Fer all you democrats out there,

[Ursa_Eagle]

for all you out there

[j_b]

if it's not lying, it's incompetence. you choose.

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

if it's not lying, it's incompetence. you choose.

 

In your case, it's stupidity.

[Ursa_Eagle]

j_b said:

if it's not lying, it's incompetence. you choose.

can I choose both?

[Peter_Puget]

Jim said:

If you want a broader context how about the lies of the State of the Union address, the lies to the United Nations General Assembly, the constant lies during the PR campaign about the Iraqi threat. I think in that context the intent is clear.

 

And that quote about Gore and zebra spots is good!!!

 

Jim - Since I was responding to a specific quote taken from an interview the broader perspective you offer is merely a chance to spew and does not seem germain to the point I was making. For arguments sake I am willing to agree that they were all lieing at various times, but given the context of the interview, I find it very unlikely that he was guilty of anything but a inadvertent error in the example given.

[Jim]

Peter_Puget said: I find it very unlikely that he was guilty of anything but a inadvertent error in the example given.

 

Cheny is a very astute political player. You present no evidence he made an error. Did the White House Press office offer a retraction of this later? No. Did Cheny change his statement? No. Did it fit in well with the fairy tale they were constructing? Yes.

[Peter_Puget]

J-b - That is a bit harsh but I am glad you see the goofiness of the "lie" camp. Your conclusion of incompetence is ridiculous and is part of the sad state of political discourse these days.

[allthumbs]

hey j-b

 

Sig Heil

[Peter_Puget]

Jim said:

Peter_Puget said:

 

Cheny is a very astute political player. You present no evidence he made an error. Did the White House Press office offer a retraction of this later? No. Did Cheny change his statement? No. Did it fit in well with the fairy tale they were constructing? Yes.

 

I agree Cheney is astute. I disagree that I provided no evidence. I provided the transcript and two examples one preceding the quote and one subsequent to the quote. I also brought up Cheney's non repsonse to the erroneous comment suggesting they had Nuc Weapons. Even more amazing: for Cheney's statement to be true they [the Iraqis] would have had to have been in possesion of Nuclear Weapons before in order to resonstitute them! That Russert would ignore this is more evidence that it was merely an error.

 

One thing that you all seem to hold in common is a contempt for the general population's intelligence. It must be lonely living in rarified air of liberal elite.

 

PP

Edited August 22, 2003 by Peter_Puget

[j_b]

Peter_Puget said:

J-b - That is a bit harsh but I am glad you see the goofiness of the "lie" camp. Your conclusion of incompetence is ridiculous and is part of the sad state of political discourse these days.

 

"mistatements" about the justification for a war in which people are still dying daily and the cost of which will amount ~$600billions could hardly be considered a minor affair. drawing severe conslusions on that basis is hardly goofy, especially for people who considered getting a blow job in the oval office an offense warranting impeachment.

[Jim]

Peter_Puget said:

 

 

One thing that you all seem to hold in common is a contempt for the general population's intelligence. It must be lonely living in rarified air of liberal elite.

PP

 

PP - They told a dozen other significant lies. They made no effort to correct this statement - which is rather significant. It was carried far and wide by the press. You're naive if you think this was a mistake. They knew what they were presenting - it was very calculated. Again I would say you've presented no facts to change the picture. He said it, it was carried by the media, and there was no attempt to change it.

[Peter_Puget]

Jim –Let’s agree to disagree. And by the way thanks for being so Russert like and ignoring the error in my last post (see highlight – Cheney’s name was used instead of Russerts.)

[Sphinx]

Why do all the valid arguments come from people who's opinions are in the minority? Seems like cc.com is a gathering place for idiots.

 

PP

 

The rest of you losers:

[Peter_Puget]

J-B –

 

Not sure why you brought Clinton up but since you did: I wanted to impeach the man because of his contemptible use of military force to distract public attention from “Monica Gate” Truly pathetic don’t you agree.

 

[Jim]

Peter_Puget said:

Jim –Let’s agree to disagree. And by the way thanks for being so Russert like and ignoring the error in my last post (see highlight – Cheney’s name was used instead of Russerts.)

 

Fair enough on the first part. I'll send out a press release regarding the second.

[j_b]

i did not bring up clinton. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing.

[Sphinx]

j_b said:

i did not bring up clinton. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing.

 

You're wrong in that he committed the crime of perjury. He was not impeached for screwing an intern.

[j_b]

8 years of digging dirt about his alledged womanizing to splash in the media, of official enquiries about his alledged fiscal improprieties. all for nothing. and you tell me he got impeached for lying about having sex? bwahaha.

[Sphinx]

So you're saying that the media are attention whores grovelling in the dirt? Yes, I agree. And Clinton was a sleazy bastard who got was he deserved? Yes, I agree. Bush is a tool? I disagree. I'd say he's a very poor speaker, but I agree with some of his decisions. Overall, though, politicians, including shrub, are sleazebags. Now crawl back into your little hole.

[j_b]

Sphinx said:

So you're saying that the media are attention whores grovelling in the dirt? Yes, I agree.

 

funny how all the rumors can be traced back to republicans and their media (notably the weekly standard, the mouthpiece of neocons)

[Sphinx]

So you're paranoid, too? Damn, when's the last time you saw your shrink? You're not off you night meds are you?

[E-rock]

Sphinxter = Fence_Shitter?

[Sphinx]

E-rock said:

Shinxter = Fence_Shitter?

 

Fence Shitter is an arrogant little impotent fuck. I am a lofty, well-rounded, wise old man.

[Peter_Puget]

j_b said:

i did not bring up clinton. i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public, while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing.

 

 

Well let me help you become "unconfused."

 

i did not bring up clinton.

By bringing up the impeachment and "blow job" you did bring him into the discussion.

 

 

i brought up the fact that you dismiss false statements made while justifying a very costly war (human and financial costs) to a cautious public,

I believe I said at least a couple times I am addressing only the quote by Ian. Once I even agreed for the sake of argument that Cheney and others lied on many occasions. If you would show me where you came to your conclusion that I have been dismissing more than one misstatement perhaps I can formulate a less confusing response.

 

while you consider impeachment for lying about an aspect of one's personal life a good thing.

Where did you get this belief? Show me and I believe it will help us to at least reduce your confusion. I clearly said I wanted him impeached for misuse of the US military.

 

 

PP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

lynching a president?

 

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinto12.html