[Zimphire]

Originally posted by demograph68:
If you believe it, then you'll see it. It goes both ways. It means that if you believe something hard enough, the "facts" will be there.

No, if the facts aren't there. I can't say either way. I can have an OPINION. But that is just what it is. An opinion. And a opinion if fine to have!

Just as long as you don't try to pass it off as fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:

If CNN knew by mid April how could Bush not know on May 29?

He was speaking about sad labs Powell spoke of. Not any we "found" literally.

BTW there was WMDs found. Just not stockpiles of them.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
SPT again, he was claiming he saw a plane hit a building. Unless you can prove he didn't, you have no case.

You are making BASELESS ACCUSATIONS.

This is why I said based on TRUTH.

You are being just as bad as you claim he is.

Come on guys, it can't be too hard. There should be TONS of lies backed up with proof right?

Not just a building, Zim, the first building.

BG

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He was speaking about sad labs Powell spoke of. Not any we "found" literally.

BTW there was WMDs found. Just not stockpiles of them.

You are blind. Literally.

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Not just a building, Zim, the first building.

BG

And which one is the first building Black?

Not that it matters. It's pretty obvious he was speaking about the crash that WAS taped.

Unless you can show he KNEW that he never saw said plane hit and said it anyways to deceive... it's just another baseless accusation.

And this isn't what this thread is about. I already know people can do that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
You are blind. Literally.

They found mobile labs. And they did!

None of them had WMDs in them.

BTW, enough of the lame Jr High "U are teh Blind!1"

Comments.

They are just as bad as the "Bush is teh li4r!~" ones.

I see now how you make the connection.

I am going back to bed now.

When I get up I'll see if anyone has anything more. And not just a straw grab.

I mean it should be a lot easier than this right? HE IS TEH LI4R!

[lurkalot]

Maybe you need everything in bold print? How's this?

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons.

Go to bed, rest your eyes and then when you wake up well rested, read the interview again. Then look at the CNN story again, compare the dates and admit that Bush lied during the Polish interview.

Added:
It should indeed be a lot easier than this. Based on all the threads you've participated in on the subject you could have conceded that Bush lies months ago and you could have done so today on page one. Sleep well.

[brachiator]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LAWL All I have to say is "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Heh. Well, sexual relations and intercourse are generally defined as involving at least both partner's genital organs, if not actual penetration. So, on this overly technical, lawyerly parsing, Clinton was not necessarily even telling a falsehood. And its pure conjecture to say that even if it was a falsehood, that he knew it to be so. Perhaps he really did think that "sexual relations" were distinct from oral sex?

Of course, we all know that even if it wasn't a lie or even a falsehood the intention was to deceive. Clinton intended that we believe he hadn't been intimately involved with Monica, and played with the gray area between the technical definition of sex and the common meaning.

Bush and Co. do this too, much much better. Bush's statements are full of lawyerly qualifiers and weasel words whenever he is making a claim. And unlike Clinton's sexcapades -- about which Slick Willie knew firsthand -- Bush rarely discusses matters about which he knows firsthand, and so he always has the plausible deniability of having gotten bad info from his aides, George Tenet, the Brits, etc. The Bush gang is far more sophisiticated in its falsehoods than was Clinton. But when I've made similar leaps on Bush's falsehoods as te ones you've made on Clinton's, you jump all over me for my baseless silliness, Zim. Bush is simply not goint to say "I never drank whisky," or "I never snickered gleefully and made fun of a woman I was about to execute..."

Besides, it is exceedingly rare that a Bushie or Bush himself answers the question that is directly asked or on the terms it is asked. They are masters at answereing the question they wish had been asked instead of the question actually posed. And when the questions deal with matters that Bush might know about firsthand, well, records mysteriously go missing or get "damaged..."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And which one is the first building Black?

Not that it matters. It's pretty obvious he was speaking about the crash that WAS taped.

Unless you can show he KNEW that he never saw said plane hit and said it anyways to deceive... it's just another baseless accusation.

And this isn't what this thread is about. I already know people can do that.

What, you can't even count to one now? Or are you going to claim ignorance of the accepted terminology that the first building hit is the First Tower and the second one is the Second Tower.

Tortured logic and denial.

Next you'll try to claim that you didn't start this thread.

