Not sure how I got back into it but I did and this is topical again. The game is on!
I had an interesting imaginary conversation with our normally sweet though rabidly lefty neighbor. It went something like this:
Neighbor: I can't believe you voted against Kerry in the primary.
[Note - I'm not a registered Democrat but in Georgia all voters may vote in whichever primary they choose to. Since voting for or against Bush in the Republican primary was a moot point I voted in the Democratic primary.]
Me: I don't like him. If Bush loses I want the person who is President to be the best possible candidate and Kerry isn't that candidate.
Neighbor: IIIIIIFFFFF Bush loses?!?!?! Of course he's going to lose! We're going to knock that lying bastard out of the White House!
Me: Oh, Lordy. You aren't one of those "Bush lied, people died" folk are you?
Neighbor: Of course. He did lie and those lies led directly to people dying so damn straight "Bush lied, people died".
Me: What lie did he tell?
Neighbor: He talked about all of...
Me: Woah! I didn't ask what he talked about. I want to know what he actually said.
Neighbor: He said that...
Me: Stop! I don't want to hear that "He said that...", I want to hear what he himself personally said. What literal lie came out of his mouth?
Neighbor: I'm trying to tell you what he said!
Me: No, you're trying to tell me an interpretation of what he said. Tell me the exact words that came out of his mouth that were deliberate and calculated untruths.
Neighbor: Nobody knows exact words. That's crazy. I couldn't give you the exact words for this conversation we're having right now.
Me: Anybody who wants to can have the exact words that Bush said. They are all recorded for posterity and publicly available. Let's forget about knowing the actual words for a moment. Have you yourself heard the actual words?
Neighbor: Don't patronize me. I keep informed, Jim. I do listen to the news and read the paper.
Me: I know you do, otherwise I wouldn't bother to have this conversation with you. I'm serious here - have you yourself heard and recognized a lie out of Bush's mouth? Have you read his actual words, uncut, unexerpted and un-ellipsed and seen a lie there? Or are you propagating a personal attack on a man based solely on what third parties have said.
Neighbor: [Fuming silence]
Me: Okay, why don't we pick this up later after you've had some time to do some research?
So I've got a challenge to anybody and everybody who's part of the "Bush lied, people died" crowd. This is not sarcastic and it's not meant to denigrate anybody. I've seen dozens of people who I respect react with this knee-jerk slogan. I myself have never seen or heard an intentional untruth from Bush. If he actually did lie then the proof of it is out there. Show me. Prove it. If you are willing to mouth the words against the man then the least you can do as a person of honor is to verify that what you are saying about him is true. Since you'll be out doing that for your own peace of mind, share it with me here when you are done.
Leave them in the comments to this post. Each instance of a qualifying Bush lie that is reported here will be rewarded with a Snooze Point or two and the eternal thanks of the masses.
1
This one time, Bush said, "I wish Trey Givens was President instead of me." We all know he really doesn't wish that because later he whispered to Rummy "Not really" but his mic was still on and we all heard him.
I'll beat him anyway, but still. A lie.
And then later someone died but I didn't know them personally.
See?
Bush lied. People died.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 02, 2004 10:04 AM (Fo1B/)
2
So close, Trey. Unfortunately you missed requirements 1 through 4 so I can't give you a Snooze Point. :-(
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2004 10:19 AM (IOwam)
Posted by: ilyka at April 02, 2004 12:00 PM (2MnQa)
4
Here's one:
“Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831
Opps - I broke requirement #1 - That quote was from Senator John Kerry on Jan 23, 2003.
Posted by: Clancy at April 02, 2004 12:59 PM (EGVPL)
5
You missed #4 too, Clancy. It's got to be a lie.
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2004 01:02 PM (IOwam)
6
"The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
It had me convinced. I'm still for the war, who wouldn't be for getting the rat in the hole out of power, but I'm less than convinced about the administrations motives being to stop WMD's and more about score-settling.
Posted by: Jerry at April 02, 2004 03:12 PM (jd1nc)
7
Jerry, that's actually one of my favorite Bush quotes. The full paragraph is:
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
I can't give you credit for finding a lie with this one though. It was the job of the inspectors to verify Iraq's disarming. It was Iraq's responsibility to reveal its banned weapons and to destroy them. Most definitely the UN had determined that Iraq was not complying.
