Peter_Puget Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Peter, that "imminent" dodge is worn out. Mattp - R-E-L-A-X. Again you simply misunderstand. Perhaps you are not reading what has been written. (like in the USA Today article) In any event please stay on subject. Which until you brought it up hasn't been if Bush told lies in the buildup of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 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.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Hey look! Here's a paragraph from today's WashPost article on the story, and it looks almost exactly like my second post to the thread! (I wonder if they read cc.com ) "As president, Bush has the authority to declassify -- and thus disclose -- intelligence information, and Cheney has also asserted that authority. But both men have repeatedly criticized the leaking of sensitive intelligence to the news media, and the administration has ordered investigations of leaks concerning a National Security Agency eavesdropping program and the existence of secret overseas CIA prisons for terrorist suspects." As you have said Peter, no crime, President's lie (or whatever term you'd like to use to characterize "not exactly telling the whole truth in order to give a different impression of the facts") all the time. But it is galling to be sold a bill of goods to get us into a disastrous situation, and then have the same guy who sold us the crap tell us it's not his fault, because the congress had the same information he did, the whole world had the same intelligence. Fuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 (edited) reading just half of this makes me happy i don't have this wonder if anyone but matt n' peter'll see it? sorry to disappoint you all, but that pic had to go --OW Edited April 7, 2006 by Off_White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 What is it about you guys not being able to handle conversations between other people that bore you? Can't you just ignore it? Why the need to inject yourself into this? How'd you of liked it if we posted a picture of a diseased penis into the thread announcing your son's birth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 6, 2006 Author Share Posted April 6, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 what conversation can't be improved w/ a wretched medical pic? i was actually following the whole thing and thought a bref moment of levity was in order...as emphatic and aggravated as we get over poltical ssues it's wise to remember we sould be happy about the bascs- such as not havng a hamburger for a hard-on! making a career out of hanging out w/ 16 year olds hasn't exactly advnced me maturity level either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 so what's your bottom-line call for action anyhow? impeach bush? what the hell will that change? the wheels of history have already spun aganst W - i doubt he will be fondly remebered to the ages - all that's left is to just gut the next few years w/ the current yahoo n' his crew while waiting for some other shitstorm to capsize us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny_Tuff Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Bullshit. This monster must be stopped somehow. How much more evidence needs to pile up; how many more reasons do we need before someone pulls the impeachment trigger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 so you've impeached bush - now who's the president?!? sorry! realize that image is in far poorer taste than the earlier one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 (edited) Here is a summary of the last five days. During the period of March 31st thru April 4th the following occurred: There were 39 shootings/ambushes that killed 144 people. There were 25 major bombings that left 40 people dead. There were 5 mortar attacks killing 3 people. Four people, including a physician and the brother of a Sunni lawmaker, were kidnapped. One US military helicopter was shot down. The crew died in the crash. There were three major attacks on oil pipelines. Edited April 6, 2006 by Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 But Jim, you are overlooking the fact that they have a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I think a classroom was built too, but then it got bombed. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Workin hard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 But hey, KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel and associates sure have made a lot of money! (In the name of democracy, of course.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Matt - I am not saying you are cherry picking. I am saying you are using Bush's cherry picking as evidence that he is telling untruths. I believe this should be relatively clear in my repsonse to Chuck. PP Maybe we can cut and paste this into the above cartoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackY Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 What's an untruth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 It does have a certain Tom Tomorrowesque doublespeak quality! Maybe Puget has a future in political satire.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerJ Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 What's an untruth? It's the opposite of in unfib. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 I'm terribly sorry, but how the FCKCKCKCK could anybody think that 'declassifing' information leading to the identification of somebody working for the CIA is legal, ethical or a good idea for building a strong national intelligence agency? I'm terribly sorry, but i think that any chief executive who even comes close to violating the terms of the Espionage Act or breaking the trust and confidence of the people working in the intelligence community should be shot at dawn. I have a lot of friends who really reconsidered their work and their chosen profession as a result of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 7, 2006 Author Share Posted April 7, 2006 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekend_Climberz Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 There are certain procedures that are required when declassifying "Top Secret" information. Bush circumvented these procedures to gain a political advantage. If that is not illegal, then I'm going to move to Canada. Who's with me?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted April 7, 2006 Share Posted April 7, 2006 stay home, we don't want you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.