Pelosi calls out Bush on Timetable flip flop
The president said, in his comments, he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, “I think it’s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.” Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activities. Standards — that’s the issue.
I disagree. The issue is double standards. That's what you get from people who want others to play by the rules and tell them the truth but think they don't have to.
Submitted by Mike Pridmore on Tue, 2007-05-01 20:40
Tags:
Comments :
You obviously do not understand
You see, what Republicans said during the Clinton Administration cannot be brought up and used against them today because Clinton was evil and got a blowjob, so therefore whatever they said at the time was necessary in order to rid the country of the horror of blue dresses with semen stains.
qui tacet consentire
I suppose
you are right. It seems so obvious now that you explain it...
I agree.
This is absolutely correct.
And so is this. The Democrats are consistently applying one standard to themselves and another to everyone else. I of course don't subscribe to this philosophy which is why I assume that the Democrats are living by the Golden Rule ... in other words the way that they treat the Republicans is the way that they want to be treated themselves (in terms of the rhetorical devices that are employed as part of the public discourse).
So when you see something that I, as a Republican, say that appears to be a double standard it is not. I am merely applying the time honored Democrat tradition of triangulation. I stick my finger up in the air to see which way the Democrat windbags are "blowing" and then I simply follow their lead (in terms of rhetorical techniques, that is).
Bush is merely doing the same. When the Democrats were in power they apparently didn't want to set any timetables, so now that is the norm. By calling for them now THEY are the ones changing their tune. We merely want to play the game by the same rules which they applied to themselves.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There wasn't a need
for timetables as we were actually making progress. And at the time, about 11,000 American troops were in Bosnia and Kosovo working alongside about 55,000 soldiers from allied countries. If only!(link
)
I agree that Bill Clinton triangulated too much. But there is where your point should end. Just because someone else did something wrong does not give another person, particularly another president, carte blanche to say one thing and do another.
Furthermore, we are not doing what is most popular and avoiding hard decisions, as John McCain would accuse us. We are doing the right thing here. Just ask a General who is willing to tell the truth. (link
)
George Bush is a two-faced liar and blaming Bill Clinton for that is just unacceptable!
This is a lie.
Bush has not lied.
[Sorry, nothing personal, this is just my new standard reaction for the Bush Lied / Bush is a Liar crowd. It is sort of the equivalent of hitting "standard reply #3" on the tape recorder.]
I respectfully disagree with the remainder of your reply ... except for the "Clinton triangulated too much" part.
BTW, I am NOT blaming Clinton for Bush's decisions or political posturing ... I am merely pointing out that Clinton set the bar for what is now considered normal conduct.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Liar
is a pretty strong claim, I agree, and one that requires conclusive evidence.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How about
this nugget of beauty?
That was April, 2004 - before the news broke that the President had been authorizing wiretaps without court orders since 2001.
I think "liar" is a fairly accurate term, at least here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The court order is required only for domestic
surveillance. These wiretaps all involve foreign surveillance and don't even apply to any calls which both originate and terminate wholly within the US ... which is what this comment was clearly based on.
You choose to focus on the domestic side of the call. I choose to focus on the foreign side of the call. Is there some reason to say that your perspective is "correct" and mine is not? I don't think so.
So, from my perspective, Bush has not lied. From yours, I can see why you might think so but you still can't make your claim without ignoring the true nature of the wiretaps allowed under the program.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
How are you reading this?
That's pretty unequivocal there. No "domestic" versus "interational" involved, period. You're developing your own case for separating out types of wiretaps, but none of that is in the original quote.
He made a blanket statement: we do not wiretap without court orders. If you want to defend his right to wiretap foreign calls without, that's fine, but it's not what's at issue here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Please point me to the full context for this quote
and the text thereof. I tend to agree with your point here, assuming that the quote is accurate and not taken out of context.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Here you go:
from the White House website: full text
. The relevant portion's about halfway down, when he starts describing the difference between traditional wiretapping and "roving" wiretaps. He also talks about FISA (without mentioning it by name) by discussing the ability of the White House to order post-facto warrants for wiretaps.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Cleaning up loose ends...
