBL not that big of a concern.
But I really like that lawyerly caveat he added in there, about UBL hiding… “if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.” Good one, Mr. President! You really zinged that reporter!
There’s another forum I lurk at, yet can’t bring myself to post in due to the overwhelming ignorance running rampant a dank little corner of the internet called multiconsole.com.
It’s essentially a bunch of videogame nerds (not that I’m any better) who tend to skew a tad facist/ retarded (which I’m a little bit better than).
A poster was insistant that bush was blameless for this claim because he merely said he “didn’t think” he ever said that.
It’s not his fault he doesn’t remember doing or saying things.
I don’t think he was lying. He’s being much more dishonest when he says that Kerry has raised taxes (98, 240, whatever the number of the day is), or that Kerry flip-flopped on the war, or is more liberal than Ted Kennedy.
I think he honestly forgot, and he phrased what he said two years ago poorly. Two years ago he was trying to make the point that OBL had been made a lot less effective, so he meant “I don’t care so much if he’s been caught as I used to, since he’s been effectively made irrelevant.”
On the other hand, he was being typically stupidly optimistic.
It was nice to see him get a taste of his own medicine, though. He’d have called Kerry a liar if the situations were reversed.
Essentially, I agree. It’s just sad that as plain spoken as he is, the president is constantly in need of someone to explain what “he really meant”.
And for as much as the “global test” and “sensitivity” thing as been blown up and taken out of context against Kerry, I can’t help but hope the Dems run the “not concerned” thing into the ground.
I really hate this. I mean really fucking hate this.
On two different occasions here, a poster has accused me of having ‘an attitude’ about them, one claimed having had a ‘history’ w/me in fact. IN both cases, I stated “I don’t recall having any real problem w/you”. In one case, Izzy thoughtfully ( :rolleyes: ) provided a link to a thread from 18 months prior where the other guy and I were going toe to toe. Was I telling a lie? Not to me, I sure as hell hadn’t remembered it. (These days I emphasize the “I don’t recall part”).
that’s what (IMHO) Bush did here. To him, he didn’t recall marginalizing the importance of Bin Laden. The source of the contrary quote was him talking about where he thought the emphasis should be (while, I’m sure, wanting to distract attention away from the lack of success in finding Bin Laden, sure). So, the context of the quote would be roughly ‘in the scheme of things, he’s not the primary focus’, not “I’m not worried about Bin Laden”
Now, does he lie when he talks about the Kerry record? well he sure is intentionally misleading. Did he lie about the WoMD etc? I’d say he sure as hell was intentionally misdirecting (“here, look at this evidence here, not at that stuff over there”).
A lie, to me, is a knowingly intentional false statement. I think it’s fair to say he **should ** have known about the WoMD, but to say he’s a ‘liar’ when he says he’s never said he wasn’t ‘worried’ about Bin Laden is not quite accurate.
the “lie” Cheney did “Until tonight we’ve never met” was, IMHO, a poorly researched piece at best. They certainly should have known better than to simply state the two men had never met. it seemed to me to be a rehearsed piece vs. something Cheney came up w/on the top of his head, and sure as hell should have been researched up the wazoo. I don’t doubt that Cheney didn’t recall specifically meeting Edwards before then, but to offer it up as a certainty, given the number of potential occasions for meetings in the past 4 years was stupid.
In this case, why don’t these guys say something to this effect? Does trying to clarify something usually provide the opposition with more fodder? Seriously, I’m curious about this. Neither candidate seems to be exerting any effort to clarify statements that are being misconstrued.
I’m with you, but don’t you think they should have prepared a better response to it? That comment has been all over the place for as long as I can remember.
yes, he should have prepared better, that quote and the "war on terrorism isn’t going to be ‘won’ " quote were certain to have been used. Yes he manipulates Kerrys’ words much worse and expects a pass on it. yes, he phrased it poorly.
If GWB had ben mouthing off on a MB about his peeves w/ an anonymous poster I’d give him the same slack that I give you.
As it is he was the Leader of the Free World giving one of the relatively few press conferences discussing matters of life and death re one of the gravest issues facing the world today.
It may be out of line for me to expect these two situations you see as similar to be held to different standards.
Maybe that is all the more one should expect of the Commander in Chief of the Mightiest Armed Forces in History of the World when discussing events that will leave thousands of men, women and children dead.
) or possibly smug ( 
)about his choice of words.