mattp

Peter: "My" definition came from Websters dictionary. Cherry picking is one thing; presenting your cherries as the entire story - over and over again, while carefully guarding the fact that there were some "uncherries," and in the process deliberately misleading the American public - is lying. You're right. Whenever the Bush machine's political tactics or motives come up I call them liars. It seems that is all they know how to do. What? Me? I never tried to link Saddam and 911. They lie just about every single day and somehow the liberal press and those evil freedom-hating democrats continue to let them get away with it. Just yesterday, for example, Bush said that the illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans refuse to do. That is obviously B.S. True, few Americans will work for pennies an hour, but if they paid a decent wage there would be plenty of American citizens willing to pick fruit, take care of old people, serve as nannies, or whatever else it is that he thinks only aliens are willing to do. It is not a matter of his believing what he says - he knows he's lying.

Kurt, you must be a magnet for trouble. Remind me not to go climbing with you! I've lived in Eastlake, Montlake, Capitol Hill, Fremont, Ballard, and Sand Point - and I've had fewer total problems than you list over the last 25 years! Oh, and in all of those locations except Montlake and Fremont I knew my neighbors (in Montlake and Fremont I only stayed in the same house for less than a year, so maybe it would have been different had I been there longer).

Of course, as PP points out, yesterday’s twist in the story had to do with leaking parts of the classified intelligence data about Saddam’s pre-war attempts to buy Uranium and stuff like that. Bush's press secretary says that these were not leaks, because when the President says to release the information that is a legal “declassification” and hence there was no leak. But what do you call it when they provide information to the press in such a manner as to hide the fact that it came from the White House or at least who it came from, and then go on to let the world believe the information remained classified but was leaked? Furthermore, the information itself was incorrect and they knew it to be incorrect so this “not a leak” was purely a political move taken in response to the criticism from Wilson. Offered as it was, without discussion, don't you think they were hoping at least some people would think the information was in fact correct? Certainly, polls showed that most Republican voters believed we found weapons programs when we invaded - at least then if they do not still believe that now. PP says there is nothing wrong with this but you have to say that for a President who says he stands for morality and integrity, isn’t it at least unseemly? I wonder how his base supporters view this - just more of the ends justify the means? How much more of this kind of means can there be before they might wonder if these guys are starting to get out of line?

I’m mattp and I say to ye don’t pee on somebody else’s jamboree and I’ll be sayin let ye be

Where do you get this stuff?

'tell you what, KK. I'll take off my moderator badge and we can meet for a beer or a cup of coffee. If you insist in the same line of argument that you've displayed in these political threads I'll call you a F'in idiot -- to your face. But, by the way, I'll say that I DO have significant regard for you and I'll shake your hand and say "nice to meet you." Some folks around here seem not to understand that we can have a debate -- as long as we can maintain some fundamental level of respect-- and still maintain some reasonable level of interaction.

KK- I agree, that right-leaning posters are becoming increasingly scarce on this site and in fact I can honestly say that I am saddened by that fact. Unfortunately, some of those right leaning posters who previously posted here seemed bent upon threatening physical violence or posting disgusting images or both.

As with KK, I'm not following you here. It is OK for you to chime in with some child rape bs on a rock climbing thread, and it is OK for KK to threaten to kick somebody's ass, but "I'M TOO SERIOUS?" OK. Maybe there is a pattern here. Being rude is OK. But objecting to being rude it "too serious."

True fact, you've never used those words i describing me. But you've certainly said that - several times over - and not just diredted at me, personally, but at anybody who doesn't agree with you. And I have on more than one occasion felt I was included in your "target group." Am I wrong?

I'm not following you here. Didn't you post, with serious disdain, to all the poltical threads where some liberal said some pansy-assed thing like "Tom Delay is a crook" or George Bush lies" for about a year or so? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you have directly and in many cases personally attacked and insulted a lot of us liberals who would back down if we met you in person.

A clarification on the "rules of engagement" as I understand them: if it is OK to post garbage like "I'm a badass and I can kick your ass," it is perfectly OK to post garbage like "you are a jerk for posting that kind of boast." I think that is the policy. Do I misunderstand here?

You are an ass. Posting that crap.

Yup. Ivan shut down that discussion. One picture was all it took.