You get criteria 1 through 3 but you missed on number 4.
Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2004 03:19 PM (IOwam)
8
An excellent post. Thanks for putting them on the spot. ;0)
Posted by: Larry at April 02, 2004 04:46 PM (6TcYT)
9
Thank you for this, ever so much.
Of course, lacking a specific "lie" to turn to, the left has instead adopted the mantra that Bush and Co. "misled" the American people. Gives them a little more wiggle room, I guess. Plus, in a pinch, they can edit their Bush Lied; People Died slogan to Bush Misled; People Are Dead. Not as catchy, but they'll take what they can get.
Posted by: Ryan at April 02, 2004 05:47 PM (Sc71i)
10
THANK YOU! Now I know exactly how to respond whenever someone starts on the "Bush lied" bandwagon. P.S. Thank you for the birthday greetings...even if they WERE coerced...lmao!
Posted by: mitzi at April 02, 2004 10:49 PM (GhWNp)
11
Umm... I think that
http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp
Link
Have fun. Bush lied. People died.
for example...
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
And don't give me that crap about the intelligence being "mixed". Any US intelligence that pointed to any of this came from paid liars at the Iraqi National Congress. The INC is an organisation created by the CIA. It is still paid US$300,000 a month for intelligence on Iraq. Ahmed Chalabi is their leader and is wanted in Jordan for a conviction on embezzlement. Chalabi admitted last month to a London paper that he and the INC lied through their teeth about Saddam to get the US to go to war. Bush and Cheney of course are wimps and have to hide behind the skirts of paid liars. And you suckers still follow the wimp, who isn't man enough to bear witness to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him, GOD.
Posted by: Tom at April 05, 2004 08:25 AM (WW/Rd)
12
Calm down, Tom. Deep breaths.
I can't give you anything for your submission because I can't verify that you qualified for #1 or #2 because your #3 does not provide that quote for me. Without #1 through #3 it's pretty pointless to waste time on #4.
Your secondary argument fails the rules of debate miserably. You use conjecture and put forward critical partisan positions as if they were accepted fact. You also fail to document even a single fact.
This is exactly what I'm talking about with this post. 100% opinion and conjecture backed up by unsubstantiated non-references. This is not the way to conduct discussions and debates but it is the only thing that I see from the Bush Lied crowd.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2004 08:46 AM (IOwam)
13
Not that I think you'd ever accept any evidence as being sufficient, after all you don't accept the UN Chief Inspectors statements that Saddam was complying and that inspections were working... albeit slowly. Of course as anybody who's done any logic work would know, proving a negative (like the WMD didn't exist) is almost impossible. After all the Bush administration still claims that WMD might exist because they haven't completed their scavenger hunt across the entire country the size of California.
But here is a bit of the citations which you say that you want.
The citation I gave you is on the second page at the bottom of the 55 results given for Bush at Waxman's site. The citation given is:
Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003)
As for Chalabi being the skirt that Bush hides behind...
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm
This reprint of the story by the right wing Washington Times shows that he admits the INC lied and coached the sources of info for the war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/politics/11CHAL.html
This NY Times article has gone in to the pay archives, but the abstract provides all of the grisly details on the Pentagon being the INC paymasters for information.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8197503.htm
Here's a bit more detail from the SJ Mercury News on how the lapdog "liberal" media failed to question the lies any more than you do now. And that the Pentagon was the paymasters for the fabrications.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
And this Mother Jones investigation shows the plumbing for the whole operation. Kind of like laundering cash, but this time you launder disinformation and let the President have "plausible deniability".
In other words, he hides behind the skirts of his paid liars. Which is why the chump won't testify before the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney at his side or under oath or with the tape recorders going. Because the liar knows he bears false witness and fears putting his hand on the Bible and continuing his lies. Bush Lied, People Died.
Posted by: Tom at April 05, 2004 10:31 AM (WW/Rd)
14
Thanks, Tom. I'm able to find that quote now. To read it in context
go here. It does fundamentally change the nature of the quote to have it out of context.
