[CD Hanks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html

So is President Bush a liar?

Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Farenheit 9/11."

In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."

Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."

In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.

Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Farenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Farenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

[eklipse]

'lied', 'misled', 'distorted', 'exaggerated', 'misrepresented', 'overstated', 'perverted',....

Pick one you like,

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by eklipse:
'lied', 'misled', 'distorted', 'exaggerated', 'misrepresented', 'overstated', 'perverted',....

Pick one you like,

because they all describe Bill Clinton?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by eklipse:
'lied', 'misled', 'distorted', 'exaggerated', 'misrepresented', 'overstated', 'perverted',....

Pick one you like,

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
because they all describe Bill Clinton?

Wow. If these two responses are any indication, then this article is 100% correct....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Wow. If these two responses are any indication, then this article is 100% correct....

I believe the second was just a joke, a pun,

But yeah, the difference here is, Bill was caught actually LYING.

But that is besides the point.

I don't think the "Bill is a liar" thing caught on till he actually LIED and was CAUGHT lying.

The " Bush is teh liar" is the left's reaction to the Clinton scandal.

They try so hard, they really do.

[itai195]

As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me what label one wants to apply to Bush. His record of mistakes, manipulation of scientific research, and fiscal irresponsibility speaks for itself. I can believe that he honestly believed he was doing the right thing in Iraq, but that doesn't let him off the hook.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me what label one wants to apply to Bush. His record of mistakes, manipulation of scientific research, and fiscal irresponsibility speaks for itself.

And that is all subjective.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And that is all subjective.

I don't think there's very much subjectivity in a record budget deficit, just a few years removed from surpluses. But okay

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't think there's very much subjectivity in a record budget deficit, just a few years removed from surpluses. But okay

Oh, no one is denying there is a deficit.

But you know, when you have a administration before you that decided to balance the budget by cutting military and intelligence spending during a time when when have terrorists nipping at our heels, THEN we get attacked, it's not surprising that we suddenly have to spend a BUNCH of money to get our military and intelligence back up to par.

Those two things should NEVER be touched when balancing the budgets.

Protecting the citizens is the MOST important job of our national government.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh, no one is denying there is a deficit.

But you know, when you have a administration before you that decided to balance the budget by cutting military and intelligence spending during a time when when have terrorists nipping at our heels, THEN we get attacked, it's not surprising that we suddenly have to spend a BUNCH of money to get our military and intelligence back up to par.

Those two things should NEVER be touched when balancing the budgets.

Protecting the citizens is the MOST important job of our national government.

I don't disagree with bumping up intelligence and military spending, but the massive tax cuts don't make much sense in light of that spending increase.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh, no one is denying there is a deficit.

But you know, when you have a administration before you that decided to balance the budget by cutting military and intelligence spending during a time when when have terrorists nipping at our heels, THEN we get attacked, it's not surprising that we suddenly have to spend a BUNCH of money to get our military and intelligence back up to par.

Those two things should NEVER be touched when balancing the budgets.

Protecting the citizens is the MOST important job of our national government.

It's been demonstrated repeatedly that there have been huge spending increases independent of defense. I distinctly remember a thread in which this was pointed out, but some people continue to ignore it because it reflects badly on Bush et al. There are many conservatives (who are capable of independent thought) who are upset with the spending of a Republican Congress and an administration that has never said "No." I seem to recall one Republican who referred to it as "spending like a drunken sailor."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't disagree with bumping up intelligence and military spending,

Hard not to when it was bumped down for 8 years. I am not blaming Clinton or his cuts, but what IF intelligence wasn't cut? What if the ridiculous stipulations that Clinton put on about where and who we couldn't get info from wasn't put into place? Things MAY have been a bit different come 9/11

Who knows.

but the massive tax cuts don't make much sense in light of that spending increase.

The last tax season before Bush was pure thievery. Bush just gave some back. And it was by and large welcomed.

