Not to rehash this, but Iraq had not given any pretext for invasion until the US suddenly demanded that Iraq had to prove conclusively that it did not have WMD, which then triggered inconclusive inspections and the like.
We had plenty of pretext to make similar demands that Iran prove it did not have a nuclear weapons program, but that was not done. It is not a stretch to believe that we could have ginned up a very similar pretext for invading Iran had things been only slightly different.
You also had one that said the UNSC remains seized of the matter. It may have even been the same one. What you didn’t have is a resolution that said any member state can use it as an excuse to attack unilaterally.
Did it support the Bush Administration’s claims that Iraq had these weapons and it knew where the weapons were? Because that was the excuse given for invading. No doubt we are all aware of that.
Who knows what lies they were told on Cheney’s say-so? I just assume Bush’s people lied to them as much as they did you.
Rice and Powell, however, said Iraq was nicely boxed in. Are you trying to say that Bush’s claims were based on What Bill Clinton Said? If not, why bring it up? If so, why do you think the Bush Administration didn’t say they believed it because Clinton said so? Why didn’t they try to pin the blame for failure on Clinton instead of just switching lies when those pesky WMD’s failed to materialize somewhere north, south, west, or east of Tikrit?
And they got this information from the Bush Administration? From the CIA, which was regularly being visited by Cheney? By the OSP, created specifically to drum up excuses to invade and occupy Iraq? For all I know, they were just repeating the lies they were told because it was unthinkable to them that Bush would invade a country under false pretenses or that Cheney would corrupt your intelligence agencies so. But I find it quite thinkable, especially after Bush reacted to the total lack of a threat by pretending to look for WMDs in his office then pretending that the occupation was justified even though the reasons given for invading turned out not to be so.
Wouldn’t you know it… a thread supposed to be about Democrats’ lies about Republicans turns into a debate about the invasion of Iraq. Might I humbly suggest that such a debate is not well suited to the discussion of this thread?
If we need some reference point concerning things Republicans said that could be considered to be lies, lets focus on something a leading Republican said about a Democrats or the Democrats.
Once again, a great example of how on the Internet, you never have to admit you are wrong. Post a comment that Obama had no record on the Iraq war before 2003, get a citation proving that statement 100% wrong, and one can still claim to be right. Some day, I expect the Internet to be renamed the Hubrisnet.
Oh, and thanks for the contribution about Rockefeller supporting the intelligence the helped Bush build the case for war. I commend your efforts to raise this report as an example of lies that Democrats have told.
In typical **Shodan **fashion, he has shifted his argument. His original comment about Obama having no record on the Iraq war is now “even Obama agreed that Saddam had WMD”. But that isn’t really correct, at least in terms of what he was talking about earlier-- that many Dems agreed SH had WMDs when the US invaded (or when they voted on the AUMF). Obama says that SH “had developed [WMDs]” but says nothing about whether Obama thought he possessed any at the time. Whether that will make **Shodan **retract his statement is another issue.
Nitpick: Saying that Saddam developed chemical and biological weapons is not saying that he had them. Everyone knows he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the 80s and we didn’t invade Iraq at that time. Then the Persian Gulf War happened and the UN went into Iraq and destroyed a bunch of WMDs. After that, Hussein said his weapons programs were kaput and there were no WMDs. The UN, having some difficulties with inspections, could not say one way or the other, but proceeded to call Hussein to the floor for blocking the inspections. Then Bush went off all half-cocked and invaded the fucking country without UN approval.
Only an idiot would take that statement and assert, “Aha! You see Obama *also *knew that Iraq had [was hiding] WMD [in 2003].”
After the first one proved false, the rest did not matter. Watching Republicans scramble around decrying weapons-related program activities (whatever they are) so they could pretend the invasion was still justified was entertaining, but not very convincing. That a pro-Republican editor wrote and editorial defending Bush is not very convincing either. Here an example of why:
What statements? That he had weapons? That he wanted weapons? That he had the ability to attack? That he didn’t, but would if he could? These alleged weapons could be anywhere? No, that one of Bush’s darts hit a target doesn’t matter if the true statement, whatever it might have been, didn’t actually show that Iraq posed the threat he claimed.
Did your editor edit out any caveats in the intelligence mentioned in the editorial? If they didn’t support the Bush case, all bets are off because the journalistic integrity of Bush supporters who write for a living is suspect. I don’t take Fred’s word for Bush’s lack of mendacity any more than I would yours. You might as well argue that those who didn’t support Bush’s Iraq Adventure are traitors because Sean Hannity says so. Bush-era op-eds are not convincing because the journalistic standards are so low. If only there was an op-ed describing how those weapons were found in the cardinals around Tikrit and the area around Bagdhad somewhat like Rumsfeld said.
Yeah I’m kinda lost on this. Is there a lie Obama told about Bush anywhere in the mix? Have we just decided to go off topic and avoid the original subject
Lie prominent Democrats told about Republicans please.
Bricker and I took a diversion in the thread exploring what we might define as a lie or at least trying to draw some parameters for it. Seemed useful since big lies and little lies and half truths and what-have-you were seemingly getting all lumped together as equivalent. We used some examples to illustrate our points and others took those and ran with them.
Sorry about that.