Now we've qualified conditions #1 through #3, let's see how you did with #4. Remember that our debate is about "Bush lied, people died". With that in mind here are my responses to your arguments. Where you've used logical fallacy I have not engendered an argument in response (since I can't logically debate a fallacy). In those cases I have only pointed out the particular logical fallacies used.
And don't give me that crap about the intelligence being "mixed". Any US intelligence that pointed to any of this came from paid liars at the Iraqi National Congress.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
The INC is an organisation created by the CIA.
Non sequitur, posito ergo sum
It is still paid US$300,000 a month for intelligence on Iraq.
Non sequitur, posito ergo sum
Ahmed Chalabi is their leader and is wanted in Jordan for a conviction on embezzlement.
Non sequitur, posito ergo sum
Chalabi admitted last month to a London paper that he and the INC lied through their teeth about Saddam to get the US to go to war.
I've commented below where you supply an article link on this subject.
Bush and Cheney of course are wimps and have to hide behind the skirts of paid liars.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
And you suckers still follow the wimp, who isn't man enough to bear witness to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him, GOD.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
Not that I think you'd ever accept any evidence as being sufficient, after all you don't accept the UN Chief Inspectors statements that Saddam was complying and that inspections were working... albeit slowly.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
Of course as anybody who's done any logic work would know, proving a negative (like the WMD didn't exist) is almost impossible.
Argumentum ad numerum, posito ergo sum
I agree that proving an abstract negative is very difficult. I disagree that proving a physical negative is difficult.
After all the Bush administration still claims that WMD might exist because they haven't completed their scavenger hunt across the entire country the size of California.
Straw man, posito ergo sum
As for Chalabi being the skirt that Bush hides behind...
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm
This reprint of the story by the right wing Washington Times shows that he admits the INC lied and coached the sources of info for the war.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/politics/11CHAL.html
This NY Times article has gone in to the pay archives, but the abstract provides all of the grisly details on the Pentagon being the INC paymasters for information.
Non sequitur
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8197503.htm
Here's a bit more detail from the SJ Mercury News on how the lapdog "liberal" media failed to question the lies any more than you do now. And that the Pentagon was the paymasters for the fabrications.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
And this Mother Jones investigation shows the plumbing for the whole operation. Kind of like laundering cash, but this time you launder disinformation and let the President have "plausible deniability".
No fallacies on your part here but I'm pretty sure I found all 20 off of the Fool's Logic list in the article.
In other words, he hides behind the skirts of his paid liars. Which is why the chump won't testify before the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney at his side or under oath or with the tape recorders going. Because the liar knows he bears false witness and fears putting his hand on the Bible and continuing his lies. Bush Lied, People Died.
Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem, posito ergo sum
In summary:
There's no way I could debate your points because you are not presenting them logically. As presented there's no way your argument meets condition #4.
Posted by: Jim at April 05, 2004 01:57 PM (IOwam)
15
Heh heh... Just like I suspected. I get the feeling that if Bush came out like a man and admitted that he lied and paid others to lie for him to repeat, your reaction would be a bit like the crowd in The Life of Brian, when Chapman states that he isn't the messiah. But Bush is a chump and a pansy and can't stand up like a man and has to hide behind the skirts of paid liars. Chalabi even went on the record stating that he's willing to be Bush's scapegoat for bad intelligence, because Chalabi knows Bush is a pansy and likes to hide behind the skirts of his paid liars.
As for proving physical negatives being easy, I have a challenge for you then. Prove to me that ghosts don't physically exist on this Earth.
Next I dare you to provide a citation from either Blix or ElBaradei from between the passage of UN Sec. Council Resolution 1441 and the start of the second Iraq War that backs up Bush's claim of Saddam's "elaborate campaign to conceal its weapons materials and to hide or intimidate key experts and scientists."
And thank you for the link to the full text of Bush's Speech.
context is important... especially this. "Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery." This "firsthand" witness, codenamed "Curveball", was the INC informant that Powell just threw to the wolves. This informant was NEVER interviewed by US officials and part of the information handed to the US was that he had failed a polygraph test. Furthermore this informant was on the payroll of the US Dept. of Defense group reporting directly to the White House (not the Sec. of Defense).
I guess it's a bit like Bush citing the British intel on Saddam's acquisition of uranium. Technically Bush's statement is true. BUT taking that assertion and then using it as the basis for your own case for war implies that you believe not only is your statement technically correct, but that the assertion that Saddam had acquired uranium was also correct.