[zigzag]

I agree with the gist of the column - if you throw the "liar" charge around too easily, it's like crying wolf and can't be taken seriously. Besides, every politician I've ever seen lies/exaggerates/spins/misleads about one thing or another, and Bush is no different - it's in the nature of politics to lie/exaggerate/spin/mislead/tell-only-half-the-story etc. (I conflate those terms because one man's exaggeration is another man's lie). You have to accept a certain amount of it or you'll never sleep.

As the column suggests, politicians are experts at phrasing things in such a way that they stop just short of being a provable lie, and they're also always careful to attribute dubious assertions to others and/or say "Well, that's what I was told - I just repeated it." This is known as plausible deniability, and Bush is as good at it as anyone. There's also that gray area known as "opinion." This allows Bush to say almost anything and people to defend it on the basis that it wasn't under oath, is just opinion, is just what he was told, etc., as if Bush were some sort of ventriloquist's doll with no responsibility for the veracity of anything that comes out of his mouth.

One thing that always makes me laugh is recalling the 2000 debate in which Dubya walked to the podium and declared in front of God and everybody: "I'm an environmentalist." This, of course, can be written off as opinion, but anyone with a shred of integrity knows it was pure spin. He might as well have said "I'm a New Yorker" a la Hillary. They're all habitual liars, there's no way around it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zigzag:
As the column suggests, politicians are experts at phrasing things in such a way that they stop just short of being a provable lie, and they're also always careful to attribute dubious assertions to others and/or say "Well, that's what I was told - I just repeated it." This is known as plausible deniability, and Bush is as good at it as anyone. There's also that gray area known as "opinion." This allows Bush to say almost anything and people like Zimphire to defend it on the basis that it wasn't under oath, is just opinion, is just what he was told, etc., as if Bush were some sort of ventriloquist's doll with no responsibility for the veracity of anything that comes out of his mouth.

I agree, but I wouldn't even associate lying/exaggerating just with politicians. It's people in general. Politicians are just scrutinized a lot more, and so they're caught more often than the rest of us.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree, but I wouldn't even associate lying/exaggerating just with politicians. It's people in general. Politicians are just scrutinized a lot more, and so they're caught more often than the rest of us.

Pretty much.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I agree, but I wouldn't even associate lying/exaggerating just with politicians. It's people in general. Politicians are just scrutinized a lot more, and so they're caught more often than the rest of us.

That's certainly true - we all shade the truth when convenient - but my experience is that politicians do much more of it, simply because their very jobs depend on it. Some occupations simply require more spin than others - trial law, public relations, politics, etc. I would also rank the job of "husband" up there. "Honey, do you like my new Mohawk haircut?"

I don't mean to pick on Bush - I think he's stretched the truth on some pretty important things, but I don't think he's any worse than the rest. I never take anything a politician says at face value, so it doesn't affect me that much, although I do think that some of the stretching that went on in relation to Iraq was beyond acceptable norms. And anytime someone tries to argue that he doesn't spin things, I react strongly.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I don't think the "Bill is a liar" thing caught on till he actually LIED and was CAUGHT lying.

The " Bush is teh liar" is the left's reaction to the Clinton scandal.

Actually, there were a lot of conservatives who thought that Clinton was an illegitimate president when he was elected the first time. It had to do with the fact that Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote (but still a majority), and also the ethical foibles we knew of at that time -- many thought that he did not have the Moral Fiber to lead the nation. The protest was much less visible to those outside the conservative loop, but it was still there. I remember reading about a few Republican senators who vowed never to acknowledge Clinton as President or step foot in the White House while he was president. Ther ewere other instances that don't come to mind right now.

And not to detract from Clinton's perjury, which was a serious offense, we need to remember that the investigation that lead to it was an investigation into the Whitewater deal, which followed Clinton around for several years while he was in office, and found no credible evidence to implicate him or the first lady after all that time. Many Republicans were crowing about Whitewater and Vince Foster and the Travel Office just as Liberals today are crowing about Yellowcake and WMD's and 9/11 comissions. If the Whitewater investigation never happened, we would never had known about Monica (or, at least if we did find out, it would not have been in a context where Clinton would have been able to perjure himself.) And would we have nearly been as interested in finding about Whitewater if there wasn't so much contempt for the powerful people behind it?

