|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2005 04:40:43 PM · #276 |
A few minor quibbles:
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
Our country was founded on conservative policies. |
Our country was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment.
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
Our Pledge of Allegiance speaks of God, |
Original pledge as written by Rev. Francis Bellamy (a Christian socialist minister) in 1892:
'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
It was modified in 1954 to include the words "under God" in 1954 to set the United States apart from the "godless Communists." (The words "United States of America" were added in 1924, if I remember correctly.)
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
so does our Constitution. |
No, it doesn't, unless you count the words "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" in the signature block. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. The Declaration of Independence does mention "nature's God", but, again, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Edited to added: Oh, I forget "endowed by their Creator" in the main body and "Supreme Judge of the world" and " of Divine Providence" in the conclusion in the DOI. A very Diest point of view.
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
It is even on our money! |
For the most part, not until 1954, when the national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One), though the phrase "In God We Trust" did appear on select coins since the U.S. Civil War. Again, it was those nasty "godless Communists."
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
If you want to claim a non-conservative country for yourselves, go start a new one or take one over. Don't act like this country was founded on liberal ideas and that you need to "reclaim it". |
Actually, the principles of the Enlightenment upon which the United States is founded were "liberal" for their day.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 16:54:16. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 04:41:59 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
ron, i don't think you have any right to call anyone a liar, you know what they say about glass houses and rocks, right? |
I do indeed, Eric. That's why I didn't call bdobe a liar ( not that I'm afraid of living in a glass house ). I merely asked whether his own definition of lying was applicable to what he, himself, did. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 04:51:16 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I admit I have not read the entire thread, but this little statement made me laugh! Our country was founded on conservative policies. Our Pledge of Allegiance speaks of God, so does our Constitution. It is even on our money! If you want to claim a non-conservative country for yourselves, go start a new one or take one over. Don't act like this country was founded on liberal ideas and that you need to "reclaim it".
If you don't like the way it was set up by the founders, then move somewhere else. Don't blame Republicans or the current administration for acting conservatively!
JD |
this is the most un-informed post i've read in a while.
First, the "pledge of allegiance" didn't have god in it until it was placed there by republican president Eisenhower in 1954
Second, our currency didn't have "in god we trust" on it until the 1860's, no where near the time of the founding of the USA.
Third, many of the "founding fathers" of our country were also slave owners. And that changed without people having to "move somewhere else" because they didn't like it.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 16:51:57.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 05:03:36 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
I was NOT "lying". You can say that I omitted 99% of the article, but that doesn't rise to the level of "lying". I quoted portions of the article truthfully and accurately, even according to your own admission above, to wit: "he lifted a quote from an article that purportedly supported his position". Hence, you are guilty of libel against me - the act of presenting a false statement that maliciously damages my reputation. |
RonB, if the 99% of the article you omitted changes that meaning of the 1% of the article you quoted, then that is a "lie" of omission. bdobe would be correct in asserting dishonesty on your part. Is the 1% you do quote significantly modified in meaning by the 99% you don't quote?
Does the portion of your post that bdobe does not quote essentially change the meaning of what he does quotes? If not, then no, he's not lying. Is the 1 paragraph that bdobe quotes significantly modified by the 3 paragraphs he does not quote? That doesn't appear to be the case.
You need to study some forensics. |
Welcome to the fray, Bill. To answer your first question:
The meaning of the article I quoted from is immaterial to the discussion. The discussion centered around whether Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The argument is NOT about whether Hussein was or was not seeking to buy uranium from Africa. Only about whether Bush LIED. Therefore, the only content having a direct bearing on whether what Bush said was true or not, is whether the British had or had not learned that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa. The article says: "The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa." and "The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said."
Ergo, the British upheld Bush's claim. That is the only part of the article that is pertinent to the argument. I would challenge bdobe or anyone else to find quotes from the British government stating that Bush LIED when he made his claim.
As to your second point. No, and No. And that's why I didn't call him a liar. I merely wanted to show that his criteria was bogus.
By the way, that would have been a "sin" of omission, not a "lie" of omission. A "lie" is a statement made that is known to be false when it is made, hence CANNOT be one of omission.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 17:08:51. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 05:06:45 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by smellyfish1002:
I admit I have not read the entire thread, but this little statement made me laugh! Our country was founded on conservative policies. Our Pledge of Allegiance speaks of God, so does our Constitution. It is even on our money! If you want to claim a non-conservative country for yourselves, go start a new one or take one over. Don't act like this country was founded on liberal ideas and that you need to "reclaim it".
If you don't like the way it was set up by the founders, then move somewhere else. Don't blame Republicans or the current administration for acting conservatively!JD |
I just read this, and I about fell over my chair laughing. What a poor understanding of history. While it's true that God is cited in many of our nation's early documents, reference to God does not signify that our nation was founded as a theocracy. Moreover, merely citing God does not signify that our nation was "founded on conservative policies." Quite the contrary, our nation was founded on quite radical and liberal principles. Just think of it, at the time, the conservative stand point would've been to support the "Great Chain of Beings," that is, a monarch at the top, and the people at the bottom. Remember, the idea was that a monarch obtains power through divine intervention and, therefore, the conservative position would've been to not alter the "Great Chain of Beings." Now, our founding fathers outright rejected that notion and, instead, opted for the radical and liberal notion that "We the People" could rule ourselves through representative democracy -- no longer did we need a divinely appointed monarch.
It's pretty amazing how poorly our nation's history is understood, and how the conservative right has distorted it to serve its purpose. The conservative movement is, and has always been about imposing its rigid pro-establishment/pro-status quo ideology -- at the time of our American revolution conservatives defended the "Great Chain of Beings" and fought on the side of the monarchy, while our radical and liberal founding fathers battled against conservatives of their time.
Here's just a sample of the radical notions -- specially for their time -- that our founding fathers fought for:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-- Declaration of Independence [ link ]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-- Preamble to the US Constitution [ link ]
For their time, these were pretty radical and liberal notions -- nothing conservative there. Curiously, many of today's conservatives, I'd argue, would object to the Declaration of Independence. According to conservatives, some of our fellow Americans are less free to pursue Happiness (i.e., their support to enact a discriminatory amendment against a specific group of people).
As for religion and its use -- or misuse -- I'll let Benjamin Franklin speak for me:
Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it [religion] has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.
-- To Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790 (B 12:185-6) [ link ]
I agree with Benjamin Franklin, God and religion are wonderful, but we should be weary of those that misuse religion as a dogmatic tool to create discord, and whom call for the imposition of a theocratic state -- as many on the conservative right would like to see happen.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 05:22:12 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
It's pretty amazing how poorly our nation's history is understood, and how the conservative right has distorted it to serve its purpose. The conservative movement is, and has always been about imposing its rigid pro-establishment/pro-status quo ideology -- at the time of our American revolution conservatives defended the "Great Chain of Beings" and fought on the side of the monarchy, while our radical and liberal founding fathers battled against conservatives of their time.
Here's just a sample of the radical notions -- specially for their time -- that our founding fathers fought for:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-- Declaration of Independence [ link ]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-- Preamble to the US Constitution [ link ]
For their time, these were pretty radical and liberal notions -- nothing conservative there. Curiously, many of today's conservatives, I'd argue, would object to the Declaration of Independence. According to conservatives, some of our fellow Americans are less free to pursue Happiness (i.e., their support to enact a discriminatory amendment against a specific group of people).
As for religion and its use -- or misuse -- I'll let Benjamin Franklin speak for me:
Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it [religion] has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.