OK, pico made a fair point
. I will try to go through and respond to any dangling points on the "Bush Lied" meme. If I miss yours let me know and I will get back to it. This is my last round on this topic, though. You all can have the last word on your respective threads...
pico:
Here is a larger piece of his actual statement:
From this it is evident that the term "roving wiretap" has a very specific legal meaning, and that such wiretaps were not available for use against potential terrorists ... only against drug lords for whatever reason. It is also evident that this was a common practice that was already in place well before 9/11 or the Patriot Act. The only thing that the Patriot Act did was alter the scope for where roving wiretaps are applicable.
As far as I can tell, and as the text of the speech makes clear, the use of these "roving wiretaps" still require a court order to apply. Bush has explicitly stated as such directly in the speech. Do you have any evidence that this specific type of wiretap has been used without a court order?
Given that the context of the quote you originally provided was referring specifically to "roving wiretaps" (as opposed to the so-called warrantless wiretaps within Bush's formerly secret program to listen to calls between the US and Foreign Countries made by individuals suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations), and given that we, presumably, ARE obtaining proper warrants in conjunction with these "roving wiretaps" Bush's comment within the speech that you highlighted is NOT a lie.
You do recognize that we are talking about two distinctly different types of wiretaps which are applied in distinctly different circumstances, correct?
One is these "roving wiretaps" which existed as a tool (apparently for the DEA) prior to either 9/11 or the GWOT. The other is the so called "warrantless wiretaps" which only apply to calls which either originate or terminate in a foreign country (created as part of Bush's secret program).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmm...
I think you're making a much more creative reading than the text warrants. Let's take this passage again:
It's clear from the context that when Bush says "any time you hear the US gov't talking about wiretaps", he's backing up to talk about all wiretaps, not only the roving ones. Keywords here are "by the way" and the lack of a qualifier in front of the second "wiretap".
I'll make up an example using the same sentence structure:
What you're trying to argue - and what I find totally not believable - is that my second "literature" refers specifically to French literature. I cannot imagine a reasonable listener who would come away with that impression, and if any of my students did, they'd have a hard time coming out of that class with a passing grade.
So in order to believe your reading, we'd need all these criteria to be met:
1. The President really intended to refer only to roving wiretaps, but chose a very poor way of doing so;
2. The President's assurance that "nothing has changed" in terms of copyright law was intended only to refer to roving wiretaps (in which case he may still be lying by omission, since he had long since instituted changes for other wiretaps); and
3. Not one of the roving wiretaps between 2001 and 2004 were issued without a court order, which means that Bush's super-secret program was not using the type of wiretap that he defends as the most necessary in the war on terror.
I still call B.S. There's nothing either in your reading or in the larger argument that convinces me he was not intentionally misleading his listeners here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You can believe what you want ...
I'll never be able to convince you either way. What is clear from the context, as you say, is that all three of the relevant paragraphs from start to finish are discussing NOTHING but roving wiretaps. They are mentioned in the opening sentence as well as the closing one, and several places in between.
What I find unbelievable is that you have to spin things to the point where he basically is jumping out of the middle of this text to suddenly be intending all wiretaps, not just the ones that every other piece of the text is discussing.
To be perfectly honest, what this sounds like to me is that he was actually trying to talk through this in his own words and was mangling them how he always does. Are you not the people who harp on and on about what an inarticulate boob he is? But now the finer points of his "grammatical sentence structure" are suddenly the key point of this discussion?
Give me a break.
Counter points:
1) Consistent with your [the liberals] "he's an inarticulate boob" position.
2) In this entire section of the speech he was explaining what the provisions in the Patriot Act did, correct? What the Patriot Act actually authorized relative to other existing capabilities. Within that context, only the roving wiretaps apply, correct? I don't think that the Patriot Act actually says anything about his "secret programs" does it?
3) See number 2 above. Also, unless you can provide proof to the contrary, as far as we know they are, in fact, obtaining the required warrants for the roving wiretaps.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Now you're playing intentionally dumb.