At the time that Clinton was in office, I couldn't understand why there could be so much contempt for the sitting President, even before Monicagate, and didn't think liberals were capable of the same kind of contempt. Boy, was I wrong!

[itai195]

While I make no apologies for Clinton, a sex scandal and a war are clearly not on the same level of significance.

[Zimphire]

Er the Monica scandal was brought up because of the many cases of sexual misconduct was brought on him.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
While I make no apologies for Clinton, a sex scandal and a war are clearly not on the same level of significance.

Nope, and it's a good thing that both Clinton and Bush had the same info and ideals about what should happen to Iraq and why.

Clinton just never did it.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Clinton just never did it.

And that's a big difference

But not only did he never do it, he never really pursued making a case for it the way Bush did, outside of a few speeches.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Er the Monica scandal was brought up because of the many cases of sexual misconduct was brought on him.

Damn database is acting up. I'll give the $.02 version of the long post that just got eaten:

Whitewater and Monicagate were linked somehow, I can't rememebr exactly how. If there was no whitewater investigation, Clinton would never have perjured himself.

However, even if the investigation was politically motivated, all he had to do was keep it in his pants and the investigation would have amounted to nothing. Doofus.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
And that's a big difference

Yes, lets praise the guy that knew what needed done, but didn't do it.

But not only did he never do it, he never really pursued making a case for it the way Bush did, outside of a few speeches.

Yes, he made speeches that it needed to be done. Clinton never really "pursued" anything. He didn't want to rock the boat.

The Terrorists saw this as a weakness.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dreilly1:

Whitewater and Monicagate were linked somehow, I can't rememebr exactly how.

Only because both had to do with Bill, and it was going on near the same time.

If there was no whitewater investigation, Clinton would never have perjured himself.

Er, women were coming out charging him of being a sexual predator. They had nothing to do with whitewater, are you REALLY blaming that investigation on Clinton lying? Heh. I hope not.

"If he wouldn't have got caught, he would have never lied!!!11, it was the person who caught him that is at fault!!!1"

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, lets praise the guy that knew what needed done, but didn't do it.

Yeah but I'm sure you understand there's a difference between thinking something should be done and making the case and the plans for doing it. I wouldn't say Clinton avoided rocking the boat, because he did get involved in the Balkans. Anyway we've had this discussion before. I do think Bush showed a lot of leadership ability by going after something he really believed should be done, but I disagree with the case he made.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/30KRIS.html

Interesting article, lots of valid points.

Whether Bush intentionally set out to deceive or not, he chose to surround himself with a bunch of overzealous wackos and he pushed forward with the invasion of Iraq on the basis of highly questionable 'intelligence'. Thus as President of the US, Bush must bear full responsibility for the lies he endorsed and still endorses today.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Only because both had to do with Bill, and it was going on near the same time.

After Monica told Linda Tripp about the affair, Linda Tripp went to Starr, the Whitewater investigator whose investigations kept being expanded into everything and anything Clinton was remotely suspected of being involved in, and got permission from some judges to investigate that too. They then wired Tripp up and she went to talk to Monica. And on it went from there. So it was definitely part of the Whitewater investigation. It was really pathetic how he had this essentially permanent investigator looking into everything he did. It wasn't right that he lied about the affair, or that he had affairs, but he still shouldn't have been treated like he was.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Interesting article, lots of valid points.

Whether Bush intentionally set out to deceive or not, he chose to surround himself with a bunch of overzealous wackos and he pushed forward with the invasion of Iraq on the basis of highly questionable 'intelligence'. Thus as President of the US, Bush must bear full responsibility for the lies he endorsed and still endorses today.

Give me a break LBK. I know you have perspective.

[Zimphire]

All the Presidents women

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_r...ndal/49771.stm

Former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey told CBS's 60 Minutes that she was groped by the President when she went to ask advice about her financial difficulties. Ms Willey, 51, said he hugged her, touched her breasts, and put her hand on his aroused genitals.

