Is Howard Dean insane?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Capmeister, Jul 28, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    You guys are way too modest. Bush's lies, BIG LIES, misstatements and malapropisms are legend. There is a small library of books detailing them.

    What was Clinton's "Big Lie"?

    "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"???

    And why did he tell that lie? To cover up a personal sexual indescretion that was none of our business to start. What were the consequences of his lie? He was embarrassed, and had to humble himself by admitting the deception publicly.

    What were Bush's "Big Lie(s)"? Well, for starters how about Iraq having WMDs, was in cahoots with al Qaeda, was responsible for 9/11 and was an "immediate threat" to the US, or ANYBODY!

    Why did Bush tell THOSE lies? To lead US into a war that he was determined to wage regardless of the justifications or lack thereof. What were the consequences? Tens of thousands dead, many more injured, billions in property damage and many billions more of US money to rebuild, and, an increase in the level of terrorism and hatred aimed at US.

    The differences between Clinton's and Bush's lies are Clinton had the integrity to apologize for his lie when it was revealed as a lie. Bush simply refuses to admit that he lied and in fact compounds it by now lying to say he never told lies in the first place. And of course Bush's lies have been far more costly in blood, treasure, prestige and respect for the USA.

    The "Big Lie" here that you keep repeating is that it is the Democrats who lie constantly and the Republicans are incapable of lying at all. Even when they lie to cover up previous lies.
     
  2. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Most politicians lie--left and right. Lying doesn't surprise me. Lying about something so obviously false... it's just silly. It's like holding a press conference and saying "I'm not holding a press conference. This isn't a press conference. Does the press have any questions?"
     
  3. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Actually, our civil law system is such that if you swear to tell the truth, and then don't, you've broken a CRIMINAL law. Criminal law violations ARE the business of the people. Once the man elected to uphold and enforce our laws began breaking them, it became our business. Before that, it was not. I never cared who Clinton had sex with. I cared when he broke the law. I care if Karl Rove broke the law. If Bush broke the law I'd care too.

    I'm not sure it's possible for Clinton to be embarrassed. The consequences, however, were that he was impeached, he was disbarred, he had to pay a fine, and he settled the underlying lawsuit (which he may not have needed to do in such a case had he not tampered with witnesses and lied under oath).

    Bush didn't lie about this--the intelligence at the time suggested to all major world intelligence angencies that Iraq had WMD stockpiles. They most certainly had WMD programs they were covering. They most certainly had a plan ongoing to bribe members of the UN Security Council to release Iraq from its cease-fire obligations so that they could continue their programs. They most certainly were, as Bush called it, "a growing threat." Those who say he lied about WMD don't seem to think Hillary Clinton did, or John Kerry did. Why is that? If Bush lied, didn't they all? Or are Kerry and Mrs. Clinton just very gulible?
     
  4. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Part of the big lie of the left is that Bush lied, when in fact he simply relied on the intelligence available at the time. Intelligence that EVERYONE including Democrats agreed with.

    That's Hillary Rodham Clinton. :D
     
  5. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    I also believe that Clarence Thomas lied under oath.
     
  6. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Okay. Fair enough. Evidence for this?
     
  7. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    No surprise there. :D
     
  8. lastmanstanding

    lastmanstanding Godfather

    491
    0
    Mar 22, 2003
    I agree. Dean's statements must be meant to rev up the base. I can't believe that he is that unintelligent or that mental. We should just get out of his way.

    Jonstad, Clinton's honesty is above reproach. His greatest contribution to the nation is that he had no agenda beyond fighting the Republicans, which he did very well. Thank heaven he didn't try to do anything of his own. The Hillary Healthcare Holocaust doesn't count as his. The Crime Bill, Welfare Reform, etc., were borrowed from the Republicans.

    Clinton was a grand manipulator, saying whatever he needed to please his audience of the moment, freely reversing himself as necessary. Is that lying? Just good politics? No matter. We should just be happy that he is gone and we are well on they way to cleaning up the mess he made. It could have been much worse.

    Bush and Clinton gave virtually identical speeches on WMD in Iraq. Bush is a liar, Clinton is a fountain of truth.

    Clearly others fill their canteens at the same well as Howard Dean.

    LMS
     
  9. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Anita Hill's polygraph test, administered by Paul Minor, which indicated she was truthful.
     
  10. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Never heard that. Not sure it's conclusive evidence (such things are not fool proof) but it adds some credibility. I'm curious how the "it's okay to lie about sex" people fall on this issue.
     
  11. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    I'm curious how the "it's okay to lie about sex" people fall on this issue.

    It's OK to lie about sex. We have all done it since High School! :)

    The issue is really about lies under oath and lies that get people killed.
     
  12. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Ok, but so did convicted spy Aldrich (not administered by Paul Minor though).

    And the test? What were the questions that established it as indicating she was truthful? I haven't seen them. They probably should not be released. The use of the test itself was questionable. The US is one of the few countries to put such a high reliance on a potentially flawed test.

    The Washington Post also gave the story prominent play and described at length the test Hill had taken and how she came to take it. It said nothing derogatory about Minor, but it quoted a polygraph expert at the University of Minnesota, Prof. Robert Lykken, as saying that the test she was given had "minuscule" value, partly because her lawyer chose the operator and it was given in a friendly setting with no reason to fear the results would be disclosed if she failed it.
     
  13. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Yeah, she chose an expert that trained the FBI.
     
  14. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    No, the issue of my post was Clinton lying under oath about sex and Thomas perhaps doing so.
     
