the Clintons are fucking liars.
First of all it wasn’t a lie – it was a tricky statement (along with a careless error on my part.) “The President” did say the first quote.
The second part of the quote was a mistake on my part, not a lie. If I’d been paying better attention, I would have left it out of the OP or attributed it to “a close advisor of the President.” The OP would have worked just as well either way.
How did my thread fight ignorance? It’s often alleged here that certain posters base their judgment of truth on who made the statement. It’s one thing to make the assertion; it’s another thing to verify it. My OP served as an actual test.
Also, my thread fought ignorance by dramatically making the point that George Bush’s statements about WMDs were similar to Bill Clinton’s.
And I’m pretty sure it plays fast and loose with the Prime Directive as well.
Cuz he says “thank you” while being fundamentally jerky, and Coll said “fuck you” while being fundamentally jerky.
Evidently it all comes down to verbs.
Who knows? I tried reading the minds of the adminstrators, but their tin foil hats prevented my death ray.
So is a statement which is factually true from the perspective of the teller but which is specifically designed to mislead all others not a lie?
Answer carefully, China’s down there somewhere and you’re gonna hit it if you keep digging like that.
Again, I may just be a simple idealistic soul, but that is called lying where I come from. Face it; you acted in very bad faith with the intent of misleading others. That is, at very best, dishonest. Really, considering the hallowed board on which you are posting, you should be ashamed.
I will also state, for the record, that I simply do not believe you when you say that the misquote was an honest mistake. You have show that you are fundamentally dishonest, and the misquote served your deceitful purposes a little too well for that statement to be believable.
But was it a 1920s style death ray? 
Is anyone else really amused that december has resorted to relying on the words of Bill and Hilary Clinton to justify his arguments about Iraq? By his own former posts, Bill and Hill are proven liars (which I pretty much agree with).
And yet he says his own OP wasn’t a lie. The irony is thicker than peanut butter in here.
OK. Now what about the rest of you that called Bush a liar based on the Clintons’ statements? Are the Clintons liars as well? Yes or no?
RedFury, Voyager, Reeder (how predictable), tomndebb, An Arky, Fear Itself care to respond?
Depending on what your definition of is, is? (bonus points for who spots the reference)
I love how people become what they hate.
[delurking for a minute here]
I would consider that “the” President refers to one individual at any specific point in time. At this point in time, “the” President, in my eyes, refers to Bush Jr. While Clinton was a President, I don’t think its honest to describe him as the President.
With all due respect, I don’t think it would have worked as well because the second quote was the only one that dated the quotation to after Sept 11. It would have appeared suspicious if you had to change speakers to date it. While it might have been a mistake, it was certainly one that furthered your aim to trick.
I completely agree with what Bricker said regarding partisans (on both sides) and unconditional support. I would further make a plea that rehashing the whys about Iraq are pointless-the US is currently in Iraq. I think that energy should be better spent focusing on trying to improve the situation there instead of trying to justify a particular side.
I would agree that some of Bush’s statements were similar to Bill Clinton’s. I would not say that all were and I would certainly disagree that their actions were similar. As far as I can tell most of the people who are upset with Bush regarding Iraq are more upset with his actions, and his justification for those actions, than they are upset at his words alone.
Although I did not weigh in on the GD thread about which this Pit thread is concerned, I will step to the plate and answer this.
The Clintons were fucking liars, but in balance I think that they did far less harm to our fragile little planet and species than the current sociopaths that are in office now are doing.
Now Binarydrone, don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel. 
december, I think I’ve made my position clear. You were dishonest. Fuch that, you lied. You did it to make some point. You believe that your dishonest means are justified by some partisan political end. I think that’s an arrogant, deceitful, and scurrilous position to take. I don’t give a tin shit about whether or not Mr. Bush has lied, or Mr. Clinton, or Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Ed. But I know for a fact that you have lied, and then compounded your lies with weasel words and further almost-truths.