-- To Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790 (B 12:185-6) [ link ]
I agree with Benjamin Franklin, God and religion are wonderful, but we should be weary of those that misuse religion as a dogmatic tool to create discord, and whom call for the imposition of a theocratic state -- as many on the conservative right would like to see happen. |
I find it most interesting that you have included two opposing views in the same post and seem to espouse both simultaneously.
1) First, from the Declaration:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
2) Then, from your closing:
"... we should be weary of those that misuse religion as a dogmatic tool to create discord, and whom call for the imposition of a theocratic state"
Why on earth, if you support the Right of the People to alter or abolish government, would you be wary of those who would actually use that Right to establish a theocratic state?
More left-wing hypocrisy? |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 05:31:05 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Why on earth, if you support the Right of the People to alter or abolish government, would you be wary of those who would actually use that Right to establish a theocratic state?
More left-wing hypocrisy? |
RonB, are you one of those conservatives, then, that are seeking to impose a theocracy on us?
Remember, theocratic governments (i.e., Iran) represent, according to Bush & Co., a threat to freedom and to American democratic principles.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 17:31:39.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 05:57:25 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by RonB:
A "lie" is a statement made that is known to be false when it is made... |
Im sick of seeing this go unchallenged as if its a true black and white statement with no gray.
The full defenition of the word "lie" in this context, acording to dictionary.com is:
lie ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
So Ron, please stop bullshitting that word. As with these lines: Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. and To convey a false image or impression These the Bush Administration has done over and over again. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 06:01:03 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB, are you one of those conservatives, then, that are seeking to impose a theocracy on us? |
That was not his point. His point was that YOUR points contradict each other. However, I'm not sure the points are completely opposite each other. One can support a change of government and simultaneously be concerned with what type of government would take its place and those who would push for that type of government.
Also, what do you mean by "impose?" The only way that the United States COULD somehow develop into a theocracy is if the majority of the people supported the initiative in the first place. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 06:07:18 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
So Ron, please stop bullshitting that word. |
What!? Ron said that he believes that Bush had presented information he thought to be true. In that case, Bush had no intent to deceive or lie. According to Ron, Bush was honestly presenting information he believed to be true about a threat he thought to be real. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 06:18:24 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by NovaTiger:
What!? Ron said that he believes that Bush had presented information he thought to be true. In that case, Bush had no intent to deceive or lie. According to Ron, Bush was honestly presenting information he believed to be true about a threat he thought to be real. |
This is simply untrue: it is now known, as the BBC article we've been referring to makes clear, that Bush and his administration knew months in advance that the Nigerian Yellow Cake document they were relying on was a forgery. Accordingly, Bush knowingly lied when he presented that evidence to us. (In fact, if one studies Bush's wording carefully, it is clear that his statements are specifically crafted to provide what's called "plausible deniability." Such careful wording is often used to provide political cover at a later point.) Moreover, it was wrong and dishonest of RonB to omit those six lines when he referred back to that BBC article.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 18:29:23.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 06:26:48 PM · #287 |
NovaTiger, if you frequented these discussions you would realize this is a common defense used by Ronb to claim that someone was not "lying" and he would use his one line definition of the word to justify it when its imply not that black and white. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 07:09:41 PM · #288 |
This is really a lesson in futility. No one can really say who is lying and who isn't simply because you would have to rely on the person 'lying' to honestly admit he was lying (except in obvious situation where someone would call a blue marker red and so on). Anything else is speculation based solely on interpretation. It became this way because of slang. With a language where bad can mean good and so on, it can always be interpreted in countless ways.
We all have to decide what it is we trust because frankly, anything can be forged or setup if you try hard enough. If you dig deep enough you can find things that coincidentally fit together and were never intended to be there.
I would be more offended if G-Dub tried to convince me he wasn't a dumbass
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 19:10:31.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 07:23:50 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. |
What revolutionaries our founders were. When one thinks back to this time and this thinking it’s easy to be very proud of your country (minus the wiping out of the Indigenous Indians, but that was mostly the Spanish and English).