No lie. Ivan, you are an ass. And I'm not cherry picking here. "Cherry picking" is lying according to anybody but some manipulative cc.com poster or maybe a ten year old tryhing to get out of something: See Websters Main Entry for the noun "lie" 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker 2 : something that misleads or deceives 3 : a charge of lying

Chuck - I think it is a felony to give false testimony before Congress. The Aluminum Tubes business was FOR sure false because he knew that at least half of our intelligence community thought they were not for that purpose, but he unequivically said that we KNEW they WERE for that purpose.

ChucK: Why yes, the president shouldn’t lie to take us into war. PP: Imagine he actually believed his bullshit and didn't lie about the intelligence but merely cherry picked it? That isn’t lying. ChucK: If he believed it all, maybe he wasn’t sinister. But might this have been about a geopolitical power play? Shouldn’t he then have consulted Congress. MP: It is clear that he lied. He unequivocally said a bunch of stuff that was untrue, then lied about having said it. .... To borrow your tactic from the prior page, are you going to answer my question now? How could those statement I set out for you to examine NOT have been lies. And how could you justify the lying -- even if you think it is for our own good that the President took us into Iraq? (and, by the way, "cherry picking" to make the American Public believe something that is untrue, even if you parse words in such a way that you can make some technical argument that you didni't say what it sounded like you said - is lying.)

Peter, that "imminent" dodge is worn out. They said that if we didn't act now, we'd likely find proof in the form of a mushroom cloud over New York. And they said this at a time when our Allies, the weapons inspectors, and significant segments of our own intelligence community were saying he had no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons program. Further, they said then and I'm told they said it again LAST WEEK that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. That is a straight up lie. Saddam let them inspect wherever they wanted and I believe he even backed down over the "presidential palaces" business in the end but, eitiher way, that didn't affect our allies' and our intelligence community's assessment of his capabilities. When the inspesctors left, it was President Bush or one of our guys who told them they better clear out because we were going to bomb. Explain how these are not LIES.

I had already answered your question. Now carry on:

PP: It is not "cherry picking" to say that "we've learned that he has purchased aluminum tubes for processing weapons-grade aluminum" when in fact he had been told that we had learned nothing of the kind. It is lying. It is not "cherry picking" to say something that clearly sounds like you are saying Saddam attacked us on 911, and then to unequivocably deny that you ever said such a thing. And you can't defend this as inadvertent: he did it in the SOU speech and Cheney did it literally dozens of times. They lied then, and they are now lying in saying they never did it.

Here's your dodge again, PP. I already acknowledged already that I misrepresented the topic of the press release because I didn't really read it. (sound like a familiar move of yours?). In answer to the second part of your counterjab, I find the whole thing all about splitting hairs and being unclear -- maybe you do not. Feel better now? Can you address the questions we are discussing -- whether the President did anything wrong in authorizing the leaks? (And, by the way, if you want to follow a sidetrack why don't you argue that Libby leaked plame's identity all on his own without higher authorization )

The Heliums are light, they have a wide gate opening, the hook is contained in a housing so it shouldn't catch on slings and stuff, they are not sub-sized, and I think they have the strongest ratings of the lot. I just bought some at PRo Mountain Sports and I'm thinking they are going to be pretty cool.

PP: It is clear that the President KNEW that the claim that the aluminum tubes were for a centrifuge was at best doubtful but he said, in his State of the Union Speech, that we KNEW that he had purchased the aluminum tubes for that purpose. Further, just a week ago he said that he had never tried to link Saddam and 911; whereas in his State of the Union Speech he very clearly made a serious attempt to link the two while parsing words so that, if you analyze the text, he did not quite say it directly. Given his lies then and their ongoing cover-up of those lies through lying and manipulating the truth now, is there really any reason to think that your "scenario" has any validity?

Oh PLEEEZE. Of COURSE the president should act differently. We do not elect them to mislead the country into war. Sure the Man may have done it with the Gulf of Tonquin incident, but are you trying to argue that this is or should be what a President does? If you really think ever president cherry picks information and distorts the truth to take us into disastrous war, you obviously must hate America and I suggest you move.

Typical post, there, PP. You show your constant manipulative debate of the "facts" and sidetracking of any discussion away from the issue. I simply took a press release, one half hour old, and reproduced it. I noted it was unclear what that press release actually said. You are correct, however, that it specifically has to do not with leaking Plame's identity but with other intelligence. And: USA Today - biased against the President?

Surprise! Scooter Libby apparently says Bush authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. This story just came out a half hour ago. Liberal Media