- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
So much for that Liberal media myth
- Thread starter Zebo
- Start date
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Newsflash! Politicians lie! Film at 11.
The only difference is that Clinton lied under oath during a court proceeding. Bush has not been in that situation (and I really hope he never is cause I would never be able to watch any news...again!)
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Read the article It does'nt sound bias to me. Bush is caught lieing by the media and that same media chooses to ignore it. The same curtosy and choice of words to decribe a liar wasn't affored to Mr Clinton. Just an observation, the site is'nt tring to prove if bush was lieing or not, the "mainstream media" has already done that for the author.
As soon as Bush pulls something like this lemme know:
"I am going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
--Television interview, January 26, 1998
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the--if he--if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."
--Grand jury testimony, August 17, 1998
Lethal
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Another distinction worth mentioning is the fact that Clinton lied about sex. If it's one thing the media finds itself titillated by, it's sex (perhaps because our puritannically repressed God-fearing Christian society has no idea how to deal with the subject in anything resembling a mature manner).. Can any of you even imagine George W. and Laura Bush going at it? I sure as hell can't... she looks like the damn Church Lady..
Yes, and the GOP went after Clinton on Lewinsky precisely because they knew a sex story would get the media's attention.
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
So lying when your not under oath makes you not a lier. Ok I got it.
No, yer still a liar. But lying under oath is not acceptable.
Lethal
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
So lying when your not under oath makes you not a lier. Ok I got it.
No lying when not under oath still makes you a lier but your actions are not punishable by law. Lying under oath means your action is punishable.
Impeachable, but not removeable
The GOP went after Clinton on Lewinsky because they wanted the publicity that a sex scandal would bring. But then they turn around and say it's not about sex and expect to be taken seriously.
So I sat through that whole diatribe, patiently waiting for the author to drop his 'bomb' on Bush's honesty, to produce his 'smoking gun' to show that Bush lied.
Is it just me, or did this guy completely forget to mention what it is that Bush was supposed to have lied about?
Is it just me, or did this guy completely forget to mention what it is that Bush was supposed to have lied about?
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Must we go through this again. There were three intensely partisan independant councils focussing on Clinoton, both Clintons were exonerated of wrongdoing in all but the sex scandal. And that one involved a conscious deception, but something less than perjurous lie, in answer to a convoluted question about an extraneous matter in a sex harassment suit involving something that happened a couple years before Clinton took office and which itself was finally dismissed since the plaintiff had no legal claim.
Howard Owens, whoever that is, says it better than I could.
Alterman's Lies
11/11/02
Eric Alterman is calling George Bush a liar.
I'm not necessarily going to dispute the concept of GWB telling lies. He's a politician and as near as I can tell, all politicians lie.
The question is, has Eric Alterman made a persuasive case that GWB has lied, and has GWB committed the specific lies Mr. Alterman says he has.
Mr. Alterman bases his column largely on the work of other pundits, but finds fault with their inability to flatly state that "Bush is a liar." He accuses them of parsing wiggle words to accuse the President of deception:
President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice. In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts." But "Bush lied"? Never.
I have two problems with Mr. Alterman's column. First, it appears that Mr. Alterman is parsing English with the same alacrity he seems to find reprehensible; and, second, it doesn't appear that Mr. Alterman fact-check Kinsley, Krugman, Cohen and Milbank before repeating their misrepresentations.
To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Bush did say Iraq on such unmanned planes, and as we will see, his claim can be supported, but more on that later. As for the second statement, again, let me come back to it later. First, let me deal with these polls. Alterman is trying to tell us that because Bush "lied," the American people believe Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11. This is its own sort of lie, because it doesn't follow logically that because Bush made certain statements, all 75 to 71 percent of the people who believe in the link do so because they believe GWB. There is a wealth of resources available now that go far beyond anything GWB has said so far that links Saddam to Al Qaeda, 9/11, the WTC bombing and Timothy McVeigh, as regular blog readers know. GWB, in his public pronouncements, is probably actually behind the curve on these salient facts.
Let's look at what GWB actually said in his Oct. 7, 2002 speech.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
Alterman does not dispute claim one, wonder why? As for the unmanned aircraft charge, this is a fairly credible claim. But the way Alterman accuses Bush of lying, he is putting accusations in Bush's mouth that Bush never uttered. Isn't this a form of lying itself? For example, the innuendo is that Bush told the American people that Saddam is going to fly these aircraft over the United States. Bush didn't say that. He said, "... for missions targeting the United States." The U.S. has potential targets all over the world, including the Middle East, many easily within range of these aircraft. Furthermore, we shouldn't discount the idea of Saddam working out a method to bring a delivery mechanism (be it a missle or UAV) to an area well within striking distance of an American shoreline or the Southwest.
To blithely dismiss such threats, as Alterman does, is to be far more misleading than anything Alterman has accused Bush of doing.