Mr Clinton denied the accusations, but said he hugged her and may have kissed her on the forehead to console her, but insisted the incident was not sexual.She gave a deposition in 1993 that the President kissed her and asked for sex while the two were in a room next to the Oval office.

-----

Mrs Jones is a former Arkansas state clerk who alleged that when Mr Clinton was governor of Arkansas in 1991, she was summoned to his room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, by a state trooper.

She has said he then dropped then his trousers and, alluding to his genitals, asked her to "kiss it." She claims that she refused his offer and was then told to keep quiet about the incident. She said that she was later demoted at work as a result. Mrs Jones filed a formal complaint against President Clinton in May 1994 alleging sexual harassment and defamation of character but in April 1998, the case was thrown out.

Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed Paula Jones's case against the president, saying that her lawyers had failed to provide enough evidence to prove it could win at trial.

Monica didn't come till well after those two. That wasn't all of them either.

But just like Monica, I am sure they were all lying, and Bill Did NOT have sexual relations with those women.

Monica was just part of the investigation into the accusations that Clinton was a sexual predator.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Give me a break LBK.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

[Spliffdaddy]

whoa.

the packaging on KitKats differs wildly outside the US.

here's what a real KitKat looks like:

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Er, women were coming out charging him of being a sexual predator. They had nothing to do with whitewater, are you REALLY blaming that investigation on Clinton lying? Heh. I hope not.

"If he wouldn't have got caught, he would have never lied!!!11, it was the person who caught him that is at fault!!!1"

I never said that Clinton wasn't at fault. The main charges against him dealt with the perjury. The perjured testimony was given to Ken Starr, the special prosecutor dealing with Whitewater, as BRussel so expertly recounted for us. If the whitewater investigation was not going on, Clinton never would have had the opportunity to commit perjury. And it was the perjury that got him into the impeachment problem. In fact, if it weren't for the whitewater investigation, we may never have found out about Monica.

Does that give Clinton a free pass? Of course not. If he told the truth to Ken Starr (which he had sworn to do, likely on a bible), he would probably have never faced impeachment, the Whitewater investigation would have turned up nothing of substance, and his reputation and legacy would have been much better. And he wouldn't have pissed off Hillary quite as much.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I never said that Clinton wasn't at fault. The main charges against him dealt with the perjury. The perjured testimony was given to Ken Starr, the special prosecutor dealing with Whitewater, as BRussel so expertly recounted for us. If the whitewater investigation was not going on, Clinton never would have had the opportunity to commit perjury. And it was the perjury that got him into the impeachment problem. In fact, if it weren't for the whitewater investigation, we may never have found out about Monica.

Does that give Clinton a free pass? Of course not. If he told the truth to Ken Starr (which he had sworn to do, likely on a bible), he would probably have never faced impeachment, the Whitewater investigation would have turned up nothing of substance, and his reputation and legacy would have been much better. And he wouldn't have pissed off Hillary quite as much.

Naw, he would have been dragged into court because of the sexual abuse cases against him.

Whitewater wasn't anything to sneeze about. The Clinton's were guilty. They just had good lawyers.

And Hillary misplaced information at opportune times. Not to mention the people involved kept coming up missing.

But I am sure everyone was innocent.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Naw, he would have been dragged into court because of the sexual abuse cases against him.

I don't think those cases were moving fast enough to drag him into court while still President. In fact, wasn't there some question as to whether or not they could even be brought while he was a sitting president?

And of course they're all innocent, because they weren't proven guilty. At least, that's what we presume them to be.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
whoa.

the packaging on KitKats differs wildly outside the US.

here's what a real KitKat looks like:

History
You know Kit Kat was never originally called Kit Kat. The chocolate crisp bar was made and originally launched in London and the South East of England in September 1935, and was called Rowntree's Chocolate Crisp. It only became 'Kit Kat' in 1937, two years before the Second World War.

Re: Article.