  15. pmichael

    pmichael Legend

    111
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    You people really seem to be totally divorced from reality. Bush tells epic lies, and for some inexplicable reason gets away with them. Clinton also told plenty of untruths, but Clinton's fudging of the truth did not seem to have a significant impact, while Bush's lies have steered policy. Even if an argument can be made that Bush only was touting intelligence available to him with his WMD argument, how come the fact the weapons inspectors found nothing was irresponsibly ignored by Bush. Well, the answer is because Bush and his cronies wanted this war! There was no attempt by Bush to avoid an unnecessary war, and instead he and his administration made all kinds of misleading statements tying Al-Qaeda and Iraq together when no such link existed. Now that Bush has invaded and chaos reigns, Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq has in fact increased.

    So no Howard Dean is not crazy, just because he says things that do not completely align with the group think that is paralyzing this country currently. Dean made a statement that the capture of Saddam did not make the US any safer, and lo and behold there isn't a scintilla of evidence suggesting Saddam's capture has made any American safer, not has it snuffed out the insurgency. Bush and his team are completely irresponsible, and they are bankrupting the nation while you guys tout how honest they are. The American people are being fooled, and what kills me is how easily most people are being led to the slaughter.
     
  16. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    What part of saying that the conservative justices on the SCOTUS didn't favor the decision he was discussion is "group think?"
     
  17. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    No, Hillary and Kerry DIDN'T lie. They stated they believed, they thought, Saddam had WMDs. And they thought that mostly because of the "intelligence" that had been "fixed" around that belief and presented to them as fact by this administration. Or do the Downing Street Memos conflict with your preset worldview? It is very hard to prove a "lie" when someone states what they believe or think.

    OTOH, George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield and Colin Powell and Condie Rice and Ari Fleischer, essentially the entire Bush administration, may have thought and believed also. But they did not express it as a thought or belief, they expressed as unequivocal fact! They had aerial photos and cartoon pictures of mobile labs and "trucks that had been moved":eek2: and little vials of white powder(and of course tales from Niger):rolleyes:. They not only claimed they knew for a fact Saddam had ongoing programs as well as massive stockpiles of WMDs, they claimed to know exactly where they were.

    If you present what you think or believe as a theory, a supposition or even a logical conclusion, you are not necessarily a liar even if you are dead wrong. If however you present it as indisputable proof beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, you ARE a liar, especially when you are proved DEAD WRONG!!!

    The latter is how it was presented and it was all lies. They couldn't have known any of their "proofs" were fact because it turns out, as fact they were non-existent!

    Bill Clinton's lie was rather embarrassing for him and the country. Mostly because it made US a laughing stock that such a trivial matter would be pursued to impeachment. Bush's, Cheney's et al lies resulted in tens of thousands of innocent deaths, hundreds of billions of of US taxpayer dollars(and eventually billions of Iraqi dollars), unprecedented fear, hatred and resentment of the US across the globe, and an insurgency in Iraq that is fueling fundamentalist Islamic radical terrorism from Muslims, many of whom on 9/11/01 may have actually had compassion and sympathy for the US.
     
  18. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Man, you are drinking the koolaid, ain't ya? Kerry and Bush had access to the SAME intelligence. But Bush is lying and Kerry isn't? ROFLMAO.

    I'm sorry, bud, but you just slipped into being a hopeless case.

    As for the Downing Street Memo, I think I'll quote Michael Kinsley: "But [the DSM author] offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision-makers told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that 'Washington' had reached that conclusion...."

    *yawn*
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Right! Kerry had daily briefings from George Tenet as well as instructing him in the type of intelligence to look for and the direction it should take? And I'm "drinking the koolaid"? At least I'm not SMOKING it!:nono:

    Refresh my memory, will ya? Exactly WHY was Tenet given the Medal of Freedom once again? For providing objective, accurate, CORRECT intelligence and analysis with which our President could build a justifiable case for war, or not? Or was he so honored for fetching on command like a bird dog the thinly drawn conclusions to allow his Master, Bush, to justify(at least temporarily) a predetermined war of aggression?

    Here's a hint! It CAN'T be the former!

    And is the mention of wishy-washy, milquetoast apologist Kinsley supposed to impress me? Here's a man who can take the most outrageous statements from the right or from the left and rationalize and justify them. Or is it he was mislabeled as a "liberal" at one time, and now he automatically speaks for me?
     
  20. rickfromthesticks

    rickfromthesticks AllStar

    81
    0
    Sep 22, 2004
    One thing I learned from my wife who served on a Grand Jury in the Nashville area in the 1980's: "They needed killin" is a valid defense (at least in certain places).

    Yes, the loss of innocent lives, American and Iraqi, are horrible, but I still look at the bigger picture. Saddam sent hit men to American soil to try and kill Bush 41 and I can understand why Bush 43 would have a chip on his shoulder for such a man. The tens of thousands that Saddam had already killed in his country and neighboring countries count for something too. They show a man who will stop at nothing to achieve his own warped plan of domination and it was going to continue beyond his life, remember the sons whom we took care of? The same or worse butchers were in the wings to continue the dynasty.

    The world is really better off without Saddam and his cohorts in power. Whether or not all the sacrifice was worthwhile or justified only the future will tell. Democracy is starting to show in the countries around Iraq but will take time to gain a solid foothold. Defeating the insurgency is critical for that seed to come to fruition and realize its potential for real lasting peace in the region. Those cultures have been fighting to the death for thousands of years, it's just that our own people are in the middle now. We see the bullets where we used to be able to ignore them.

    Bush haters may continue to hate Bush, but I hope that you can understand that some on the "other side" do not just blindly follow and believe everything someone in Washington says, we weigh the evidence as we know it and form our beliefs on something other than rhetoric.

    Rick
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall