posted June 22, 2007 03:27 AM              

What is boring is that most people don't know how to debate honestly and without personal attacks. Then all you hear are the same repetitive mantras. *YAWN*

Fighting Fair. One reason that arguing has fallen into disrepute is that too many people either don’t observe the rules or don’t know there are any. The primary rule is Honesty. A dishonest argument sows chaos, and any party to it risks his reputation and self-respect. A victory resulting from a dishonest argument would ultimately be Pyrrhic.

Equally important is the rule against personalizing an argument. Personal attack has become so common in our time, especially in politics, that it has an official title – “The politics of personal destruction”. When your own case is weak, you go after the opponent – impugning his character and the “purity” of his motives or intentions. This diverts attention away from the lack of substance in your case.

For arguing to be productive, both parties must stick to the issues and to the truth. And each must be willing to accept superior reasoning and new facts from the other side. If any refuses to do this, he is not arguing in good faith. With apologies to Vince Lombardi, winning is not the only thing.

Most people here at LL want to hold onto their self-respect by not being a party to the chaos that ensues at GU due to dishonest arguing of the issues and personal attacks.

posted June 22, 2007 11:47 AM            

Quotes from FantasyLand

"Bush is a liar."
"Bush stole from the American people."
"Bush lied, people died."
"Man made global warming will destroy life on Earth."

TINK

posted June 25, 2007 01:02 AM              

Bush has stolen much from the American people in his pandering to coporate america in the form of health insurance, jobs, wage cuts, outsourcing of jobs, education and I guess the list could go on. He is effect, Robin Hood in reverse and his record more than verifies that to be the truth to all but the totally blind.

I never said that "Bush lied. People died." That is a slogan on a t-shirt. I don't normally quote slogans from t-shirts. But in effect, that is true. Many Iraqi people and over 3000 American troops have died due to his original lie about his reasons for invading Iraq and that is what the slogan ( which I did not make up or say ) is making reference to. One of the most recent soldiers to die in Iraq was a 19 yr. old kid who lives in a neighboring city here. Waterford, MI.

I believe in global warming but I never made that comment which you attributed to me here on this thread, Jwhop. Never said that. I think you are getting me mixed up with Al Gore. LOL

What I did say once is that God appointed us as caretakers of this planet and if we don't start taking care of it we will lose it. Seems logical to me.

posted June 25, 2007 01:24 AM              

quote:

---

Everyone on the planet knows about that lie but ......

---

posted June 25, 2007 04:38 PM            

Still flogging that same leftist line...Bush lied, people died and you don't have an ounce of proof...no evidence whatsoever. On the other hand, there are 3 different Congressional and government authorized committees whose findings put the lie to your absurd allegations.

That's not even considering the British inquiry which found the Bush statement Saddam had sought uranium from an African country....to be well founded.

posted June 26, 2007 01:33 PM            

You are definitions challenged as I have found in the past.

When someone acts on the best information available...such as CIA, NSA and other intelligence agency briefings, one cannot be said to have lied.

There were considerable links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. There were high level meetings between Iraqi intelligence and top level al-Qaeda leaders. There were al-Qaeda affilliates operating within the borders of Iraq...before the invasion of Iraq. Saddam was training terrorists...including al-Qaeda in the use of chemicals and poisons within Iraq. Saddam was training terrorists in methods of hijacking commercial aircraft. The camp commander of Salmon Pak admitted the method used to hijack the commercial aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks were identical to methods taught there...down to the use of box cutters which would get past passenger inspections. There was a Boeing 737 parked at Salmon Pak used for that purpose and that camp commander said he knew as soon as he got details of the 9/11 attack that they must have been trained there.

The "OPERATIONAL LINKS" were what were not established. In other words, it was not believed or put forth as an administration position that Saddam and al-Qaeda linked up, planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Further, the cease-fire agreement Saddam signed to end the Gulf War in 1991 forbade Saddam from harboring, training or funding ANY terrorists of an organization and Saddam was most certainly in massive violation of most of the cease-fire provisions.

Exploring Probable Links Between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein
CBN.Com ^ | 6/2/04

Posted on 06/02/2004 10:40:29 AM PDT

Exploring Probable Links Between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein

CBN.com – A new book called Losing Bin Laden reveals links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as well as missed opportunities that were presented to former President Clinton to capture Osama bin Laden. Gordon Robertson spoke with the book’s author, investigative journalist Richard Miniter, about those topics, and about where bin Laden might be hiding today. GORDON ROBERTSON: Joining us now from Washington D.C. is investigative journalist and author Richard Miniter. He’s recently been to Iraq, and he’s written a new book called Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. Richard, welcome to The 700 Club.

RICHARD MINITER: Thank you.

ROBERTSON: You and many others have found multiple links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Osama bin Laden. Why is this not being reported?

MINITER: Well, there’s a pack mentality that takes over the mainstream media, and they want to decide what we hear and what we see, and not tell us things that might somehow disturb us. That’s one thing. Another thing is, and this is something really worrisome, is the major newspapers, The New York Times, The Washington Post especially, have only one or two correspondents that handle intelligence issues. They have become the captive of their sources. If they have a very good source at the CIA, they’re not going to give that person up, and they end up taking on subtly the views of that one or two sources at the CIA or at the State Department. So really what the newspapers especially should do, is have multiple intelligence reporters with competing sources. Otherwise they end up serving as the mouthpiece of the CIA or State Department bureaucracy. And the bureaucracies of the two agencies are often at great variance with the President of the United States.

ROBERTSON: What are the links? Your book goes into the details. One thing that struck me is your point that it’s tough to run a global terror network without state sponsorship. You don't have the funds necessary to make it all happen unless you’ve got a state behind you. What are the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?

MINITER: What’s interesting is that I’ve uncovered links that are not even listed in Doug Feith’s memo leaked to The Weekly Standard. One of the things it appears Iraq was doing, had been doing for more than a decade, was using its embassies around the world to coordinate terror attacks with Al Qaeda and other terror organizations. Sometimes those embassies were also used as safe houses.

But most startlingly of all, in 1996, the head of Iraqi intelligence left Iraq, which is very rare, and flew to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and there he met with Osama bin Laden. And this is confirmed by multiple sources. And when I was in Sudan last year, I met with the head of the Sudanese intelligence and asked him about this meeting, and he confirmed it and offered to provide photographs of the head of Iraqi intelligence meeting with Osama bin Laden. That was the climax of series of meetings between Iraqi intelligence, going back to 1993, climaxing in 1996 in what appears to be a full partnership.

So we see financial links. We see training links where Abu Zarqawi, who was the chemical weapons guy at Al Qaeda, had visited and stayed in Iraq a number of times. And after the United States liberated Afghanistan, and after the bloody battle of Tora Bora he fled to Baghdad where he received medical treatment for his wounds, he apparently received money and a place to live for a period of time in order to recover and to reconstitute part of his organization.

So state sponsorship of terrorism is a problem. Al Qaeda is backed not only by Iraq, but apparently by Iran, and also by extortion payments from other Arab sheiks. But Iraq was a primary source of funds and technical expertise to help commit global terrorism with Al Qaeda.

ROBERTSON: There also seems to be a training ground just outside of Baghdad where there was a Boeing jet, a commercial airliner, that was apparently used for training of hijackers?

MINITER: That’s absolutely right Gordon. It’s called Salmon Pak, it’s southeast of Baghdad about 40 miles. And they had an entire full-scale actual Boeing 747. That’s what they used as a school for teaching hijacking. One of the things they taught was not to hijack with guns, but to hijack with items that you ordinarily find on board, such as a knife in the first class cabin, or a mop handle. Anything that can be used that would normally be on a plane that can be turned into a weapon, they trained to turn it into a weapon to dominate the plane.

We saw similar techniques used on September 11th. No one has been able to prove conclusively that the hijackers of 9/11 trained at Salmon Pak, but it is possible because a number of Iraqi sources have stepped forward, including the former commander of the Salmon Pak training camp, who said Al Qaeda trained there. So if the hijackers of 9/11 themselves didn’t train there, their commanders or their trainers probably did.

ROBERTSON: Your book goes into detail about the Clinton administration and how they had actual intelligence of these various contacts, and then on top of it, the government of Sudan actually made an offer to hand over all their details while Osama bin Laden was still living in Sudan. Why didn't they act on this?

MINITER: That is one of the great questions. I’ve talked to a lot of the top Clinton people, both of his National Security Advisers, Tony Lake and Sandy Berger. I talked to his counter-terrorism czar Richard Clark; Jim Woolsey, his first CIA Director. And no one has been able to give me a straight answer to that question: "Why didn’t they accept the Sudanese offer?"

Let me back up a little bit and give you a little bit of the history quickly. Sudan was in the early to mid-90’s a very dangerous place. It was an open invitation to all of the terrorist organizations of the world that were Muslim. So Hamas was there, Hezbollah was there, and of course Osama bin Laden went there in April of 1991. But in early 1996, the Sudanese were getting tired of him. They had basically shaken him down for all the cash they could get — it was a very corrupt government, everything was run by bribes — and also because of the sanction imposed on Sudan, they wanted him out.