Have a read of our founding documents and founders writings: US History
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 19:48:24. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 08:23:53 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Welcome to the fray, Bill. |
Thank you kindly, Ron.
Originally posted by RonB:
To answer your first question:
The meaning of the article I quoted from is immaterial to the discussion. |
I’m afraid I don’t understand. If the article is immaterial to the discussion, why did you quote from it (unless it was to point out that the article was immaterial to the discussion)? If you quoted from the article to support any position other than it’s immateriallessness (I think I just made up a word), then the meaning of the article is not immaterial. Though my above-stated point is valid, truthfully, I have a feeling that we may be referring to two different articles which you’ve previous quoted. See the following:
Originally posted by RonB:
The discussion centered around whether Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The argument is NOT about whether Hussein was or was not seeking to buy uranium from Africa. Only about whether Bush LIED. Therefore, the only content having a direct bearing on whether what Bush said was true or not, is whether the British had or had not learned that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa. The article says: "The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa." and "The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said."
Ergo, the British upheld Bush's claim. That is the only part of the article that is pertinent to the argument. I would challenge bdobe or anyone else to find quotes from the British government stating that Bush LIED when he made his claim. |
Actually, I’m not arguing about that, sorry if I may have misled you. My interest laid more in the Gannon/Guckert ruckus where you apparently tried to deflect attention away from the Gannon/Guckert issue and onto the “Liberals.” (Incidentally, I consider myself a moderate who’s tired of demonization tactics of the pundits/talking heads. For example, where, but downward, can a debate or discussion go when one party refers to the other as "femi-nazis" (or any other "cute" derogatory name) from the get-go.)
Originally posted by RonB:
As to your second point. No, and No. And that's why I didn't call him a liar. I merely wanted to show that his criteria was bogus. |
But my concern comes when you broadly inflate the definition of his criteria so as to make it bogus.
Originally posted by RonB:
By the way, that would have been a "sin" of omission, not a "lie" of omission. A "lie" is a statement made that is known to be false when it is made, hence CANNOT be one of omission. |
A mere trifle and nothing to get too worked up over at the moment, but I’m going to have to get pedantic and disagree with you there. A person can commit a lie of omission by intentionally excluding information in order to sway an audience to a personally desired or beneficial point-of-view when the withheld knowledge would possibly sway the audience in a direction unfavorable to the communicator’s goals.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 20:25:55. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 08:40:29 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
A person can commit a lie of omission by intentionally excluding information in order to sway an audience to a personally desired or beneficial point-of-view when the withheld knowledge would possibly sway the audience in a direction unfavorable to the communicator’s goals. |
Well said. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 09:51:06 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
What revolutionaries our founders were. |
Agreed. Of interest: the writers of the Dec. of Ind. uses VERY similar wording to much of what John Locke used in his Second Treatise of Government. In fact, there are some lines that are almost verbatim. I', not saying that they referenced JL (though I would not be at all surprised), but merely mention this because JL was English. It's just a little ironic. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:17:24 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
Why on earth, if you support the Right of the People to alter or abolish government, would you be wary of those who would actually use that Right to establish a theocratic state?
More left-wing hypocrisy? |
RonB, are you one of those conservatives, then, that are seeking to impose a theocracy on us?
Remember, theocratic governments (i.e., Iran) represent, according to Bush & Co., a threat to freedom and to American democratic principles. |
a) The answer to what I am seeking is not pertinent to the discussion, but no, I'm not.
b) The Bush & Co. views are also not pertinent to the discussion, though I share them.
So, since I've answered your questions, why don't you answer the question I posed - namely
Why on earth, if you support the Right of the People to alter or abolish government, would you be wary of those who would actually use that Right to establish a theocratic state?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:30:04 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
A "lie" is a statement made that is known to be false when it is made... |
Im sick of seeing this go unchallenged as if its a true black and white statement with no gray.