You can dismiss what I say as nitpicking, but look at the example I gave above. There is no way that anyone with half a brain and no agenda wouldn't consider that segment a digression to qualify all wiretaps. And what's irking me is not only that you know this, but that you're pretending you don't, and throwing it back at me as if this were some creation of mine.
This section of his speech is an attempt to explain the difference between traditional and roving wiretaps. He's trying to assure the audience that roving wiretaps do not break from the law that governs all wiretaps, and he promises that nothing has changed in that respect.
Nothing I said implied he was an "inarticulate boob", but I guess you're having as much trouble reading my comments as you do the Presidents.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Ha!
It is the economy, stupid.
Have you actually read your own reference?
Here, let me widen the scope even more and give you a play by play of the logical flow of the points being made:
Up to this point in the speech the President was basically thanking lots of people and talking about the issues with the Iraq war and Saddam.
This section of the speech is talking about Gorelick wall between the FBI and the CIA, and how it prevented us from connecting the dots that needed to be connected.
This is making the case for the need to change the law via the Patriot Act.
And here is the transition to talking about the Patriot Act and what the main items that it addressed are. This paragraph is discussing the the first point (keywords: "the first thing I want you to think about"). In case it escaped you the point was: one thing the Patriot Act did was break down the Gorelick wall.
This section is talking about the second important point he wants to make (keywords: "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps."). Surprisingly enough, the context of this section is talking about "roving wiretaps", what they are, why they are important, and that they still require warrants (keywords: "So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps").
This section is talking about the third important point he wants to make (keywords: "Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants."). Surprisingly enough, the context of this section is talking about "delayed notification warrants", what they are, why they are important, and the message we are sending by applying them in the GWOT.
And then this is the paragraph where the talk transitions from "what we have already done" (via the Patriot Act) to "what still needs to be done" (in preparation for a call to action).
I don't know how much public speaking you have done, but speeches are typically organized around a logical flow which focuses on making very specific points.
As I said above, this section of the speech was clearly walking through the three main points he wanted to make about the Patriot Act:
So, I will ask you again, if the three paragraphs which talk about roving wiretaps are clearly scoped within a section discussing the changes that the Patriot Act put into place (as the other surrounding sections do as well), why would he suddenly try to talk about wiretaps that applied to a program that he considered to be a national security secret?
You are just hearing what you want to hear because you want him to be a liar. I understand this. I don't particularly care or blame you for it. But this is an objective analysis of what he said in the context of the actual speech. And within this context, his statement was NOT a lie.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I know this is pico's battle
but I just wanted to jump in here and say if you held Bush to the same standards as us here
, then Bush should have said 'roving wiretaps' in that 'BTW' section that pico pointed out properly as a backtrack. Without that qualifier (according to you), he is discussing 'all wiretaps'.
This is (ever so barely) a fair point, Specter.
Feel free to jump in if you want. I am always happy to "correct" the record, although in the case you may wish that I hadn't. :-)
First, let's review the point that I believe you are trying to make. In this post
I make the following statements:
So, what was "in the context of your original comment" referring to? Let's see.
pico wrote:
And Specter replied:
I was originally going to simply highlight that in Bush's case he actually DID use the term "roving wiretaps", multiple times in fact, AND in the opening sentence of the three paragraphs from his speech that we are discussing. In your case you (personally) did NOT ever qualify your use of "the rich" even a single time.
Upon further review, however, I see that pico, much to his credit, did in fact provide clarification of his intended targets in the form of his footnote wherein he at least acknowledges that some of the people in the group encompassed by the term "the wealthy" have other good faith reasons for sending their kids to the privates schools other than "trying to buy segregation" as you later termed it. This is why I did not feel the need to jump on his comment like I did on yours.
I still maintain that within the context of your statement, the phrase "the rich" refers to the group "all wealthy people living in New Orleans who send their kids to private schools," but since pico did provide a qualification I can see how a reasonable person might assume that his qualification was also implied in your use of "the rich".
So, given this, I stand corrected and hereby retract the foul and evil epithets I hurled at you.
Now, let us review. You have claimed that in your use of "the rich" you were only referring to the racist ones in that group, not all of them. You have no specific defense of this within the text or your original comment, but I can see how you could find one indirectly through pico's text in the form of a footnote.
