How come no discussion of the Downing Street Memo here?

[oboe]

This memo just confirms what most informed people already knew or suspected.

The confirmation was personally important for me.   And those who dislike the implications of the memo can always just ignore it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Momus--
To sum up; it is ok for a politician to deceive the public and his own legislature if the end goal is something of which I approve.

[/b]

No one in this thread has said that.

I challenge you to provide a quote from this thread that supports your summary. It's BS.

Oh, and Toad, your wriggling over the interpretation of the word "fixed" is risible, as is citing the Compact edition of the OED as somehow giving the definitive interpretation of the word irrespective of context.

Two points my risible friend.

If you would like to pay for my online subscription to the Oxford, I'll cheerfully use that. However, as I choose NOT to personally pay for it, I use the FREE Compact edition to put the word in context. (You did manage to note that I used each definition in context, did you not? In order to see it "in context"? Surely that did not escape you?

Secondly, if not the Oxford, what dictionary do you suggest for divining and Englishman's intent?

BTW, why don't you post the first two definitions from the FULL Oxford for us?

But no matter, because the thrust of the passage is clear whichever way you wriggle.

[/b]

Hardly. Even Oboe, starter of the thread allows there are various possible meanings as does Nash. I see either one of those as better open, evaluating, debating minds than yours.

Rather than intel driving the policy, the policy was shaping intel.

[/b]

That's quite possible. In all fields of endeavor, people sometime select a desired outcome and work towards "proving" that outcome.

However, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that intel was deliberately falsified nor is there any proof Bush deliberately lied.

That's where you and your ilk put on your blinders and charge ahead irregardless. Which is exactly what you folks accuse Bush of doing, isn't it?

[oboe]

Toad,

Would you agree its possible to deceive the public without deliberately lying?

And just to be sure we are on the same footing here, we both agree that deceiving the public (within the context of the American democracy) is a bad thing, right?

[Momus--]

Keep dancing Toad, 'tis a shame to see you reduced to the disingenous quibbling over the definition of a word in order to defend an indefensible position.

That's where you and your ilk put on your blinders and charge ahead irregardless. Which is exactly what you folks accuse Bush of doing, isn't it?

No, my view is that Bush always intended to invade but chose to pursue the causus belli that he thought would garner most public support for the policy. I think this is a reasonable view in the circumstances. I also happen to think that Clinton would have invaded if he could have mustered enough domestic support or if a 9/11 type event had given him a suitable pretext.

[Toad]

Are you now saying that Bush deliberately deceived the public without lying? Is this now your case?

How would you prove that?

[Toad]

"disingenous quibbling " ?

LOL!

I posted a reference from the Oxford Compact in order to define it.

You challenged that since it's not from the Oxford FULL dictionary. Who's quibbling again? When are you going to post the one from the Oxford Full so that we can all see the major difference?

And you say I'm quibbling.

Go ahead, quote from the Oxford Full.

No, my view is that Bush always intended to invade but chose to pursue the causus belli that he thought would garner most public support for the policy. I think this is a reasonable view in the circumstances.

It's reasonable for YOU. Unfortunately, you can't support it or substantiate it with fact. Heck, you don't even have the support of the intelligence agencies of Britain, Russia, China, France, Germany and America on your side. At least Bush had that.

I also happen to think that Clinton would have invaded if he could have mustered enough domestic support or if a 9/11 type event had given him a suitable pretext.

Just another opinion like the previous lines. You're certainly entitled to that. Interesting that you see your opinion as totally valid without any support but Bush's opinion as invalid despite documented support from the intel agencies of  5 different nations.

OH... I'm still waiting on your support for this statement:

Originally posted by Momus--

To sum up; it is ok for a politician to deceive the public and his own legislature if the end goal is something of which I approve.

Where do you find that in this thread? Quotes please.

Or just admit you overstepped on that statment as well.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Toad
Beyond that, would you yourself say the famous

"I did not have sex with that woman" was a lie under oath?

Or would you quibble and say oral sex was not having sexual relations?

Ah yes- whenever a Conservative gets cornered they play the Clinton Lied card, and somehow that card trumps every other card in the deck, so no matter what  evidence GWB was predertimined to invade Iraq surfaces it pales in comparison to Clinton getting a (gasp) blowjob in the Oral Office.

Sheeesh Toad, I thought you were bigger than that.

[Toad]

Just as the Liberals try to shift lying under oath into "Bill's BJ is no one's business but his and Monica's.  

It's not about a BJ, it's about lying under oath. You know it and I expected more from you than that. Sheesh.

If Bill had said "Yeah. We did. Cigars dipped in the honey-pot too... not that it's any busines of yours, so drop it."

I'd have still thought him a sleeze but I'd say the whole thing was no issue. See... it's the lie.

evidence GWB was predertimined to invade Iraq

Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.

Where is such irrefutable evidence?

IF there is prior evidence of just cause, would any such "predetermination" be somehow wrong?