BlackGriffen

[demograph68]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
What, you can't even count to one now? Or are you going to claim ignorance of the accepted terminology that the first building hit is the First Tower and the second one is the Second Tower.

Tortured logic and denial.

Next you'll try to claim that you didn't start this thread.

BlackGriffen

Be nice!

[version]

Lies, deceit, manipulation, etc. different shades of the same sphere. The Bush clan does them all.


Read this book, zim, then come back.

http://www.bushlies.com/

An excerpt:

" Introduction: A False Restoration

�Some people think it�s inappropriate to draw a moral line. Not me. For our children to have the lives we want for them, they must learn to say yes to responsibility . . . yes to honesty.�
�George W. Bush, June 12, 1999

George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small. He has lied directly and by omission. He has misstated facts, knowingly or not. He has misled. He has broken promises, been unfaithful to political vows. Through his campaign for the presidency and his first years in the White House, he has mugged the truth�not merely in honest error, but deliberately, consistently, and repeatedly to advance his career and his agenda. Lying greased his path toward the White House; it has been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the 43rd president of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of opinion, not an inflammatory talk-radio device. This insult is supported by an all too extensive record of self-serving falsifications. So constant is his fibbing that a history of his lies offers a close approximation of the history of his presidential tenure."

[version]

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm

Bush on Iraq, nicely presnted in a chart.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_lies.html

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

[Troll]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
If CNN knew by mid April how could Bush not know on May 29?

Haven't you heard? Bush doesn't read the papers.

Now, just so you understand how this works: what you do is that you get your cabal to actually make up the lies. Rummy and Powell and even Blair will do this for you. Then you just repeat the "falsehoods" others have made up and redefine lying so that it doesn't include passing on lies. When the information you have is proven to be untrue (by the press or by your own people saying there is no red cake), then you simply make sure others screen the information you get so that you can say that you never knew the falsehood was false and can therefore keep repeating it. Eventually, repetition of the falsehood will create a paralell reality. Your supporters will say that WMD labs were found as if it were the truth and pretty soon the number of falsehoods will outnumber the number of refutations.

[version]

Originally posted by Troll:
Haven't you heard? Bush doesn't read the papers.

Now, just so you understand how this works: what you do is that you get your cabal to actually make up the lies. Rummy and Powell and even Blair will do this for you. Then you just repeat the "falsehoods" others have made up and redefine lying so that it doesn't include passing on lies. When the information you have is proven to be untrue (by the press or by your own people saying there is no red cake), then you simply make sure others screen the information you get so that you can say that you never knew the falsehood was false and can therefore keep repeating it. Eventually, repetition of the falsehood will create a paralell reality. Your supporters will say that WMD labs were found as if it were the truth and pretty soon the number of falsehoods will outnumber the number of refutations.

[Troll]

When the going gets tough, American politicans become dictionaries. This whole 'falsehoods' vs 'lies' debate is as bizarre as the definition of 'sex' and 'is' debates! Before Bush manages to get the dictionary changed, can we just agree a few definitions.

Definition of a Lie

From Merriam Webster
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Arguably Bush didn't intend to deceive so under the first part of the definition, it is arguable that he did not lie. The Republicans concede that he repeated "falsehoods" like the famous 16 words. That did create a false or misleading impression and so under the second part of the definition, Bush did lie.

But let's put that aside for a moment. Forget about whether Bush lied and ask whether he is a liar.

Definition of a Liar

: one that tells lies

There is no requirement of intent. Now since Bush told lies that someone else invented, he is a liar irrespective of whether he intended to deceive. I've check the Oxford Dictionary and the European concepts of lies and liars are similar.

Of course I don't believe this is even vaguely relevant. If Bush is a liar and tens of thousands of innocent people have died because of those lies, that is horrendous. If he merely repeated falsehoods and didn't have the competence to distinguish falsehoods from truth, then the fact that that incompetence lead to tens of thousands of innocent dead people is at the very least sufficient to disqualify him from another term.

[OSX Abuser]

George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons --
the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

[OSX Abuser]

George W. Bush, President
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

[OSX Abuser]

George W. Bush, President
CAMP SAYLIYA, Qatar
6/5/2003

We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth

Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003

The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory.

Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003

A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

What? Me asking people to show where Bush has lied is flambait Lerk? I guess if I was Joe Lefty it might be construed is that.
[/b]
No, Not where they THINK. But where he has ACTUALLY. As we have seen in here lots of people thinks Bush has lied about all kinds of things. Including your "Bush lied People died" bumper sticker idea.

My opinion of who? Who is this "them" ? [/B]

ok, here's a flamebait thread.

this one we're in, where you challenge people to show where Bush lied (to this point it could be ok), but every time someone does what you ask ,but you respond with the derisive flame:

But I know, many lefties like to turn false claims into all out lies to America!

Just ask any Bush hater.

, instead of just saying you disagree or discussing the point. Just go down this thread, for every post bringing up what people consider a Bush lie, you jab them with similar flames.

Since that seems to be your intent, you set up the trap, asking for something so you could feel superior insulting everyone who attempts to address the parameters you set up.

Get it?

[zigzag]

The points I would make - that one man's lie is another's half-truth is another's spin is another's misunderstanding is another's opinion, etc. - have already been aptly made. But since we seem to be after Zimphire's definition of a lie, I would suggest that someone do a search under his screen name for "lie" and "liar." I'm too lazy to do it, but I'm confident that we would find that as applied to people outside the Bush administration, his definition is much broader. Indeed, it would seem that virtually every utterance of Michael Moore is a "lie," but when Bush does the same thing, it's just an opinion or a misunderstanding. The fact is that they both play the same game, as does Kerry. They all say things that they know are either untrue or only half true in order to advance their respective causes. Politicians have full-time staff members whose very job is to tailor their rhetoric for this purpose.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
What, you can't even count to one now? Or are you going to claim ignorance of the accepted terminology that the first building hit is the First Tower and the second one is the Second Tower.

Tortured logic and denial.

No Black, I've never heard of such a thing. ANd like i pointed out, It was of no consequence. Stop being petty and frosting your threads with lame personal jabs.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The points I would make - that one man's lie is another's half-truth is another's spin is another's misunderstanding is another's opinion, etc. - have already been aptly made. But since we seem to be after Zimphire's definition of a lie, I would suggest that someone do a search under his screen name for "lie" and "liar." I'm too lazy to do it, but I'm confident that we would find that as applied to people outside the Bush administration, his definition is much broader. Indeed, it would seem that virtually every utterance of Michael Moore is a "lie," but when Bush does the same thing, it's just an opinion or a misunderstanding. The fact is that they both play the same game, as does Kerry. They all say things that they know are either untrue or only half true in order to advance their respective causes. Politicians have full-time staff members whose very job is to tailor their rhetoric for this purpose.

I've called MM a liar because he HAS lied. Even when presented the facts VIA Oreilly. He still lied.

This thread just goes to prove my point about the anti-Bush zealots.

Thanks.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I've called MM a liar because he HAS lied. Even when presented the facts VIA Oreilly. He still lied.

This thread just goes to prove my point about the anti-Bush zealots.

Thanks.

You still don't get it, or don't want to get it. Moore can explain all or most of his assertions, even the misleading ones, just as you can explain all or most of Bush's. It's the same thing. You can call me an anti-Bush zealot but I have no trouble saying that Moore and Kerry do the same thing as Bush. The difference is that Bush is President and his actions have direct consequences.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You still don't get it, or don't want to get it. Moore can explain all or most of his assertions, even the misleading ones, just as you can explain all or most of Bush's.

Obviously you haven't seen the interview he did with Oreilly.

[Sock Puppet Theater]

An even earlier quote, just to prove it was the first plane he was talking about:

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
December 4, 2001

Source

I'm just trying to see if you can be fair about "misremembering". Or if you're going to say that all of Bush's "misdirections" were innocent and all of Kerry's were malicious. If we can't know what is going on in Bush's head, how can you know what's going on in Kerry's?

[Zimphire]

Again Sock, that wasn't a lie. And again, this goes to further my stance that the Bush haters will go to great lengths to try to defame him. No matter how petty or insignificant.

This thread wasn't made to try to find A LIE Bush has made. I am sure he has made some.

It was to show that he wasn't the big bad liar some of you make him out to be.

Otherwise there would be a thread FULL of ACTUAL lies. And there is not.

Case closed.