You are as bad as any lying politician. No, you’re worse–at least they’re doing it for gain. You’re just doing it because you’re a fucking little net troll.
eof
You have absolutely no idea how much I would give to ask our (current, sitting ) President that particular question in relation to his various “misstatements” in re Iraq.
This whole attitude is just bizarre. December has added a whole new Twilight Zone element to the Iraq debate.
No one called Bush a liar based only on the Clintons’ statements. They called him a liar or pawn of his advisers or whatever based on those statements combined with what we now know about what intelligence he was receiving on Iraq.
There is no way to take this situation and draw some conclusion about knee-jerk support for the Clintons. Maybe what Bill Clinton said years ago was true at the time. Maybe he thought it was true but it was not. Maybe it was all empty rhetoric. We don’t know. We do know that he didn’t take the country to war by lying about what was happening in Iraq.
Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s more recent statement may have been her honest but mistaken assessment of the situation. It may have been the statements of a political coward parroting the lines of a popular president. It may have been a knowing lie said to the public in contradiction of private intelligence briefings. We don’t know.
What we know is that those same statements coming out of Bush’s mouth would amount to lies.
According to the dictionary, such a statement is not a lie according to definition #1, but it is a lie according to defintion #2.
*1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
- Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. *
sigh A december thread. From two or three days after I began lurking here I promised myself I would never appear in a december thread. Fortunately, I am not responding to december. (There, that should help the old vanity search for you know who.)
I agree with half of this. Yes, the US is there. Yes, we need to improve matters, hopefully much better than Afghanistan has improved in the last two years. Yes, any solution that will improve matters in Iraq (up to and including a UN administration a la the ideas that have been floated about Liberia - a sort of receivership) is a solution worth thinking about.
Nevertheless, if the US administration can be proven to have been criminally or negligently reckless in its pursuit of war, those responsible should pay the price. Investigation of that point should proceed forthwith, regardless of how Iraq is dealt with.
Are the Clintons liars? Well, if they said that, then yes, they are.
Even if they didn’t, they’ve lied about other things.
But I don’t think that’s the point here, milroyj.
You know, it’s sort of like the rule we have here about NOT misquoting posters on purpose. Well, it looks like december did just that-only with someone who isn’t a member of the board.
**
Please remind me again of the time when “Clinton’s lies” were used to justify a unilateral invasion of Iraq? Must have caught me napping. And, if as I suspect, it didn’t happen, what the fuck is your point? Because you can bet your ass I would have denounced him the same way if he had.
See, I am NOT an American, so quite thankfully, there’s little or no point in my becoming a Party-hack with a binary view of the world. Meaning that if Dumbya&Co. had refrained from raining bombs on Iraq at will, I honestly couldn’t give two shits about what they said. None of my business who gets appointed to the WH.
Ultimately, I do think your two main Parties have been getting so watered down as to be distinguishable mostly by form and not function. The Corporate Masters never far away. And the general political apathy in your nation suggests I am not the only one who thinks that way. Seems to me that as long as your 2.5 kids, white picket fence, Fluffy, Coke and BBQ’s, are guaranteed, there’s little else most of you care about. Leave the lying, the thieving and the butchering to the politicians, the less you know about it, the cleaner you’ll feel. The American Way = meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
But then came 9/11 and it was butt-kicking time on a whole new level. What with the the unveiling of a brand new National “Defense” Strategy, whose butt and why, evidently, not nearly as important, as the “kicking” part. In that sense, even I must admit Dubya has performed admirably. One wonders though, how long can War remain America’s favorite pastime? Because at the rate your current Neandercons are going, you might be looking at 9/11 as little more than nick from a close shave in the not too distant future.
Perchance when gates and bars start supplanting the white picket fences you’ll get a clue.
Oh, wait…you mean they already have? Yeah, sure, “they hate you for your [sub]illusion of[/sub] freedom.”