For example, I could state that old Pope's taught that the Universe and the Sun revolved around the Earth. That is technically correct. But if I went on to argue for a space mission based upon a math model of the Universe that had the Earth at the center, while knowing that the model is false, I would be lying. Even if all of the sentences were technically the truth.
Posted by: Tom at April 05, 2004 08:34 PM (WW/Rd)
16
No, Tom. It's not like you suspected. You haven't professed a single argument that does not contain a fallacy and as a result your conclusions are specious and undebatable. I'm not going to respond to your ad hominem attacks on myself or the subjects of the debate. I'm not going to follow non sequitur logic. I'm not going to accept posits without basis.
I understand that this is an emotional thing for you. That's not meant to be patronizing - the entire point of my post was that people push this "Bush lied, people died" thing for emotional rather than rational reasons. However, it's not an emotional thing for me and I'm not going to involve myself in an emotional argument over it. If you can put forward a rational argument I'll respond to it.
Posted by: Jim at April 06, 2004 05:15 AM (saeHM)
17
Um. If I may be permitted to chase a tangent here...
The word "ghost" describes a contradiction, a mind without a body. It's very much like the word "god." And neither exist.
Also, saying "old Pope's taught that the Universe and the Sun revolved around the Earth." Isn't "technically" correct. It's factually true. Popes of the days of yore DID teach that. However, what they were teaching was false, plain and simple. There isn't any technicality behind it to make it true.
If you planned a space mission based upon what the Catholic Church held hundreds of years ago, you'd probably be branded a heretic in their time and a fool in ours.
And all of that bears very little to the case before us today.
Jim has posed a very simple and direct challenge and it has yet to be met.
Just slow down, present your case, and include evidence. If you follow the rules of logic and argument you'll do fine.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 06, 2004 09:01 AM (Fo1B/)
18
"Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents -- equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery."
This sentence is a lie. There were no FIRSTHAND witnesses because it was a pure fabrication by informants from the INC, a group on the payroll of the US Pentagon. Whether Bush believed the fabrications or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement. It is a lie. There were no witnesses, because the event was a pure fabrication. Bush lied. People died.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8348841.htm
It might even be a stretch to state that their were plural witnesses, since the story was obviously single-sourced through the INC, who as previously noted, have admitted fabricating stories in order to get the US to invade Iraq.
As for stating that calling Chalabi a liar is an ad hominem attack, the man has admitted to lying. Therefore it is hardly an ad hominem attack, but rather restating what the man has admitted himself.
As for the rest being non sequitur, it is a FACT that the INC has admitted to lying about Saddam and WMD and al Qaeda. It is a FACT that the INC was on the payroll of the US DoD. It is a fact that INC informants cannot be cross-interviewed by the US CIA. It is a FACT that the US Dept. of State dismissed the credibility of the INC and their informants before the invasion. It is a FACT that in the Bush radio speech all references to sources of information of Saddam's wrongdoing were from INC informants. It is a fact that the White House and associates' incriminating evidence against Saddam was single sourced through the INC. To demonstrate that the source of Bush's statements are lies is to demonstrate that Bush himself lied by repeating them. That is hardly non sequitur.
As for you being a sucker for believing Bush's repetition of lies, Jim, I think PT Barnum would make the same judgement of folks who fall for the two-bit hucksterism of the current administration.
Posted by: Tom at April 06, 2004 09:51 PM (WW/Rd)
19
I have to keep this short as I'll be heading into a meeting in a few minutes but I didn't want it to hang open all day waiting for a response.
Whether Bush believed the fabrications or not is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement. It is a lie.
That is incorrect. The standard definition of
to lie (#1 from Miriam-Webster) is
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. Passing along incorrect information is not lying. It could be foolish or irresponsible but it isn't lying. This is specifically why I specified "intentional fallacies" in criteria #4 of the Challenge as I knew this mistake would be made.
The reason the vast bulk of your arguments were non sequiturs was because they are not germaine to the point of the argument. Any action of the INC, whether the INC is supported by the DoD, who founded the INC, items uncovered after Bush's statement, how Chalabi feels about the invasion or the INC or what he's willing to do in the present, etc. have nothing at all to do with whether or not Bush intentionally lied in his speech in order to drive America to war.