Finally, Osama bin Laden was backing a guy, Hassan al-Turabi, who was the head of the Sudanese legislature, but he was also a fiery Muslim cleric who thought that everyone in the world should be converted to Islam at the point of a sword. Turabi would say it’s going to happen at the end of time anyway, so wouldn't it be glorious to Allah to speed up the process? He preached a very old-fashioned, very angry form of Islam.

And the President of Sudan was a guy named Omar Bashir, and he was more moderate. Of course, he was a Muslim and serious about his faith, but ultimately he wanted to run a prosperous country because he wanted to make some money. And since bin Laden had allied with Turabi, he realized if he could turn bin Laden over to the United States, he would end a major diplomatic problem between the U.S. and Sudan, he might get sanctions lifted which would improve his economy, and it would also weaken his rival, Turabi. He had a lot of self-interested motives for turning bin Laden over.

Some people from the Clinton administration say that the Sudanese weren't serious. Well, maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. But they did turn over to the French a top terrorist named Carlos the Jackal. And that was a seamless operation and Carlos is now sitting in a French jail. Where is Osama bin Laden?

ROBERTSON: That’s a good question, where is Osama bin Laden? Do you have any ideas on this? Do you think he’s dead or alive? Where is he?

MINITER: My intelligence sources say he’s alive and has most likely left Afghanistan and is potentially inside of Iran. If that is true, that means the Iranians have really stepped up in helping Al Qaeda in their war against us, and that is a very worrisome development.

ROBERTSON: Are we winning this war on terror. We’re running out of time, I could talk to you for a long time, but this has to be the last question. Are we winning it and drying up their funds or are other states like Iran and Syria joining in now on this global terror network to be state sponsors of it?

MINITER: In terms of plots stopped, we are winning. In terms of people captured or Al Qaeda killed, we are winning. In terms of drying up the funds, I don't think there’s any way to really know. Sometimes you see media reports that say, you know, 50 percent of Al Qaeda’s funds have been seized. Well, if you don't know what the total is, you don't know whether you’ve seized half, or just one percent. So those kinds of reports I don’t seem to credit. Also, bin Laden has never really moved large sums of money through banks, with the one exception being 9/11 when most of the funding went through Standard Chartered Bank in Dubai. Since they moved the money outside of banks, it’s very hard to clamp down. And let’s be honest, a lot of these Arab governments are paying off bin Laden in the hope that he won’t bomb them, he’ll bomb us. These backdoor payments, these blackmail payments, are a continuing source of funds for the world's most dangerous terrorist.

ROBERTSON: Richard, thank you for being with us. If you’re interested in getting a copy of his book, Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror, it’s available on CBN.com and available in bookstores across the country. Richard, once again, thank you for being with us.

MINITER: Gordon, thanks for having me on.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/articles/Exploring%20Probable%20Links%20Between%209.htm

posted June 26, 2007 04:38 PM            

Want lies about Iraq? Like I said, "google."
http://www.bushlies.net/homeliesatoz/iraqlies.html

Bush

quote:

---

In his October address, Bush claimed that the “evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group of his ‘nuclear mujahedeen,’ his nuclear holy warriors.”

In October 2002 Bush also stated, “[Iraq] is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

---

Reality

quote:

---

As explained by the Washington Post, “Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign.” (32)

Also in October 2002, the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department told the White House that its WMD conclusions were inaccurate, reporting that “the activities we have detected do not . . .add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.” This conclusion was reiterated to Secretary Powell before his presentation to the UN Security Council. (79)

---

Furthermore, I wouldn't suspect virtually anyone was gullible enough to believe that a modern President of the United States doesn't lie on occasion - whether intentionally or not.

posted June 26, 2007 10:21 PM            

Former official gets 10 months in Abramoff case
By Andy Sullivan
Tue Jun 26, 6:26 PM ET

A high-ranking Bush administration official was sentenced to 10 months in prison on Tuesday for lying to Congress as it investigated a bribery scandal centered on lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Steven Griles, who served as the No. 2 Interior Department official between 2001 and 2005, had hoped to serve his sentence at home working for a charity sponsored by Walt Disney Co. and several outdoor-equipment makers.

But Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said Griles had refused to take responsibility for his actions and imposed a sentence tougher than the one sought by prosecutors.

"Even now, you continue to minimize and try to excuse your conduct and the nature of your misstatements," Huvelle said.

Griles, 59, is the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the wide-ranging bribery scandal centered around Abramoff.

Griles pleaded guilty in March to lying to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee as it examined Abramoff's clout in the Interior Department.