In Bush's case he clearly lead off the entire section (thus setting the scope of that discussion) by using the qualified term "roving wiretaps", and he re-iterated this term multiple times throughout the three paragraphs in question.
Of these two, I would argue that Bush clearly has the stronger case. Would you not agree?
Now, after having reviewed the original context of your comment and recognizing my error, I have in good faith admitted my error and retracted my admonition. Thus I am clearly and with out a doubt holding both you and George Bush to the same exact standard.
It occurs to me, however, that this now leaves you in a bit of a conundrum, or a pickle if you will.
If you accept the above logic which lets you off the hook for having made a bigoted comment, does it not also let Bush off the hook for having lied (in this specific case)? And given that I have so graciously admitted that I was wrong for having claimed your comment was bigoted would it not also be a reasonable gesture on your part to admit that Bush did not lie (in this specific instance)?
Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.
Either the reasoning above is correct (and therefore you did not make a bigoted comment and Bush did not lie, at least in this case), or that reasoning is incorrect (and therefore Bush [may have] actually still lied [by picos argument] but then my original argument about your [possibly] bigoted comment still applies).
:-)
So, Specter, which is it? Is Bush a liar (in this case) or was your comment bigoted?
[ Just for the record I don't really think that Specter is a bigot, even though I do believe that his original comment was careless and could be interpreted as such. My only purpose of one of raising awareness. ]
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I do not buy the premise
I do not buy the premise that calling out segregationism is bigotry. You never answered how that one works.
Lastly, my comment was also more in context than Bush's as I explain here
to show it follows a previous comment in a thread as you sometimes acknowledge and sometimes don't, while Bush's comment is clearly a backtrack as pico points out wonderfully through this example (which you still have not addressed):
(edit): Before you answer this, see my comment below about 'Paradox and Values'.
Black is he black
I don't see color....... said Stephen Colbert.
It is the economy, stupid.
Raising awareness.
NOTE: Most of this commentary is explaining my previous position which I have now retracted. I offer it here merely as an explanation to help you understand my mindset at the time.
I guess that this depends on our respective definitions of bigotry. Webster will work fine for me in this discussion:
Based on the affirmative action training I have had over the past 20 years, a slightly different way of saying it is that bigotry is the act of applying a negative stereotype to all the members of a group, rather than solely to those individuals who exhibit it. Example: The black man that complains that we should not call him lazy just because he is black.
So the issues at play here are as follows:
1) Being racist is bad (i.e. negative).
2) Promoting segregation is racist.
3) Democrats promote the stereotype that Republicans are racists.
4) Democrats promote the stereotype that Republicans are mostly Rich White People.
5) Ergo, your statement is applying a negative stereotype to all of the members of a group (which is also aligned with a racial component).
6) Ergo, your statement is a valid example of a bigoted statement.
I think that if you examine all of the examples of where I complain about bigotry the logic will be similar to this.
I do speak out against bigotry. Here, I will do so now: "Bigotry in all of its forms is evil and should be abolished wherever it lives. We should denounce any and all that harbor such inclinations."
Feel free to quote me on that. :-)
So when I see your comment as being bigoted and I speak out against it, I am just walking the walk. I am against bigotry in all of its forms, not just the bigotry against the politically correct list of accepted groups.
For the most part, the politically correct groups have entire organizations to speak out for them. Because of this I don't spend much time chiming in because those groups are pretty well covered.
I spend my "walking the walk" time speaking out against the lesser known forms of bigotry such as the one I claim to have noticed here. As you say, you have likewise seen other examples from me.
I am most sensitive to bigotry against "moderately successful white males." I think we get a bad rep in society today and I speak out against it, but I don't necessarily limit myself to this group.
As you have noted, I will also tend to speak up for Christians, not because I am one but because I believe that they too are getting a bad rep in society today.
But I would also not be above defending those "left handed hermaphrodites with blond hair and six toes" out there if I thought they were being unfairly attacked/discriminated against.