Based on the information you've provided you would be perfectly justified in saying "Bush was wrong, people died" but you are libeling him every time you write "Bush lied, people died".
As far as calling me a sucker, well that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's still an ad hominem attack that does nothing to promote your argument. Given that you don't know me and that you haven't proven your point you have no basis to judge whether or not I'm a sucker so it's also a fallacy of posito ergo sum. If you want to insult or bait me you'll have to do it logically and truthfully otherwise I'm just going to continue dismissing it.
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2004 10:55 AM (IOwam)
20
Since you haven't provided evidence from Blix, Kay, or ElBaradei to support Bush's claims about Hussein, I realise that you'll dismiss everything out of hand anyway. That is the nature of "true believers".
As for the fact that the information cited by Bush comes from folks who were known at the time to be fabricators, the Executive Branch's payment of said fabricators and the subsequent use by the Executive Branch as their sole source of evidence means that they did intend to deceive.
Furthermore Bush's repeated "clever" choice of words, as you have aptly pointed out, means that Bush was using wiggle words deliberately to decieve, which points to intent. They just got sloppy with this particular quote.
But as I've stated before, even if Bush came out and told you that he was lying, you'd still live in denial. So I'm done here.
Posted by: Tom at April 07, 2004 08:26 PM (WW/Rd)
21
Dude. You are SO missing the point.
You have to show, not that Bush was wrong about what he said, but that he was wrong and he knew he was wrong in an attempt to lead us to war.
A mistake and a lie aren't the same.
Let's assume that *everything* Bush said was false. Can you now prove that Bush knew that what he was saying was false? Not so far you haven't.
The use of paid informants is simply not proof of deception.
And Jim has repeatedly told you that he is dedicated to reason and the facts of reality on this topic.
Why would you say that he wouldn't believe Bush if Bush himself said he was lying? What has given you the idea that anyone would do that?
That's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 07, 2004 09:20 PM (R0TDF)
22
Incorrect label, Tom. I am a "true
disbeliever". Specifically I do not believe that "Bush lied, people died" .
My argument is that the popular anti-Bushism of "Bush lied, people died" is an emotional statement and one not based in fact. I further propose that the people who cry it take it on faith in the spirit of the Big Lie and have not verified it personally even though it is about as personal attack as one can make. Because Bush is "the enemy" he is not accorded with the common courtesy you would grant a coworker, family member, acquaintance, or even a stranger for most honorably minded persons.
In this debate I am the Defense. The accusers (you) must prove that Bush intentionally deceived America in order to launch a war on Iraq. A decent Defense will never address a point that is not germaine to the case. In more specific terms, I have no need to defend or prosecute Blix, Kay or ElBaradei. Nothing is gained for my case by following red herrings. The
only things I need to respond to are the actual true arguments that you present. Unfortunately you continue to offer fallacious arguments.
I'll give you an example of proving somebody to be a liar. I pick you.
Given: Tom stated
I realise that you'll dismiss everything out of hand anyway. Reference Tom's comment immediately preceding this one.
Given: I have addressed each point that Tom has raised either through argument or by exposing it as a logical fallacy.
Given: Tom read my responses so he does know that I have addressed each of his points. Reference Tom's responses to my previous comments.
Therefore: Tom's statement was a deliberate fallacy.
Ergo: Tom is a liar.
You have not done this for Mr.Bush. You have taken a Bush statement and surrounded it with logical fallacy in order to attempt to prove an illogical conclusion. Let's start at the end and I'll show you why the conclusion you are pursuing is invalid.
Given: Bush gave a speech saying BLAHBLAH.
Given: At a later date, BLAHBLAH was determined to be untrue.
Therefore: Nothing. This does not retroactively make Bush a liar.
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2004 09:35 PM (saeHM)
23
What Trey said!
(Way more succinctly than I did.)
Posted by: Jim at April 07, 2004 09:43 PM (saeHM)
24
Jim, you've hardly proven any of my points as fallacious. Rather you've dismissed them as being irrelevant, not factually incorrect.
But I decided to go off to m-w.com to check on your definition and the one you chose is not the only one.