Abramoff is serving a six-year prison sentence and cooperating with investigators.

Griles was introduced to Abramoff by Griles' sometime girlfriend, Italia Federici, shortly before he started at Interior. Federici has also pleaded guilty to obstructing Congress.

Federici acted as a go-between for the two men as they worked together to influence Interior Department actions that affected Abramoff's Indian-tribe clients, Justice Department lawyers said.

In return, Abramoff offered Griles a lucrative job and directed money to Federici's charity at Griles' request, the government said.

Griles would have faced multiple felonies if he had not accepted a plea deal, Justice Department trial attorney Armando Bonilla said.

Griles' lawyer said he did not intentionally lie to the Indian Affairs Committee and was being unfairly punished for working with a lobbyist whose name has become synonymous with corruption.

"The stench of Jack Abramoff is everywhere and they claim Mr. Griles suffers from that because he dealt with him as a lobbyist," defense attorney Barry Hartman said.

A tearful Griles told Huvelle that he never asked Abramoff to contribute to Federici's charity, and said she only brought up his concerns "two or three" times.

Griles is not the only official to serve prison time in the Abramoff probe.

Former Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio is serving a 30-month prison sentence for accepting bribes, while former Bush administration procurement official David Safavian has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for lying and obstructing justice during the investigation.

posted June 27, 2007 01:03 PM            

To be a "lie", a statement...whether oral or written must be both knowingly false and intended to deceive.

Mistakes of "fact" or an inaccuracy which is not intended to deceive are not "lies".

"Bush lied, people died" is a false statement intended to deceive and is therefore a lie. In fact, the statement rises to the level of a "damned lie".

Oh, and don't try to change the subject by attempting to point out the faults of others...such as someone who is NOT Bush but who may have lied.

The subject was Bush lies and there's no proof he did and 4 different commissions which say he DID NOT.

posted June 27, 2007 04:54 PM            

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Are you saying that you ARE that gullible that you believe every word of a modern President? There's plenty more Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza lies at that site I linked you to.

Say it: "I'm that gullible."

posted June 27, 2007 08:21 PM              

I'm well. Thnks for asking. And you?

posted June 28, 2007 01:37 PM            

Now acoustic, whatever could have been your motive for leaving the main entry out?

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

posted June 28, 2007 01:44 PM            

It might be sinful, maybe illegal and perhaps fattening if I were any better.

posted June 28, 2007 05:03 PM            

"Lie" also means (as a first meaning):

1 a : to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position : be prostrate

(Are you saying Bush has never stayed at rest in a horizontal position? )

When talking about words, taking all definitions into account is normal. If I said, for instance, "Petron is a corndog eater." He'd have every right to call me a liar (if I misrepresented him), because I misrepresented him - EVEN IF I SAID IT BELIEVING THAT IT WAS 100% TRUE and without the intent to deceive!! Lying is OFTEN considered uttering inaccuracies, which Bush and his administration HAVE DONE on multiple occasions.

posted June 28, 2007 05:23 PM            

If you told me Petron loved corndogs cause you saw him eat one once and assumed he liked them, then he said, no actually I hate the things...I wouldn't consider you to have lied. Been misinformed, perhaps? But outright lie? Not from where I'm sitting.

I'm sorry, but if someone misinforms me and I repeat that information, that doesn't make me a liar. Perhaps that makes me gullible, or a fool for not making certain, but a liar? I don't think so.

posted June 28, 2007 06:03 PM              

"so quit yer lyin bout him...."

CRUNCH!!!

posted June 28, 2007 06:08 PM            

A lie implies that someone didn't tell the truth.

posted June 28, 2007 06:18 PM            

Do those close to you have to be super careful with what they say around you for fear of being accused of lying? If they're told something and it turns out that they were misinformed, they lied to you?

That's tough to live up to. I assume because you set such a standard for what constitutes a lie, that you hold yourself to the same standard? You repeat something that you later find out isn't true, you've lied?

I guess I just see it differently...

posted June 28, 2007 06:46 PM            

Well, the first thought to come to mind was for someone to say someone's a different race than they are. That would always raise the, "You're a liar," flag. Then I thought about calling someone a hick who clearly wasn't, but how would I know if someone's a hick or not? So something non-offensive was in order, and it had to be someone fairly neutral who wouldn't fly off the handle missing the point entirely.

Isis,

quote:

---

Do those close to you have to be super careful with what they say around you for fear of being accused of lying?

---

posted June 28, 2007 07:25 PM              

After that whole mess with Kindred Spirits, I thought you were the King of Falsehood!?