From here
we have:
I understand your analysis. Had it not been for pico's footnote, however, you would have no ground to stand on ... and I really doubt that the footnote was foremost in you mind when you made your comment. I believe that a more accurate characterization of the group you had in mind at the time you wrote the comment given this context was: "Rich White People in New Orleans that send their kids to private schools." Only you know for sure.
If not for his footnote my argument would still be 100% correct given the semantics of the English language and the most narrow interpretation that you could claim/support would be the one I present above which, in my estimation, would still be a bigoted comment because I am sure that there are at least SOME rich white people in New Orleans who send their kids to private schools for reasons other than racism.
I still maintain that to the casual reader the impression was clearly that you were saying the rich white people in New Orleans are racists, which is what I reacted to.
Either way it is moot. I have already acknowledged my error as stated above.
There is a lesson for all of us here. When I was being so hyper-critical of an innocent comment how did that make you feel? Did you feel that I was being unfair, ridiculous, unjust? Well that is how I feel about many of the talking points that come out of the Democrat leadership ... especially when they are playing the race card. Unfortunately comments like this one just play into that meme.
Trent Lott paid a pretty heavy price for comment related to segregation at an old man's birthday party, and I believe that his comment was just as innocent as yours was here. And I believe that the left was being every bit as hyper-critical in that case as I was here.
It is all well and good to sit here and play games with the sentence structure when you have all the time in the world to get everything just so. In Bush's case he was just talking. And was trying to connect with people by saying things more in his own style rather than reading every word off of a teleprompter.
When speaking we all make fits and stutters which come out as grammatical faux pas in the transcripts. I think that it is fundamentally unfair to scrutinize every last word out of a spoken speech, especially from a section where he had clearly lost his place and was still recovering his thoughts.
This sentence, the very one that you are so concerned about, is clearly malformed. Keywords: "it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order".
When I read it this sounds to me like he was launching into his talking point about roving wiretaps and then something caused him to remember that he had a very important point to make here ... maybe he was remembering some coaching he had before the speech to remember to talk about how these wiretaps need warrants ... not to forget to mention the warrants.
So there he is, following the highlights on the teleprompter and putting things (somewhat) into his own words when he hits this point and the neurons fire and all of a sudden he begins to get distracted by remembering the coaching to remember the warrants. So things get jumbled in the process and for a sentence or two he forgets to qualify things with the word roving.
Can I prove this? Obviously not. Certain never to your collective satisfactions. So I didn't even try.
I stand by my analysis of the overall structure of the speech coupled with the observation that I seriously doubt that he ever meant to talk about the warrant, or lack thereof, in such a high profile speech for a program which was [at least once] considered to be a national secret. This latter point makes no sense at all IMHO.
Edit: Almost forgot ...
Let's consider the following statement now:
Before you go all ballistic, I KNOW he didn't actually say this. I merely changed the offending sentence to one that might have flowed more naturally when speaking but STILL LEFT THE UNQUALIFIED REFERENCE TO WIRETAPS. So, the question is, in this text what does the underlined word "wiretap" refer too? ALL wiretaps or just roving wiretaps?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Paradox and Values
I've noticed something recently when you have been calling me bigoted for referring to groups as racists.
Let's go through a recap of the instances just so we are on the same page. These are only the instances I remember off the top of my head, so there could be more.
The first time you did this (not directly to me) was when you said people on this site (I don't exactly recall, but I think it was pico, missliberties, and CLC) were bashing Christianity because they were in favor of Happy Holidays (I was busy writing my own diary on the matter so I was not really involved in this discussion).
The second time that I recall is when I called out Schlafly who was invited by the college republicans to speak at a college, in which she said many sexist remarks. Purpleface added to this conversation by stating that there was a thread with multiple posters agreeing that women should not have the right to vote, to which I made a joke at Ender's definition of the GOP as the party of individuality and freedom.
The most recent is the discussion of private schools in which I said that it is sad that the rich can buy segregation in reference to what pico said as you point out above.
Ok, the first thing I want to point out is that it is mostly impossible to meet your standard of only calling the people directly related for the racism out rather than a larger group. For example, is it fair for me to say that whites in the South had slaves before the civil war? Or do I have to go find census reports to find the slave owners' exact names to meet your tough standards?
