What Fresh Hell Is This?

October 26, 2006

When is a lie a lie?

Stuart Rothenberg of Roll Call was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning and he rebuked a caller who complained that Bush lies.

Rothenberg said that it was a shame that people used the word lie when they disagreed with another's judgment.

Yes, here we have the MSM once again striving for balance instead of objectivity.

The MSM had no problem calling President Bill Clinton a liar, but the word liar seems to be incapable of crossing their lips when it comes to discussing this administration.

When the Bushies claimed that Abramhoff was only at the White House a couple of times and then it turned out there were over 400 contacts, was that not a lie?

When Bush claimed that we only listen in to phone calls when there is a warrant and it came out that there was a whole secret program to listen to calls without warrants, was that not a lie?

When Condi Rice claimed that no one could have imagined using planes as a weapon to fly into buildings and it came out that only a month prior to 9/11 Bush had been moved from his hotel at a summit to stay on a boat because there was concern that the hotel might be hit with a plane, was that not a lie?

When Bush and everyone else on the Right claim that we all have the same intelligence but we know it took years for the PDB that said Bin Laden was determined to attack within the US to come out, was that not a lie? I didn't see that PDB, you didn't see that PDB, John Kerry didn't see that PDB...we don't all get the same intelligence - period.

When Bush uses his State of the Union speech to claim that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa, but had been warned over and over by his own spy agencies not to use that in the speech and it had been taken out of the speech, yet found it's way back in, was that not a lie?

And, when he and his crew now say we were never about "stay the course" yet he and his crew are on tape saying it dozens of time, isn't that a lie?

I could go on and on...

Yeah, we should all be balanced and not say Bush lies, instead of being objective and say he tells huge whopper lies -- like Britney Spears has bad taste in men, like Naomi Campbell abuses the help, and like Rush Limbaugh pops pills to keep his dick hard -- all the fucking time!

Gimme a break!


xranger said...

Sigh, so tiresome, yet so predictable.

Let's try this one more time:

Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harrasment suit. That is a felony. If the ordinary citizen did that, they would go to jail. Clinton was then disbarred due to this transgression.

The State of the Union speech claimed that Great Britain believed the yellow cake situation had occured, and, indeed, it was proven that Saddam had inquired about its procurement.

Maria said...

Sigh, so tiresome, yet so predictable.

Let's try this one more time:

Clinton was disbarred and impeached for lying about his personal sex life in a civil case in which the court eventually dismissed the lawsuit.

As for the ordinary citizen, as was pointed out at the time, perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare.

On the other hand, Bush is accused in the Downing Street Minutes by Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) of fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power and of having the UN weapons inspection process manipulated to provide a legal pretext for war. To date, UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")

A small matter to be sure -- nothing near as dangerous and deadly as lying about friggin blow jobs.

As regards your assertion that "it was proven that Saddam had inquired about its procurement," please tell the White House!

On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing :

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

Maria said...

Waiting for you to address the other lies listed in the post...


xranger said...

Interesting article by Christopher Hitchens in Slate (no conservative writer or conservative rag):

"Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill."

Here's the link:


I love the left's reference to the Downing Street Memo: never authenticated by anyone else, just throw out some notes and, by god, they are gospel. Weak arguement at best.

So, the perjury defense is that, well, it was only a little lie, and they're not always prosecuted, and it was a blowjob, after all.

Pretty pathetic.

Hey, I thought you women's libbers always fight for the woman's rights in a sexual harrassment suit.

Oh, only liberal women.

I forgot. :-D

EdHeath said...

The thing is, average people know that all president’s lie, or at the very least, omit inconvenient truths all the time. Now, a big majority of the polled public think that what Bush has lied about, a war in Iraq, attacks on civil liberties and what his own powers should be, these things are more important than the usual presidential lies. That there may be some confusion about which part's are lies really doesn't cut it with the public. Just because it is surely true that Saddam *wanted* nukes is no longer nearly good enough to justify a mismanaged occupation.

The squabbling over the Downing Street Memo, the niger yellow cake and the Italian intelligence about Prague meetings always amuses me. Saddam had chemical weapons in the 80’s, used them on Iranians and Kurds. But for what, at least 8 years in the 90’s the UN inspectors systematically took the weapons infrastructure apart. They didn’t find everything, as Santorum has pointed out, but they found most, and in 2003 it should have been obvious that Saddam was not the biggest threat we faced. It also should have been obvious that as a secular and marginalized state, Saddam and Al Qaeda had basically nothing to do with each other. But Bush played the 9/11 card, took a gamble (that clearly was a loser), played it poorly (Rumsfeld’s fault, really; too few troops for occupation), and now Bush will go down in history as incompetent. The thing is, I don’t think voters have any faith in the democrats to handle our security either. And we all know that one nuke, set off in New York or the port of Los Angeles, would be really bad - worldwide depression bad.

The dueling comments have it right, the debate between polarized camps misses much of what the rest of actually know, and the debate has become tiresome and predictable.

Hitchens is pretty much considered a former liberal turned conservative. I believe he is also considered quite smart, and I for one would not dismiss a writer simply because he is a conservative. On the other hand, we pretty much knew that any of this yellow cake went to the other guys, Iran, North Korea, the ones where our commitment in Iraq has screwed the pooch for us. Let's face it, Kim Jung Il has a lot of reasons to give a nuke to any terrorists he can find, and we have Bush to thank for that situation. Yes, Clinton at best only partially handled the situation, but thats still rather better than Bush has managed. Which is to say that if an election were held today, voters would overwhelming choose a womanizing, disbarred Clinton over Dubya.

Maria said...

You forgot the part about Hitchens gin-soaked brain.

Hitchens cares more about perceived slights to himself than anything else.

xranger said...

Too many generalizations to be a good post, Ed.

A majority do not think Bush lied about Iraq, you do.

A majority do not think our civil liberties and rights are damaged, you do.

In fact, just the opposite is true. Polls show Americans want protection against terrorits: the Patriot Act, surveillance and the recently passed protection act.

The mere fact that the left bangs the same tired old 'Bush lied, people died' drum is the most polarizing thing about politics today. The left has sensationalized anything they don't like about the other side: old people will have to eat dog food if the Reps try to rein in welfare, Reps hate old people, because they want to attempt to do anything to right the Social Security ship (while we leave the sinking to our children).

One thing you libs better realize: you will be truly marginalized if you cannot win big this election cycle. You have put too much on this, and have lined up a far-left governing group in the House. In the midst of an unpopular war, without a foreseeable end in site, if you cannot force a change now, you must totally re-think your national position.

Me, I'll accept the will of the people. That's the beauty of democracy in America: we keep moving forward, even though we dislike or do not agree with those in power.

See you at the polls.