A Rebuttal to Nicholas D. Kristof


Who Dast Call Him Liar


By BEN TRIPP


My self-imposed standards of polite discourse are killing me. I decided it was time to change the tone in politics, so I stopped using words like ****, ****, ***, *******, and 'euphonium' in the course of my essays. Vice president D*ck Cheney, meanwhile, standing on the Senate floor, is free to demand Patrick Leahy commit an act of auto-fornication. I don't give a flying hang what kind of language anybody chooses to use, or where they choose to use it. What bothers me is while the Repugs are out there doing what they want, saying what they want, the so-called liberal media is whimpering that the Left needs to rise above this kind of thing and behave with virginal decorum. Mr. Kristof, can I have a word with you? It starts with 'F'.


As part of an experiment to see if anybody can read the New York Times more than three times a month without developing brain cancer, I occasionally read the column of Nicholas D. Kristof. I should know better. Modest, learned, and brimming with virtue, a man whose words and accomplishments unblushingly suggest the Christ on one of His better days, Kristof makes me sick. I shouldn't have been shocked by his column of June 30, 2004, entitled "Calling Bush A Liar". Kristof is the kind of guy who goes off to do a story on prostitution in Cambodia and just can't help himself, he has to buy a couple of girls and set them free while a Times photographer discreetly records the event. What a noble thing to do! How human, yet how godlike! I'm sure he sent the girls through college, too. Or maybe they were stoned to death as soon as he got on his plane. He doesn't say. The point is, here's a guy who knows in his heart that he's really virtuous, and seeing as moderation is one of his many strengths, he's going to moderate his readers senseless. He never scolds, mind you. Just gently sets a better example, a sad, slightly patronizing smile on his lips. Did you ever rescue a Cambodian prostitute? Speaking of which, back to "Calling Bush A Liar".


Kristof starts off reasonably enough, posing the question, "So, is president Bush a liar?" Now I know as well as anybody that he couldn't just write the word 'yes' and consider the column done. He had to extemporize for a few paragraphs. I've done it myself, which is why my piece asking "Is Donald Rumsfeld A Brain-Feasting Zombie" contains several hundred words about the domestic habits of the wildebeest, followed by the word 'yes'. But as I read on, what I saw made my eyes shoot out of the sockets with such violence that they punched holes through the newspaper, penetrated the wall, and emerged in the next room. According to Kristof, the problem isn't that Bush is a lying psychopath; rather the problem is when the Left descends to the level of accusing Bush of lying, they're just being gross and icky like the R**ub**cans were back when Clinton was president (before he wrote the latest Harry Potter novel). I quote:


"I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding."


He gently chides the Left for its shrill denunciations and apologizes for the man in the White House's apparent lack of honesty by climbing into his head and figuring out what the matter could possibly be other than lying, which is, you know, so yucky to even accuse somebody of:
"Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public - a more common problem in government than flat-out lying."


You see? That's all it is. He's just overzealous and delusional, so quit calling the man a liar.


YAAAAAAARRRRGHHH, as Governor Dean might say. What makes me want to vomit is that anybody could possibly be so smug as to suggest polarization is the problem, when it's actually a symptom, like death is a symptom of being shot through the head - and furthermore, that his problem with polarization is it makes America increasingly difficult to govern.


What the f*** does that mean? Is governing this country supposed to be made easy by compliant citizens? Is THAT why we're here? Jeezum H. Jumping Jiminy, better we should all march in lockstep into the ovens than make things difficult for the maniacs currently in command of this nation! O Nicholas, what a supplicant, mewling, lickspittle Polonius thou art, spineless and vile. Maybe I'm just feeling guilty because I'm not as excellent as you, or maybe insults and rage have impeded my understanding. I don't care.


Nicholas D. Kristof, go make love to yourself.


Ben Tripp is a screenwriter and cartoonist, who lives in a large human settlement 100 miles south of Bakersfield, which we cannot name for security reasons.

[Zimphire]

Typical of these type of accusers. I stopped reading it as soon as I came to this

the problem isn't that Bush is a lying psychopath

He is just another leftist zealot Bush-Hater.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He is just another leftist zealot Bush-Hater. [/B]

What's wrong with hating Bush? There is nothing likable about the man. He's an arrogant, simple-minded, bullying frat boy.