In the Schlafly scenario (or numerous Coulter examples), she was invited by the college republicans which is a group endorsed and sponsored by the larger republican party. As such, saying the GOP (joke as it was) endorsed her comments is not that big of a stretch (though I do not actually believe this is a GOP platform or anything). In these scenarios, I think a statement about a larger group is fair within the context.
Next, I wanted to discuss the use of paradox which I think you are often trying to point out without using that terminology. You basically say that I am being intolerant because I am not accepting of difference. You also say that I am applying my comments to a larger group than what is called for. The latter I try to answer above, but I will make an attempt to be as specific as possible within reason in the future (but please take context and threads into consideration in these discussions).
About the former (intolerant of the intolerant): this is indeed a logical paradox if taken to the extreme as pure tolerance accepts all difference. Paradoxes are always a double-sided coin though, two mutually true comments that do not coincide with each other. While I can clearly point out a racist's intolerance on one side of the coin, you can clearly point out my intolerance for the racist's intolerance on the other. Perfectly valid argument logically. It is a paradox admittedly. So what do we do from here?
Since we are social animals, we then return to the human realm and focus on values to overcome the paradox. What kind of world do we want to live in. A world that values merit and hard-work, or one that prefers established privilege over others because of racism? If you value the former, then you over-ride the logical paradox by using your value system to say we should give one side of the paradox coin more credence (the saying racism is bad and we will not tolerate it) than the other side (we should value and defend racism). We can remain static in the realm of language and logic while these problems persist or we can tackle the problems using the values we appreciate.
Let's try to avoid the nit-picky arguments about the logical consistency of 'intolerance' and focus on the real problems which we can determine by our values. So what is it? Are you with me in fighting the racist intolerance or are we going to play word games on this site all the time?
[Thanks for actually not thinking I'm a bigot. I don't actually think you defend bigots. I do think I should be more careful with my wording when discussing groups, but I think you should spend more time condemning the true bigots.]
Proof of Lying
When asked if Harriet miers was the best qualified candidate for the Supreme Court bush said:
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not so.
Despite what you might think, the term "best qualified" is actually pretty sketchy. "Best qualified" along what dimension? There are many such dimensions to consider when contemplating some one's "qualifications" to be a judge on the Supreme (or any other) Court.
Weighing the relative merits of a person's qualifications amongst these varying dimensions comes down to a judgement call, which is all Bush did when he said what he did. At the time she was the best qualified person in his opinion, and as President it was his opinion that mattered in the nomination process.
You may not agree with his opinion, but luckily for the rest of us your agreement, or lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in determining whether someone "lied".
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not *that* subjective.
There is no axis on which harriet Miers is the best qualified.
A statement of opinion so divorced from verifiable reality is a lie. That or the speaker is insane.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
In your opinion ...
but unfortunately for you, it was President Bush's opinion that mattered.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Actually...
...his opinion didn't matter since that comment was met by total derision even from Redstate. He blatantly lied and even his base told him to shove it.
And it was shoved. Notice that Mrs. meirs is not in fact a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Irrelevant to the point at hand.
Which is whether Bush lied (when he said she was the best qualified), which he didn't.
And his opinion DID matter because she actually WAS nominated which is all he gets to say about it. Her absence from sitting on the Supreme Court is not for lack of his nomination.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Question for you.
Let's, for the sake of this discussion, assume that Bush DID lie in the quote you provided above. This then raises the question of motive. What do you believe was Bush's motivation to lie under these circumstances? What would he hope to gain by nominating her?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Gee, I wonder...
Harriet miers is a loyal Bushy (to use their term). What possible point could there have been to Bush trying to stack the highest court in the land with people who are intensely loyal to him?
That's a pretyy obvious self answering question you got right there.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not obvious at all.
But under this scenario where we are assuming that he actually DID lie (i.e. he knew she was not qualified), he would have known that she was lacking in qualifications and therefore would not ever actually make it onto the court. So your response doesn't make sense in this case, since he would have known she was a bust.