The full defenition of the word "lie" in this context, acording to dictionary.com is:
lie ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
So Ron, please stop bullshitting that word. As with these lines: Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. and To convey a false image or impression These the Bush Administration has done over and over again. |
OK. Let's look at Bush's statement in light of your newfound definitions:
1a) A false statement deliberately presented as being true
For this to be true, Bush would have had to know that the statement he was making was false. But it wasn't, as Blair explained, so this definition doesn't apply.
1b) a falsehood
I have already provide testimony from Blair that the statement was not a falsehood, so this definition doesn't apply
2a) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
This is your only possibly applicable definition, but for it to "stick" you would have to prove intent - and as I have said before, Kreskin wasn't in the audience that night, so absent a mind-reader, your accusation remains only conjecture.
3a) To present false information with the intention of deceiving
Since the information was not false, this definition does not apply
4a) To convey a false image or impression
Again, since the information was not false, the image it conveys could not be false - hence this definition doesn't apply
So, you are STILL left with the inability to prove that Bush lied. You can only BELIEVE that he lied. And frankly, I have never questioned your right to believe anything. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:31:15 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Why on earth, if you support the Right of the People to alter or abolish government, would you be wary of those who would actually use that Right to establish a theocratic state? |
"if you support the Right of the People to alter or abolish government" - you mean like what the US is doing in the middle east?
"those who would actually use that Right to establish a theocratic state?" - you mean like most of the dictators in the middle east are trying to do?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:41:40 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by NovaTiger:
What!? Ron said that he believes that Bush had presented information he thought to be true. In that case, Bush had no intent to deceive or lie. According to Ron, Bush was honestly presenting information he believed to be true about a threat he thought to be real. |
This is simply untrue: it is now known, as the BBC article we've been referring to makes clear, that Bush and his administration knew months in advance that the Nigerian Yellow Cake document they were relying on was a forgery. Accordingly, Bush knowingly lied when he presented that evidence to us. (In fact, if one studies Bush's wording carefully, it is clear that his statements are specifically crafted to provide what's called "plausible deniability." Such careful wording is often used to provide political cover at a later point.) Moreover, it was wrong and dishonest of RonB to omit those six lines when he referred back to that BBC article. |
1) Would you please, for the benefit of all us conservative doubters, provide substantiation that Bush presented the ( forged ) Nigerian Yellow Cake document to us as evidence.
2) I wasn't refuting whether the Nigerian YellowCake document was or was not a forgery. For the sake of argument, Let's agree that it was. However, Bush did not mention it to support his statement, so it has no applicability to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:56:06 PM · #297 |
My apologies if this report, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform "Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq" already has been referenced in this thread. If it hasn't, I thought it worthy of reading with regard to the question of the administration's lies, misleading and/or false statements about Iraq. The following quotation is an excerpt from the report's Executive Summary:
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINORITY OFFICE
"The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials.
"This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire database is accessible to members of Congress and the public at //www.reform.house.gov/min.
"This report is a summary of the Iraq on the Record database. Because the officials’ statements have been compiled into a searchable database, the report can make new observations about the topics that were the subject of misleading claims, the timing of these claims, and the officials who were responsible. To ensure objectivity, the report was peer reviewed for fairness and accuracy by two leading experts: Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Greg Thielmann, former acting director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and
Research.
"Findings
Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false."
|
|
|
|
02/17/2005 10:57:40 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Welcome to the fray, Bill. |
Thank you kindly, Ron.
Originally posted by RonB:
To answer your first question:
The meaning of the article I quoted from is immaterial to the discussion. |
I’m afraid I don’t understand. If the article is immaterial to the discussion, why did you quote from it (unless it was to point out that the article was immaterial to the discussion)? If you quoted from the article to support any position other than it’s immateriallessness (I think I just made up a word), then the meaning of the article is not immaterial. Though my above-stated point is valid, truthfully, I have a feeling that we may be referring to two different articles which you’ve previous quoted. See the following: |
You need to pay a little closer attention to what I write. I TRY to be clear but it seems that no matter how hard I try some will skip over some of the key indicators. To wit: I did NOT say that the article is immaterial. I said that the MEANING of the article is immaterial. And, for the discussion at hand, it is. I took my quotes from THAT article rather than from another source that I could have used because, frankly, if I had quoted it from a FOXNews article, some would have immediately discounted the entire text as "biased" and hence "unreliable", simply because of the source.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
The discussion centered around whether Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The argument is NOT about whether Hussein was or was not seeking to buy uranium from Africa. Only about whether Bush LIED. Therefore, the only content having a direct bearing on whether what Bush said was true or not, is whether the British had or had not learned that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa. The article says: "The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa." and "The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said."
Ergo, the British upheld Bush's claim. That is the only part of the article that is pertinent to the argument. I would challenge bdobe or anyone else to find quotes from the British government stating that Bush LIED when he made his claim. |
Actually, I’m not arguing about that, sorry if I may have misled you. My interest laid more in the Gannon/Guckert ruckus where you apparently tried to deflect attention away from the Gannon/Guckert issue and onto the “Liberals.” (Incidentally, I consider myself a moderate who’s tired of demonization tactics of the pundits/talking heads. For example, where, but downward, can a debate or discussion go when one party refers to the other as "femi-nazis" (or any other "cute" derogatory name) from the get-go.) |
Didn't mean to deflect anything. What issue would you like me to address re: the Gannon/Guckert ruckus?
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
As to your second point. No, and No. And that's why I didn't call him a liar. I merely wanted to show that his criteria was bogus. |
But my concern comes when you broadly inflate the definition of his criteria so as to make it bogus.
Originally posted by RonB:
By the way, that would have been a "sin" of omission, not a "lie" of omission. A "lie" is a statement made that is known to be false when it is made, hence CANNOT be one of omission. |
A mere trifle and nothing to get too worked up over at the moment, but I’m going to have to get pedantic and disagree with you there. A person can commit a lie of omission by intentionally excluding information in order to sway an audience to a personally desired or beneficial point-of-view when the withheld knowledge would possibly sway the audience in a direction unfavorable to the communicator’s goals. |
In the general sense, I disagree. However, I will grant that when testifying before a grand jury, omission of RELEVANT information can result in a charge of perjury ( commonly called lying under oath ), though even then the words LIE or LYING are not used in the definition of the word perjury. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:03:38 PM · #299 |
This should be at least #2 by now but again Ron, I point you to the Frontline movie Truth War and Consequences which will do a much better job than I am willing to type out.
Almost all of the administrations WMD "evidence" had contrary evidence that was left out of official reports and speeches. Time and time again reports were given with any contrary evidence left out. In some cases, evidence from the 1st Gulf War was used.
*edit, that movie can be streamed online.
Message edited by author 2005-02-17 23:05:14. |
|
|
|
02/17/2005 11:23:11 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
My apologies if this report, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform "Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq" already has been referenced in this thread. If it hasn't, I thought it worthy of reading with regard to the question of the administration's lies, misleading and/or false statements about Iraq. |
Thanks for providing me the opportunity to respond to this, Judith.
First, The report itself is very careful, though you are not, to NOT label any of the statements as LIES. The report labels them as either "misleading" or "false", a nuance perhaps, but an important one.
Secondly, by the report's own admission, "Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials." The report only claims that TEN of the 237 statements were "false".
( forgive me bdobe but I did not want to quote the entire report so I just lifted the parts that support my position ).
For the record, the report claims that 8 of the "false" statements were made by Ms. Rice, but somehow avoids mentioning or documenting who made the other two "false" statements. Nor are all 10 documented. A search of the supporting "database" gets NO hits on FALSE for any of the officials and all hits on LIE only say that the statement was "misleading". |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 12:14:45 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 12:14:45 PM EDT.
|