We have done the “what Bush knew” and “Dems supporting the war” aplenty around here. Not that I am averse to going there again since it is easy pickings from my point of view that is not what this thread is about.
I was so certain that I remembered correctly that I wasted over an hour and a half trying to find a reliable resource…then any source. It’s just not there. Like Moto I would have foolishly bet on the wrong thing. I think that Captain Amazing must be right. Maybe it was brought up at Rehnquist’s hearing.
Captain, I knew that these restrictions hadn’t been enforceable for a long time, but at the time of the hearing, there was quite a bit of chatter about it. We were aware that it wasn’t the nominee’s idea. But the subject was very touchy. Shouldn’t a potential Supreme Court Justice be expected to read and be responsible for important documents that she or he signs? “I didn’t read it” is no excuse. It may be hard as hell to get the deed changed, but if he’s not smart enough to figure out how to get an illegal and unenforceable part of a contract changed, then he’s not smart enough to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Actually, he wasn’t so bad. May he rest in peace.
Aw…
Sixty years? Really?
You didn’t have to sign these deeds. Mr. Moto. There are millions of such deeds around the country? I don’t think so.
You will find that I very often don’t return to a thread after posting – even when my post is not controversial or contradicted. Maybe I’m afraid of admitting that I’m wrong. That’s it! I’d rather be thought ignorant and continue to post the same misinformation three times on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance than to ever admit that I’ve made a mistake. You know how bashful I am!
The story that it was Bork has been debunked.
I never said there was a separate “agreement.”
The restriction in question…you admit now exists so why shouldn’t I keep saying it? I just won’t accuse Bork of having that “covenant” in his deed. I will bet that there are ways of getting that illegal covenant out of the deed, but it might slow down the process on buying or selling the property.
I’ll bet that the deed to my property doesn’t have any such “covenant” attached to it! <Snort!> And I live in Dixieland! Where do y’all live? (b]Bricker**? Mr. Moto?
But, Whack-a-Mole, if you say I told a lie when technically I told the truth, then you are giving the listener a “wholly wrong impression from reality” and you know what that means…
This strikes me as somewhat fallacious, in an “unexcluded middle” sort of way. For the sake of clarity, see below:
I agree, Bricker, that Whack-a-Mole’s list of qualifying aspects is, shall we say, over-ambitious. I would propose crafting a “reasonable person” standard. Such a standard should try to ask how a reasonable person would interpret the speaker’s intent, wrt his audience’s perception of the statement. Therefore: would a reasonable person be likely to conclude that the speaker intended for his or her statement to be accepted as literal and unvarnished fact?
I concede that the above question does not comprehensively constitute such a standard, and I invite follow-up questions that will incrementally expand the usefulness of the standard.
boytyperanma, in case I have not made clear my obection to your standard, I will simply explicitly point out that, in normal discourse, there is significant real estate between declaring (or defending, if you insist) a statement to be true, and declaring it to not constitute a lie. If you wish for your conditions to ignore that such a distinction exists, well, it’s your debate, I suppose, but about five pages ago might have been a good time to mention it.
Guys, I’m kinda on the OP’s side in not wanting this thread to be about the inexcusable invasion of Iraq in 2003. Can we just agree that this is a hijack and try to get back on topic?
They were quite common in your neck of the woods, so I wouldn’t bet too much. Besides, this isn’t solely a Southern phenomenon in the least - these covenants were once common across the country. They first showed up in California about a century ago to keep Mexicans and Asians out of neighborhoods.
And no, you don’t have to sign your deed. Unless, of course, you want to buy your house and don’t want to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees removing a phrase that has no standing anyway. Some states have a simple procedure to remove these, but that takes legislative action and this hasn’t been implemented everywhere.
For the record, Bricker and I live in Northern Virginia, in the DC suburbs.
I tried your italicized part ("would a reasonable person be likely to conclude that the speaker intended for his or her statement to be accepted as literal and unvarnished fact) with respect to Grayson’s comments earlier. I contended that no reasonable person would think that Grayson meant what he said as unvarnished truth. It is absurd to think that anyone would conclude that Grayson literally meant the Republicans wrote a health care reform bill that said “die quickly”.
Unfortunately others did not accept that and maintained Grayson is a liar.
Yes, Virginia. Er… Zoe. Really. Actually almost sixty-two years, now.
In Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Missouri’s decision preventing the Shelley family, a black family, from owning a house which had a covenant that prevented anyone of “…the Negro or Mongolian Race…” from owning the property. The Supreme Court found that such covenants were violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.
sigh
I can’t find a great on-line source, but I recommend *Bourgeois Nightmares: Suburbia, 1870-1930 *, a 2005 book by by Professor Robert M. Fogelson of MIT. This tome details the history of racially restrictive covenants, especially the dramatic expansion of their use in early twentieth century after they were ruled legal and a matter of private contract, and the thousands upon thousands of subdivisions which adopted them and which still have them today as underlying, and of course unenforceable, deed documents.
Now, I’m curious. Why don’t you think so? What basis does your “not thinking so” rest upon?
Maybe, but if the contract is unenforcable and hard as hell to get changed, I’d be most likely to just sign it, knowing that the signature doesn’t have an effect.