Given this, he must have had some other reason than actually expecting her to be confirmed.
Do you have anything else?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Truth and lies
He would lie because it is politically disasterous to admit to nominating someone for SCOTUS even though there are other better qualified people. Particularly when you are sensitive the past accusations about all of your successes being based on who you know and who your family is.
Bush doesn't lie because he doesn't care what the truth is. Was HM the most qualified? Who cares, the most advantageous answer is 'yes' so that is the response. Truth or falsehood is never analyzed and is irrellevant.
Call it a truth or a lie as you choose, but there is certainly nothing resembling integrity in it.
You make a level headed point.
And his response was most likely the knee jerk response that you articulate, but does that make it a lie? I think not. The only people who would try to interpret his comment as anything more than the standard knee jerk response are merely engaging in political spin (and that includes me).
But I can't resist this flippant response:
I don't know. Isn't standing up for those you believe in something that resembles integrity? Having put her out there as a nominee, isn't standing by her and defending her something that resembles integrity?
What, in your mind, would a person of integrity do in these cases?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I understand
that what I consider a lie is not a lie to you, because, among others, we both live in alternate realities, but how do you explain something like this to a normal person (who lives in a reality where a lie is defined as: a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker)
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. "
President Bush (09/01/05)
Sic semper tyrannis
I begin by ...
Explaining to them that (a) constitutes the controlling definition of the term "lie" in these circumstances, whereas (b) does not. The manner in which the liberals are using the phrase "Bush Lied" is clearly intended to imply "intent to deceive", but we have no way of determining that Bush knew or believed what he was saying was untrue.
I understand that you probably pulled these from some dictionary definition someplace, however I would further argue that in common usage of the term "lie" that (b) is not even a valid definition. By this definition, any statement which is not 100% true and accurate constitutes a "lie".
Example:
Random Person: How do I get to 101 main street from here?
Me: Head north two blocks and turn right.
Now, if I gave my answer in all good faith and truthfully to the best of my knowledge yet it turns out they needed to turn left instead of right, have I "lied"? I say no.
If you prefer to say "yes" in this circumstance then you are removing from the equation my intent, for it matters not whether I intended to deceive.
I may have been confused as to which block we were on or I may simply have misspoke (i.e. I meant to say left but for whatever reason the word that came out of my mouth was right) or I may simply have been incorrect in my understanding of where 101 main street actually was. I don't believe that in common usage very many people would claim that I had "lied" under these scenarios.
If you accept (b) as being a valid definition of "lie" then it is a true statement that everyone posting on this site is also a "two face liar" because at some point in their lives they will have made and incorrect or inaccurate statement.
Do you all accept that you are a bunch of "two face liars" because of this? If you do then I guess that you are basically the same as President Bush in this respect.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well,
I'm sorry, if in your alternate reality Webster is just some dictionary - in mine it's pretty authoritative. If you have a problem with this definition you should really take it up with them.
Repeating a statement that is not true is not lying? You might not have the intent to lie but you certainly didn't take diligent care to assure that your statement is 100% correct (as in "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - which in my opinion is quite an overkill - but completely unambiguous)
As to the last two paragraphs - it's irrelevant - we are discussing Bush - not ourselves, and, what is even more important, in the example quote i posted, preponderance of evidence shows that Bush intentionally made his "incorrect" statement.
Sic semper tyrannis
You're clutching at straws.
Who repeated what?
Funny, I don't see anything about taking diligent care to assure 100% accuracy in your definition.
And when was anyone under oath in this context?
They are not only completely relevant, but the very core of this discussion. The point being contested is what it means for something to constitute a lie.
So, since you were not 100% accurate with that statement I guess you must be a liar.
I must have missed that part. Where have you provided anything but you own interpretation of the circumstances, much less a demonstrable "preponderance of evidence" to support your here to fore unfounded assertion?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Apparently you missed
the interview with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown on August 31, 2005 where he said:
Hurricane Katrina's Aftermath
and a SPECIAL REPORT from THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
I think this sufficiently establishes that not only there were people who predicted the breach of the levees, which makes the statement false
And this doesn't really require any comment from me:
Katrina: Who knew what when?
Sic semper tyrannis
Video documentation
that Bush knew before the storm
(shows Bush giving a thank you to Brownie and a meteorologist who directly discusses the levee breach before the storm hits).
checkmate
Pièce de résistance.
and
Coup de Grâce.
Sic semper tyrannis
Safe to say
Bush lied.
Now official.
This video is crap.
You aren't seriously putting this over-editted video up as proof of anything, are you? woodsman has mounted a better case above than this.
My comments on the video:
1) No one in the video actually claims that the levees will actually be breached. One guy mentions it as a "possibility" and a "grave concern". Somehow I doubt that Bush watches this particular news guy, either, so the hyperbole about "were you listening" is completely over rated here. Do you know, for a fact, that Bush saw this guys forecast BEFORE the storm hit?
If not, then this proves nothing.
2) Everyone else in the video is talking about it being a big storm. I didn't hear any mentions of levee breaches in any of the other segments. Given the absence of any such direct discussion with Bush present, these segments are moot.
My more general comments:
3) Again, without giving me the full context of his statement I have no way of knowing whether you are twisting his meaning. For example, what was the intended universe of people he meant to encompass when he said "anybody". Anybody in the country? Anybody in the government? Anybody in the federal government? Any of his direct reports?
4) What was the context and which meaning of the term "anticipate" was he intending here?
If, per chance, he meant meaning number 6 then I would argue that he was correct. If he was thinking of the FEMA guys and using meaning number 3, this too could be viewed not only as correct but as an admission of responsibility as well (i.e. for failing to do number 3).
So, come on guys, do you have any PROOF of which of these were running through his mind when he was making his statement? His state of mind and his intent to deceive are the primary elements of a lie.
Given that you think he is such a clear cut liar and all, you seem to be having a lot of trouble making a completely airtight case for that fact.
Personally, I think that you just hate him and are looking to read what you want to hear into whatever is convenient. Make a case to prove me wrong here.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your standard of proof is
getting ridiculous. You're doing your best, "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is," but you are doing it poorly. In this context, 'anticipate' means 'to expect' and 'anybody' means the government (he is talking about the response of the government) as seen clearly by the interview shown here
.
A better version of the video in which Bush is shown lying from his previous statement he made in the video above (the ABC interview) is here
.
I know Bush was watching this 'particular news guy', because the whole presentation was done specifically for him through a conference call.
Here is further evidence that he was warned by this 'news guy' in advance (and if your last excuse is to blame the 'librul media' you will lose a lot of standing in my eyes--I will even start out with your favorite news source just in case):
FOX News
: Video Footage Shows Bush, Chertoff Were Warned of Katrina's Potential Impact
BBC
: Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans' flood defences could be overcome has emerged.
USA Today
: Video shows Bush, Chertoff warned before Katrina
CBS
: Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina
MSNBC
: ideo shows Bush got explicit Katrina warning
President, Chertoff were clearly told of storm’s dangers numerous times
CNN
: Transcripts, tape show Bush, Brown warned on Katrina
ABC
: Video shows Bush was warned about Katrina
Washington Post
: White House Got Early Warning on Katrina
A sampling from this article:
He had verbal and written warning.
In other words, Bush lied.
Seconded
NIce work, btw.
Fascinating the mindset of subtlety and denial suddenly discovered by the right.
The irony that they lambasted Kerry as too "nuanced", and now the right finds itself nuancing til the cows come home to make it seem like Bush never lied.
And....... drum roll..... please....... Bush is now using Kerry's definition of what like stability would look like in Iraq, an acceptable level of violence.
Yesterday:
"President Bush — without saying so explicitly — embraced Kerry’s definition of success against terrorism. “Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.”
Kerry was crucified for saying exactly that. That terrorism is not a matter of war but a matter for the law.
My new favorite is ...... Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11!
Rush Limbaugh's nuanced version to rescue Bush as a truth ranger, "Bush never said the government of Iraq attacked us on 9/11, only that there were links between Saddam Huessein and al_Queda. (another falsehood to cover a falsehood)
It is the economy, stupid.