Alterman doesn't say precisely (again, wiggling with the facts, something politicians do) when Bush supposedly said Iraq was "six months away from developing a (nuclear) weapon." Let's look at what Bush actually said in Cincinnati.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
All of this is quite factual and pretty much beyond dispute, which is why Alterman, apparently, choose a more circuitous route to attack Bush on his "nuclear weapons" pronouncements.
There can be little doubt that Saddam continues to seek a nuclear capability -- why else would he be buying detonators?
What the Eric Alterman's of the world do not seem to understand is that the case against Saddam Hussein isn't just about any direct threat he may pose against the U.S. (and he clearly poses one) nor is it about any potential ties to terrorist attack in the U.S. (and I believe those ties are there) -- it is about stopping a man who will stop at nothing to advance his own murderous ambitions. It is about ending this man's unrelenting attempts to destabilize the Middle East. The left strives continually to reduce this debate to simplistic notions and recasting it in terms that avoid the point that Saddam is not a man to be negotiate with. He plays too many games and has proven himself too untrustworthy and too bent on homicide to be taken seriously as any sort of partner in peace.
It's time for the left to get honest about the facts, about the true war aims of this administration and the real threats the entire world faces because Saddam Hussein is in power.
Alterman's Lies
11/11/02
Eric Alterman is calling George Bush a liar.
I'm not necessarily going to dispute the concept of GWB telling lies. He's a politician and as near as I can tell, all politicians lie.
The question is, has Eric Alterman made a persuasive case that GWB has lied, and has GWB committed the specific lies Mr. Alterman says he has.
Mr. Alterman bases his column largely on the work of other pundits, but finds fault with their inability to flatly state that "Bush is a liar." He accuses them of parsing wiggle words to accuse the President of deception:
President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice. In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts." But "Bush lied"? Never.
I have two problems with Mr. Alterman's column. First, it appears that Mr. Alterman is parsing English with the same alacrity he seems to find reprehensible; and, second, it doesn't appear that Mr. Alterman fact-check Kinsley, Krugman, Cohen and Milbank before repeating their misrepresentations.
To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Bush did say Iraq on such unmanned planes, and as we will see, his claim can be supported, but more on that later. As for the second statement, again, let me come back to it later. First, let me deal with these polls. Alterman is trying to tell us that because Bush "lied," the American people believe Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11. This is its own sort of lie, because it doesn't follow logically that because Bush made certain statements, all 75 to 71 percent of the people who believe in the link do so because they believe GWB. There is a wealth of resources available now that go far beyond anything GWB has said so far that links Saddam to Al Qaeda, 9/11, the WTC bombing and Timothy McVeigh, as regular blog readers know. GWB, in his public pronouncements, is probably actually behind the curve on these salient facts.
Let's look at what GWB actually said in his Oct. 7, 2002 speech.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
Alterman does not dispute claim one, wonder why? As for the unmanned aircraft charge, this is a fairly credible claim. But the way Alterman accuses Bush of lying, he is putting accusations in Bush's mouth that Bush never uttered. Isn't this a form of lying itself? For example, the innuendo is that Bush told the American people that Saddam is going to fly these aircraft over the United States. Bush didn't say that. He said, "... for missions targeting the United States." The U.S. has potential targets all over the world, including the Middle East, many easily within range of these aircraft. Furthermore, we shouldn't discount the idea of Saddam working out a method to bring a delivery mechanism (be it a missle or UAV) to an area well within striking distance of an American shoreline or the Southwest.
To blithely dismiss such threats, as Alterman does, is to be far more misleading than anything Alterman has accused Bush of doing.
Alterman doesn't say precisely (again, wiggling with the facts, something politicians do) when Bush supposedly said Iraq was "six months away from developing a (nuclear) weapon." Let's look at what Bush actually said in Cincinnati.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
All of this is quite factual and pretty much beyond dispute, which is why Alterman, apparently, choose a more circuitous route to attack Bush on his "nuclear weapons" pronouncements.
There can be little doubt that Saddam continues to seek a nuclear capability -- why else would he be buying detonators?
What the Eric Alterman's of the world do not seem to understand is that the case against Saddam Hussein isn't just about any direct threat he may pose against the U.S. (and he clearly poses one) nor is it about any potential ties to terrorist attack in the U.S. (and I believe those ties are there) -- it is about stopping a man who will stop at nothing to advance his own murderous ambitions. It is about ending this man's unrelenting attempts to destabilize the Middle East. The left strives continually to reduce this debate to simplistic notions and recasting it in terms that avoid the point that Saddam is not a man to be negotiate with. He plays too many games and has proven himself too untrustworthy and too bent on homicide to be taken seriously as any sort of partner in peace.
It's time for the left to get honest about the facts, about the true war aims of this administration and the real threats the entire world faces because Saddam Hussein is in power.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter