Bush's "lies"...

niftydrifty said:

Oh, cmon, BD! Those are clearly not lies. You didn't ask me, but I can easily refute them thusly:

But is that the best you have? That's it?

What exactly is it you are harping on here?

Who cares? It was a figure of speech.

You're cherry picking statements from Bush.

You've posted no evidence you've posted figures of speech and assertions.

Spare me.

Look if all you have are these little specious arguments then be done with it.

The fact is no one lied about anything.

I realize you now have to engage in ad homimem since your arguments can stand on their own merits.

It was a figure of speech.

What folly you engage in.

And?

You are presenting a conclusion based on a premise.

Why is it so important to you to paint Bush as a liar, when all the investigations show otherwise?

There is no more evidence he lied than any in the Clinton administration or the Congress. Which is none.

And when is it a lie, when they are merely wrong?

Was Clinton a liar?

:lol:

Click to expand...

Yes he was. :lol:

niftydrifty said:

The only semantical argument here is your own. I've repeatedly posted the very clear lie. Bush says that he was the first to admit that there were no WMD.

Click to expand...

Yes a figure of speech, would you have been happier if he had said he was "one of the first"?

You, Stinger, have repeatedly claimed that this was not a lie, it was a "figure of speech."

Click to expand...

Yes there is a difference between a causal comment and an official position. You can't make that intellectual distinction?

But as I keep asking why it is so important to you to assert that he was lying here? Once we went in an investigated we ALL learned he had no stockpiles. But we did learn everything else he had, which you continue to ignore. Why?

Furthermore, you engage the lie by bringing up others, outside of the context of the topic. I ask you to paste quotes by Democrats saying that "WMD have been found."

Click to expand...

And I've yet to figure out why. I have posted to you what they believed based on the evidence which is exactly what Bush believed and stated. Were both lying?

You paste a lot of quotes by Democrats with WMDs being mentioned. What a waste of time. I ask you to prove Bush right, and to show me when he did admit no WMDs first. And you can't. So you do your dingleberry dance.

Click to expand...

Yes stating exactly what the Bush administrations position was, were both lying?

I'm going to keep responding to you Stinger, as long as you keep it up. because I just love the non-arguments you come up with. It's hilarious.

Click to expand...

How about responding to my inquiry then and answer the questions I posed above.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Was he or was he not a threat as far as WMD?

We now know that he wasn't,

Click to expand...

No we don't, the ISG reports clearly show he was more a threat than we had believed.

so I can only answer this question, "no."

Click to expand...

Not if you knew the facts. Read the Kay and Duelfer reports.

However, when Bush said that he was the first to also say as much, he wasn't,

Click to expand...

SO WHAT? It was a figure of speech.

and he HAD to have known better. therefore, he lied.

Click to expand...

Why do you harp on it so? Heck for all I know he was, he may have been the first to say so after the Kay report became offical, I wasn't sitting in the Oval Office when he received it and I didn't hear what he said. I don't care, after the report came out he and his administration agreed that we didn't find stockpiles of WMD. No one continued to claim we found what we knew was missing. But we did find lots more didn't we.

You seem to think, that I am calling any variant of "Saddam had WMD"

Click to expand...

Well I think you have to stipulate what you mean by it. Stockpiles and nothing at all, no research, no labs, no reference strains, no precursor chemicals, no equipment, and complete disclosure.

Are there different kinds of WMD? Of course. Does Bush make that distinction. In the quote no. But that doesn't matter. I know what he means. The point is, ... the point you refuse to acknowledge ... the point you can't refute, is that Bush wasn't the first.

Click to expand...

The point is it's a silly argument.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about WMD chemicals. Or WMD big nukes. or half-rotten WMD left over from the 80's. Was Bush the first to admit there were "no WMD" regardless of the kind, make, or model? No, he wasn't.

Click to expand...

Yes it does it you want to discuss the issue, if you are more interested in creating a "gotcha" then I guess it isn't.

Stinger, the administration, has admitted there were no WMD in Iraq.

Click to expand...

No stockpiles of ready to go weapons, but we found a lot of very dangerous stuff which is fully detailed in the official reports which you should take the time to read.

And that's all Saddam needed. He didn't need to stockpile them, they are expensive and difficult to stockpile them. BUT easily and quickly recreated with the materials and equipment he did have, materials and equipment he was required to disclose and did not.

By doing so, the implication is that the little WMD that you are obsessed

Click to expand...

It's not me it's in the official reports and you continue to try and dismiss it rather hoping you can hold on to your "gotcha".

with are not the WMD that this administration, the Democrats, or any other hawks were hoping for.

Click to expand...

What we hoped for was to find the materials and weapons the UN said he had, that they had documented and that have never been found. We don't know what happened to those. These are the weapons and materials Blix told the UN that he was looking for and Saddam was not cooperating as he was suppose to do in his last, this is it, no more, after this it's over UN declaration.

What happened to those?

Why do I acknowledge this point? Because you bring it up, not because it has to do with anything I've actually said, which you cannot, or have not refuted.

So again I ask

Originally Posted by Stinger
Was he a threat? Was it a lie to say he was a threat?

I have never said this.

Click to expand...

So? I'm asking you. Was he a WMD threat? After reading the official reports of what we did find, some already cited to you. Was he a WMD threat?

Stinger said:

the ISG reports clearly show he was more a threat than we had believed.

Click to expand...

You've got this backwards. does your "we" include Condoleeza Rice?

Stinger said:

Heck for all I know he was, he may have been the first to say so after the Kay report became offical

Click to expand...

"for all you know." ... ie., not much. I'm telling you, he wasn't. I've proven he wasn't. You haven't proven otherwise.

"he may have been." LOL! give evidence. conclusions by rational folk are usually based upon evidence. upon what evidence do you base your conclusion, Stinger?

Bush wasn't the first. He lied.

niftydrifty said:

You've got this backwards. does your "we" include Condoleeza Rice?

"for all you know." ... ie., not much. I'm telling you, he wasn't. I've proven he wasn't. You haven't proven otherwise.

"he may have been." LOL! give evidence. conclusions by rational folk are usually based upon evidence. upon what evidence do you base your conclusion, Stinger?

Bush wasn't the first. He lied.

Click to expand...

It's as much as you have and it is nothing. If his causal comment is your BIG lie it is laughable.

And I note you refuse to comment on what materials, equiment and plans we did find.

LOL! Laughable, indeed.

I refuse to comment on asides and red herrings.

You refuse to present the evidence which allows you to conclude that Bush may have been the first to say so, thusly refuting the lie. You have never done so. You can't.

Instead, I've heard you talk about my mental capacities. :roll:

I've asked you to present evidence. I've even asked you what kind of figure of speech. These central questions seem to be beyond you. So let's back up even further.

What is a debate, Stinger?

niftydrifty said:

LOL! Laughable, indeed.

I refuse to comment on asides and red herrings.

Click to expand...

:spin:no you just can't.

You refuse to present the evidence which allows you to conclude that Bush may have been the first to say so,

Click to expand...

It's a specious argument on it's face.

But that's the best you have I guess.

Instead, I've heard you talk about my mental capacities. :roll:

Click to expand...

Not at all, I have asked you if you can make the intellectual distinctions between an aside, a figure of speech, and a statement of fact. You are free to respond.

What is a debate, Stinger?

Click to expand...

You responding to my inquiries to, not just me to you.

Stinger said:

You responding to my inquiries too, not just me to you.

Click to expand...

I thought so. that's not what a debate is Stinger. In your spinworld, you're free to ask any question, about WMD, about Democrats, or what-have-you.

but in a debate, the point is to explain one's position relevant to the topic. one gives one's position in support of, or in opposition to a point-of-view. evidence is likewise presented which will either refute or support the initial position.

read your last post. did you make an argument? did you present any evidence?

no, your point was that I don't answer your questions. that's not a debate Stinger.

in a debate, where I have made an assertion (Bush lied) you need to either:

(a) point out why my evidence is wrong,

or

(b) present evidence which refutes my argument.

good luck with this, Stinger.

it's convenient for you to harp on this bogus point that Bush was using a figure of speech. well, gee, I guess I was using a figure of speech when I told the undercover cop that I didn't give money to the hooker. was I lying? LOL!

Stinger said:

Heck for all I know he was, he may have been the first to say so after the Kay report became offical...

Click to expand...

you were getting close with this sentence. all you need to do now is come up with some evidence. you've been all over the place, Stinger. get focused. debate, don't devolve.

If that is all you have, Bush in a casual conversation utters a figure of speech.......................

When will you address what we did find?

That, my dear friend, is up to you.

I said this about 8 posts ago:

Niftydrifty said:

So, what kind of "figure of speech," is it, eh Stinger? Was it a scheme or a trope? And how is it, then, not a lie? Explain yourself, if you're able. LOL!

Click to expand...

niftydrifty said:

That, my dear friend, is up to you.

I said this about 8 posts ago:

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, if that is the best you have...........................

Very well, I suppose we've exhausted discussion of that lie. let the record show that Stinger has refused to explain how this "figure of speech" is not a lie.

Now, Stinger, seeing as how you have just conceded this point, if you dare, please turn your attention to my other example. I don't recall anyone attempting to refute this anywhere else in this thread.

If you want to truly address the "best I have," then you will be delighted to address this further evidence re: the lies of Mr. Bush.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/16977-bushs-lies-3.html#post469187

niftydrifty said:

Very well, I suppose we've exhausted discussion of that lie. let the record show that Stinger has refused to explain how this "figure of speech" is not a lie.

Click to expand...

:rofl let the record show that for such a silly issue no one cares.

Now, Stinger, seeing as how you have just conceded this point,

Click to expand...

Seeing as I haven't, I just remarked that if that is all you have, this trivial little figure of speech, you ain't got nothing.

Another one. The one you just dodged.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security