Re: OT: Did they lie or not?

On 11 Nov 2005 12:35:54 -0800, fluty1@xxxxxxx wrote:

>
>Phil Earnhardt wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2005 21:00:38 -0800, fluty1@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >> I liked the collection of quotes that Ron had in
>> >> h2q7n193gg8hsq126l0tofd8apsmjvlm01@xxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> Can you reconcile that, George? Can you help Ron out with his
>> >> headache?
>> >
>> >Teddy and Al are not in the white house, that would be the difference,
>>
>> The quesiton is about "lying". Are those Democrats lying, or are they
>> telling the truth?
>>
>> Shawn never could explain this; perhaps you can.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>And the answer is; I really don't care.

Of course you care! The problem is that answering the question would
send a wrecking ball through your belief system.

> Teddy and Al don't concern me.
>They don't make policy the bushies do.

The Senate approved the war in Iraq. They had privileged and direct
access to the same intelligence.

Maybe nobody was lying. And the entire question of "lying" begs the
question: why the revisionist history? The onus was always on Saddam
to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs -- not the other way around.

George: you put a question mark in the subject of this thread, but it
really wasn't a question at all to you.

> So stop tring to deflect and
>pass the buck.

Take your own advice! Your claim that "You really don't care" is just
a diversion -- and it's not even credible. If you were so damned
passionate about one our our leaders "lying" , you would care about
every single one that was "lying".

>My original question is; did the bushies lie and you
>still haven't answered it.

I've already answered in the other threads.

They were not. And neither were the Senators who also scrutinized the
Intelligence and made the sound bites.

> 200 hundred posts later.

What does that mean? Did you read those posts?

Would you apologize to the newsgroup, George, if I locate where I
already answered that question?

> The question
>remains did bush lie to get us into a war?

Answered. Here's a question for you: do you realize that the onus was
always on Saddam to demonstrate that he had destroyed his WMD
stockpiles -- and he failed to ever do that?

> It's the question that won't
>go away

The question won't go away for people who say things like "I don't
care!" when it's discovered that both parties were saying exactly the
same thing about Saddam's WMD threats.

> and the majority of the american people want an answer to it.

The majority of Americans have a short memory about the actual debate
in January of 2003. How about you? Read up on the brief summary at
http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/012903.htm . Do you have any issue at all
with the facts he laid out?

>Even the Repuplicains who now must cover their asses

Why? That statement presupposes that there was a "lie".

> and are sick of
>and ready to cut bait with these lame ducks want an answer.

Perhaps they should ask Gore or Kennedy! Or are those Senators trying
to cover themselves, too?

> The only
>people who don't want answers to the REAL questions are people who are
>1) blind 2) can't admit they were wrong or 3)have something to hide.
>Which one are you phil?

Silly question. None of the above.

Nobody was lying. The fact that Senators on both sides of the aisle
were making similar statements clearly indicates there was no "lie".
We're never ever gotten proof that the weapons weren't hidden in Iraq
or moved outside of the country. And the whole question of US
intelligence belies the fact that the onus was always on Saddam to
prove he had destroyed his WMD stockpiles. He failed to do that --
time and time again. Read http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/012903.htm if
you need to get updated on the facts.

>George

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: can you post anything Mr. Christensen?
    ... Since then he has been pissed as hell as it undermined his lying ... Dan believes that he can win with "propaganda" ... He is the type of guy that will continue to lie in the face of irrefutable facts. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: Hey Snyder, how about an explanation here
    ... When it comes to lying however the gloves are off and now I'm ... No facts accompanied the story. ... I report ... Google doesn't lie Tiny. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: To Wilhelm re OReilly
    ... Lying is a matter of argument. ... They were all liars by ... presented the facts supportive of their positions. ... rarely, very rarely, will I catch someone in a lie when a lie is ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Newsmax lies
    ... will lie like a rug if they can get away with it. ... I don't care about the ... lying is comes easily to some, ... The problem is that the "media" gets things wrong so much it's ridiculous. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: "Carter allowed surveillance in 1977"
    ... They aren't interested in facts; they are only interested in their ... spin anymore, you just lie. ... or the Art of Lying ...
    (alt.politics.bush)