There's one scene in "Farenheit 9/11" that really reveals a loathsome side to his character. He's duck hunting or skeet-shooting (I can't tell which) and he misses. He swears in frustration. He turns around and says, without irony, "Isn't someone going to say 'Good shot'?" Immediately, some sycophant says, "Good shot." Bush looks satisfied.

What kind of loser has to coerce false compliments out of his colleagues or underlings? It's pathetic.

But as much as I loathe Bush personally, I support his decision to send troops to Iraq to remove Saddam.

[Spliffdaddy]

You mean like Clinton telling Monica to "deny, deny, deny"?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliff:
There's one scene in "Farenheit 9/11" that really reveals a loathsome side to his character. He's duck hunting or skeet-shooting (I can't tell which) and he misses. He swears in frustration. He turns around and says, without irony, "Isn't someone going to say 'Good shot'?" Immediately, some sycophant says, "Good shot." Bush looks satisfied.

That's called humor. He wasn't being serious.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


That's called humor. He wasn't being serious. [/B]

That's open to debate. To me, he didn't appear to be joking. But unfortunately, Moore only provides a snippet out of context. I'd like to see all the footage taken during that shooting party.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliff:
That's open to debate. To me, he didn't appear to be joking.

Probably because you wanted to believe. I saw it. It was dry humor.

But unfortunately, Moore only provides a snippet out of context.

This shouldn't surprise you.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
whoa.

the packaging on KitKats differs wildly outside the US.

here's what a real KitKat looks like:

That's some horrible looking packaging That aint no 'real' KitKat!

hmmm, I want a KitKat now.

[Zimphire]

I like them both actually.

Have you ever had the WHITE chocolate version?

[Sven G]

BTW:

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Spliff:
That's open to debate. To me, he didn't appear to be joking. But unfortunately, Moore only provides a snippet out of context. I'd like to see all the footage taken during that shooting party.

Oh good, let us debate about a comment that Bush made during a hunting trip. You know, that's got to be why he's "pathetic," right? Idiot.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Oh good, let us debate about a comment that Bush made during a hunting trip. You know, that's got to be why he's "pathetic," right? Idiot.

If I heard you refer to a racial minority with a vicious racial slur, I could, from that one comment, infer that you're a racist scumbag. A person can reveal their character very easily through their words. George W. Bush has revealed aspects of his personality on many occasions. The hunting party comment, if uttered seriously (which I still believe it was), shows him to be an arrogant, bullying dik-head. I've known people who coerce compliments from those around them and those under them. And in every case, they were assholes.

And I never said that Bush is pathetic, I said that his need to force compliments from sycophants is pathetic. So Jansar, learn to read, you moron. Tit for tat. Keep up the ad hominem attacks because it's a really effective way to win an argument.

[Spliff]

edit: double-post

[itai195]

Here's a response from the author of the book that the Kristoff article was apparently targetted toward.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by Spliff:
If I heard you refer to a racial minority with a vicious racial slur, I could, from that one comment, infer that you're a racist scumbag. A person can reveal their character very easily through their words. George W. Bush has revealed aspects of his personality on many occasions. The hunting party comment, if uttered seriously (which I still believe it was), shows him to be an arrogant, bullying dik-head. I've known people who coerce compliments from those around them and those under them. And in every case, they were assholes.

And I never said that Bush is pathetic, I said that his need to force compliments from sycophants is pathetic. So Jansar, learn to read, you moron. Tit for tat. Keep up the ad hominem attacks because it's a really effective way to win an argument.

Your previous post was a hate-driven comment. It makes no logical sense to base someone's personality after watching that person act on camera. You act before you think, and that is a serious problem. On the other hand, that puts me in a superior position, because it leaves you with no valid points or evidence to back up your claim.

Also, if you're trying to get back at me, a picture of a smiley rolling eyes is not that threatening. Additionally, you refer to a personal attack as an ad hominem attack. Who are you trying to impress? Humor me.