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
which of course eliminates any need to prove intent. Bush indeed created a false and misleading impression about WMDs and the link to al-Qaeda. There is no need to prove intent by this definition. So both you and Trey can stick your heads in the sand and deny that Bush lied, but by this definition, he did.
And if George W. Bush chooses to file slander charges, to quote the man himself, BRING IT ON!
Posted by: Tom at April 08, 2004 03:24 AM (WW/Rd)
25
It is quite obvious that Jim sits not only as defense but chooses to sit as judge as well. If this were indeed a defense, he would be required to provide evidence backing up his out-of-hand dismissals of the complaints.
Further he's argued several positions which are completely untenable, such as proving physical negatives is easy. This and his claims that Bush's source of evidence are irrelevant are what lead me to believe that he cares not one whit about facts. Furthermore with Jim's choice of definitions with the need for proof of intent, it demonstrates that he is complicitous in allowing Bush to hide behind the skirts of paid liars. Much like Republicans were with Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair. The truth is not what is sought here, but rather Jim does his best to obscure the facts. A typical Republican hobby.
Furthermore Trey, you've chosen to focus on the fact that Chalabi and the INC are paid informants... but beyond that they are paid informants who have admitted lying. They were known to be fabricators prior to Bush restating their evidence. Chalabi is a wanted man for an embezzlement conviction in Jordan. By trying to convince the American public that the US government had solid evidence instead of telling them that it was all based upon paid testimony from a perjurer and embezzler, who would directly profit from America invading Iraq, the President created a false and misleading impression. Most journalists would lose their jobs if they published stories like the ones Bush did. Not to mention what sort of shit would hit the fan if police or prosecuting attorneys pulled these stunts. Thankfully for Bush, Congress is Republican. He can avoid subpoenas for the moment. But someday the truth will come out and you and your readers still won't believe.
Posted by: Tom at April 08, 2004 03:53 AM (WW/Rd)
26
Tom, Tom, Tom.
You're just not going to play by the rules are you? You're just going to continue to deride, pout, and refuse to be rational, aren't you?
The definition "to create a false or misleading impression" still implies clear intent to do just that. It doesn't mean the same as being mistaken.
Jim made it clear what is needed:
1. Actual literal quotes from George Bush
2. They must be in context, unedited, un-ellipsed, unmodified in any way. Exactly as they came from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
3. They must be linked and referenced. I must be able to go and view the source for myself.
4. They must contain intentional fallacies that directly led to US forces going to war in Iraq.
Number 4 also means that you're going to have to provide similar citations for those fallacies.
Please make it one cohesive statement. Amid all of that other static you're throwing out there, it's getting hard to tell what you're talking about and where it's documented.
I agree that Bush is a very foolish person on many, many counts. But your claim is that on this matter he not just foolish but a liar.
Don't just say it. Show us.
Posted by: Trey Givens at April 08, 2004 10:34 AM (Fo1B/)
27
Tom, I think one of the reasons that you are so antagonistic here is that you believe you are in hostile territory. Maybe you're used to needing a belligerent tone when commenting on "Righty" weblogs. You aren't on a "Righty" weblog here so it really isn't necessary. I'm fairly smack dab in the middle between the Republican and Democrat lines. So chill a bit with the constant name calling and groupisms.
The hair splitting over the definition of Lie is irritating. As Trey pointed out, and as you already knew, it implies an effort to deceive. Do you beleive that there is any person out there who marches around with a "Bush lied, people died" placard who really means "Bush was tricked into uttering a deception, people died"? It doesn't matter in the slightest anyway as the challenge was specific in demanding intentional fallacies. I pointed this out in my last comment.
Back to your intended argument - you have proposed that Bush knew that his sources were giving him bad information. It is central to your argument. You have not given any proofs for this fact. It is absolutely required that you address this in order to prove your argument.
Before you comment again I would like you to read up on
logical fallacies. No, it's not a homework assignment and it's not meant to be disparaging. It's just that it's very easy to see how frustrated you are getting because I am not responding in argument to many of your points. As I've mentioned a few times now this is because your points are fallacious. Give that treatise a bit of your attention and I think you'll be able to present your points in a logical manner.
Posted by: Jim at April 08, 2004 01:45 PM (IOwam)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