Review the thread; I've already said if it can be proven that he lied that I would support impeachment. And further punishment for that matter. If it's proven, I'd like to see him as a Marine grunt in Iraq.

You guys like to paint me as a dyed-in-the-wool Bush supporter. What I am is a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the truth.

Did Bill lie under oath? Yep. Proven.

Did Bush deliberately lie about causus belli with Iraq? Unproven as yet.

Show me the proof.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Toad


Did Bush deliberately lie about causus belli with Iraq? Unproven as yet.

Show me the proof.

The catchword is "deliberate," but if you rephrase your question to "Did the Bush Administration deliberately overstate the urgency of invading Iraq and the danger Sadaam Hussien was to his neighbors," then the answer is yes.

As far as what Clinton did, that's history. Iraq is right now.

BTW, how do you think the war is progressing Toad? Just curious.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad


However, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that intel was deliberately falsified nor is there any proof Bush deliberately lied.

WOODWARD (page 189): Repeating the new unequivocal charge about Iraq’s WMD program she had adopted three weeks earlier, Bush said, “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more.” Ratcheting up another notch, he added, “And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.”

There is a clear lie. Did he do it deliberately? Downing memo indicates he did. Lets put it like this Toad, Has Bush 1 time admitted he was even wrong about WMD, no, I havent seen him say that. He still is sticking with his lie which is what good liars do even in the face of the truth. Here's another little something that lets me know what kind of person bush is.

Bush goes to the Pope's funeral, but he hasn't been to 1 serviceman's funeral.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Just as the Liberals try to shift lying under oath into "Bill's BJ is no one's business but his and Monica's.  

It's not about a BJ, it's about lying under oath. You know it and I expected more from you than that. Sheesh.

If Bill had said "Yeah. We did. Cigars dipped in the honey-pot too... not that it's any busines of yours, so drop it."

I'd have still thought him a sleeze but I'd say the whole thing was no issue. See... it's the lie.


 

Can you show me a similar case where someone was convicted for lying under oath about being adulterous? It's one of those gray area's where people are not prosecuted for lying about it because it is considered "private" and therefore none of the states business. So given that how are you gonna prosecute someone for lying about a question that shouldnt have been asked in the first place.

[john9001]

"why the inspectors in the first place?"

the inspectors were not there to play "find the bombs", they were there to verify that the WMD were destroyed, they did not find proof that the WMD had been destroyed as per saddam's agreement with the UN's cease fire.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Airhead
"Did the Bush Administration deliberately overstate the urgency of invading Iraq and the danger Sadaam Hussien was to his neighbors," then the answer is yes.

[/b]

It would be yes in hindsight. Significant difference. Unless you can somehow prove Bush KNEW exactly how far along they were and KNEW SH's intentions?
 

BTW, how do you think the war is progressing Toad? Just curious.

The actual "shooting war" phase was exceptionally well done. The "nation building" phase has been more bloody than I thought. I have to admit I never considered Iraqis would drive carbombs into the funeral processions of other Iraqis.

I feel the election was a giant step forward. I feel there is real progress there.

I feel a major effort has been made to rebuild the country better than it was before and that it will continue. I think it'd be better if Iraqis quite blowing up Iraqi infrastructure.

I think the Iraqi military is finally beginning to assert itself.

I think it's still going to take a long time.

I am certain we can't walk away from the effort.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Can you show me a similar case where someone was convicted for lying under oath about being adulterous?

No but I suspect that's solely because 1) those records would be hard to find in public purview and 2) I'm not going to bother.

I feel pretty certain people have indeed been prosecuted for lying about a question that shouldnt have been asked in the first place.

The oath is to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Not "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth unless you don't think the question should have been asked in the first place".

If the question shouldn't be allowed, your lawyer is supposed to object. The bench rules on the objection. That's how that works, as I'm sure you know.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
There is a clear lie.

[/b]

What part of that can you show to be a

1. Clear lie

2. Deliberate lie

Downing memo indicates he did.

[/b]

I read the full text of the memo. I didn't see where it says or shows Bush deliberately lied.

Perhaps you will quote from it and show me the actual lines that show he deliberately lied? Thank you.

 

Lets put it like this Toad, Has Bush 1 time admitted he was even wrong about WMD, no, I havent seen him say that.

[/b]

So? You have complete proof that they did not have WMD? Can you unassailably show that WMD cannot have been hidden or shipped out to Syria or some other place? I can't.

He still is sticking with his lie which is what good liars do

[/b]

Which is exactly what you are doing in the absence of any proof he lied or lied deliberately.

Note I'm not saying he did or didn't. I'm saying there's no proof that stands up.

 

Bush goes to the Pope's funeral, but he hasn't been to 1 serviceman's funeral.

Well, let's do a quick check. How many serviceman's funerals did Wilson attend? How many did Roosevelt attend? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon?

If they did attend, how many such funerals were of common soldiers that were not awarded significant medals or honors?

Compare apples to apples please.

Further, if Bush went to the funeral of a common service man, how would he choose amongst them? How many and which of the 1500 do you think he should have attended?