Of course, if the will of the people would be more perfectly realized by marching on the White House with torches and pitchforks, well, really, how can one disapprove?
When will you people get it through your thick liberal heads?
Clinton was NOT impeached because he lied to the American people. He was impeached because he lied to a judge AND a grand jury.
CRIMINY!!!
We know politicians lie constantly. Repubs and Dems. But when you “stand tall before the man” you MUST tell the truth. Period.
But fine you want to throw your little temper tantrums. You hate Bush. He’s white, he’s a Republican, he’s evil. Apparently you think the people in Iraq would be better off getting gassed and tortured as long as YOU get universal health care and can twist a doob before work.
I keep seeing members here and on various other message boards refer to the “lies” told by Bush and his administration. What I have YET to see is any concrete proof that Bush or anyone in his adminstration knowingly told any lie.
If you have incontrovertible proof, pony up. If not, perhaps you ought to just admit you’re pissed that a Republican is holding the highest office in the land.
It’s not an insult, it’s a prediction.
Your side lost the governorship of California, because Davis was so badly out of touch with what the people thought. I should stop pointing that out, because it hurts your feelings to be reminded that the far Left on the SDMB doesn’t exactly have its finger on the pulse of the voters?
Besides, I am a conservative. You have to earn your own nickels.
Regards,
Shodan
You know, if Bill Clinton is really cool, I mean really cool, he’ll go high drag, wear an designer gown for Hilary’s Inaugaration Ball. From France.
Friend Shodan, of course, will have committed seppuku
Well, there was the bit where he invaded and occupied a country on the justification of an out-and-out lie. OOC, is there a clear level of killing of civilians where regime change becomes ethical? Because the U.S. haven’t been too stellar in that regard.
Legal dopers, isn’t there some law against starting a war? Causing a breach of the peace, if I may Pratchettize? Is there any chance at all of getting Bush to say that he knew all about the WMDs?
Since this board is all about fighting ignorance, I’m going to ask you to fight mine. Please quote and cite (from a reputable source) the lie Bush told.
Doesn’t the State of the Union Address from January 2003 count? Lots of whoppers in there, and the source is impeccable.
Feel free, rjung, to provide the quotes and proof that one of his whoppers is a lie. LA is asking to have his ignorance squashed.
BTW, ‘we haven’t found WMD yet’ does not equal ‘they don’t have WMD, and never did’. Just in case you were going to use that one.
Feel free to provide the proof that they had WMDs.
BTW, “We haven’t found proof that he lied yet” does not equal “he didn’t lie”.
Feel free to respond to my request first, since I did ask first.
It seems to me that rjung already answered your question, Lord Ashtar.
This being the pit and all, though, feel free to go fuck yourself.
Not willfull ignorance.
Can we just get past the “did he know enough to be lying” question? It just murks the issue into the depths of moral lawyering, and frankly I don’t think it matters one bit.
Let’s look at this from a policy perspective. If we assume that Bush was being honest, in the sense that he believed the inaccurate things he said with balls-to-the-wall conviction, then we’re still left with an administration that nukes molehills. Which is, to put it mildly, not good policy.
If we could prove unequivocally that Bush’s deliberately and consciouly lied to get us into the Iraqi war, how about when his term is up, if the grieving families institute a class action suit against GeeDubya for “wrongful death of our loved ones.”
How deliciously satisfying it would be if that pleasant bullshit we like to spout - “no one is above the law,” turned out to be true.
Sorry, ruadh, that’s not the way it works. The person making the claim must put up the facts. Neither Lord Ashtar nor I claimed any knowledge whatsoever here, we are asking to have our ignorance fought. The claim was made that Bush lied, we’re asking for the proof.
The reality is that the people claiming Bush lied about the WMD don’t know the truth about it. They assume from the limited facts available. We all have limited facts available here, the question is how far do you extrapolate them.
Note also that not every inaccurate statement is a lie.
Since you appear to be a bit slow on the irony uptake, I’ll spell the point out: going by the second paragraph in the post of yours I was rephrasing, you don’t seem to apply this standard to Dubya’s claims about his WMDs.
Bush says there are WMD in Iraq. It falls to him to provide proof of this. Proof could be in the form of weapons or documents. The search continues, they have found no weapons or documents, but have found signs of significant and specific evidence destruction. In total, no proof, but signs that proof may lie out there if they continue looking.
A poster says Bush lied. It falls to him to provide proof of this. Lying means that Bush knew there were no weapons, but told us otherwise. There is absolutely, positively, no evidence of any sort that “Bush knew there were no weapons, but told us otherwise.”
The statement that Bush hasn’t found weapons yet does not satisfy the definition of a lie. Even if weapons are never found, that would not satisfy the definition of a lie. Proof would lie most likely in internal WH documents showing that they all knew there were no weapons, but decided to go ahead anyway.
Prove that, and I’d applaud when Bush and all his guys are spending lots of time behind bars, where they would deserve to be.
No, he didn’t, Desmostylus. Please reread robertligori’s statement and my response.
Now, please reread rjung’s reply to me.
All he says is that Bush lied in the 2003 SOTU address. He does not cite a specific lie, which is what I asked for. I called him on it, and you say:
Please feel free to take your own advice.
And, by the way ruadh:
It doesn’t equal “he did lie” either. That is if you want to be fair about it. It seems you’d rather just bash GWB for the sake of bashing him.
I do not claim to know whether there are/were WMD or not. I don’t know whether or not Bush intentionally lied or was misled or was just sitting in the Oval Office adopting a stray cat he found in the parking lot and naming it Superdude while Cheney was giving the order to bomb Iraq. I’m ignorant about the whole situation.
Please, for the love of God, fight my ignorance.
Okay, props for that; clever!
No props at all, however, for:
In what strange psychedelic trip of a world do you live in where you think that Gray Davis is on my side, the Far Left? Gray Davis is Far Left in the same way that people who eat at McDonalds have impossibly high standards.
Gray Davis lost because he alienated every single voter. He went door to door, asked people what issues they cared about. If they said, “I care about the environment,” he said, “Ha! I SPIT on the environment!” If they said, “I care about education,” he said, “I wipe my ASS with education!” He couldn’t possibly have done more to piss off voters, unless he’d egged their houses after mocking their political aspirations.
He’s not on my side. I didn’t lose in California.
Daniel