[Sock Puppet Theater]

It certainly is a lie. It's a false statement. It's untrue. He didn't see the first building struck (footage of that event didn't surface until the next day). He certainly didn't stand there and remark on how bad a pilot the guy was before entering the classroom. It didn't happen. How much more proof do you require?

I never said it was an important lie. It is really quite silly actually. So why can't you just admit that this was a lie?

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
It certainly is a lie. It's a false statement. It's untrue. He didn't see the first building struck (footage of that event didn't surface until the next day). How much more proof do you require?

The truth just hurts, that's all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
It certainly is a lie. It's a false statement. It's untrue. He didn't see the first building struck (footage of that event didn't surface until the next day). How much more proof do you require?

I never said it was an important lie. It is really quite silly actually. So why can't you just admit that this was a lie?

LAAAAWL!

A lie is telling a mistruth while knowing it's a mistruth. If I say "I saw the first plane hit" when I really mean "I saw the first plane in the 1st building" that isn't lying.

Again, a Lie is to purposely and knowingly mislead. Bush wasn't doing that.

[Sock Puppet Theater]

So he was confused? He mixed up when he saw the tower struck and started constructing a story around it?

If so, how is this different than Kerry misremembering the month he was in Cambodia? Why is Bush's confusion an honest mistake and Kerry's a terrible lie?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You still don't get it, or don't want to get it. Moore can explain all or most of his assertions, even the misleading ones, just as you can explain all or most of Bush's. It's the same thing. You can call me an anti-Bush zealot but I have no trouble saying that Moore and Kerry do the same thing as Bush. The difference is that Bush is President and his actions have direct consequences.

Which means Kerry would do the same if elected? (just following logical progression)

So tell me then, how is Kerry better than Bush?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
So he was confused? He mixed up when he saw the tower struck and started constructing a story around it?

If so, how is this different than Kerry misremembering the month he was in Cambodia? Why is Bush's confusion an honest mistake and Kerry's a terrible lie?

He "misremembered" Christmas (or that he was even there at all)?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, a Lie is to purposely and knowingly mislead.

Where do you get that definition from? Do you not agree with Merriam Webster?

In any case, I'm not clear what your argument is. "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot."" Even on your definition I can't see how this isn't a lie. It was said with the intention to mislead the audience to believe that he actually saw the first plane fly into the WTC. That's a lie even by your definition is it not?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
It certainly is a lie. It's a false statement. It's untrue. He didn't see the first building struck (footage of that event didn't surface until the next day). He certainly didn't stand there and remark on how bad a pilot the guy was before entering the classroom. It didn't happen. How much more proof do you require?

I never said it was an important lie. It is really quite silly actually. So why can't you just admit that this was a lie?

because the first purpose of this thread was never to locate a lie, but to rationalize anything presented as something other than a lie. Not the same as refutation, but simple negation (no, that's not a lie)
The second intent was to line up the "bush-haters" and flame them.

so, those two objectives have been met.

Admitting there was a lie was never intended, nor should be expected.
Because, and this is very important: Bush is incapable of lying. hard to believe, I know, but that is exactly what the originator of the thread appears to believe.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Which means Kerry would do the same if elected? (just following logical progression)

So tell me then, how is Kerry better than Bush?

I've never said that Kerry is "better" than Bush - they're both politicians, and politicians, by their very nature, spin things. I would only say that I prefer one over the other because one's more likely to pursue certain policies and/or execute them more effectively. And I can't even be sure of that.

I learned early in life that you can't take anything a politician says at face value, I don't care what side you're on.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I've never said that Kerry is "better" than Bush - they're both politicians, and politicians, by their very nature, spin things. I would only say that I prefer one over the other because one's more likely to pursue certain policies and/or execute them more effectively. And I can't even be sure of that.

I learned early in life that you can't take anything a politician says at face value, I don't care what side you're on.

Both being Skull and Bones with corporate backing, you honestly believe that?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No Griff, I've never heard of such a thing. ANd like i pointed out, It was of no consequence. Stop being petty and frosting your threads with lame personal jabs.

I was just frustrated enough to be more direct in my jabs than you.

Have a nice day.
BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I've never said that Kerry is "better" than Bush - they're both politicians, and politicians, by their very nature, spin things. I would only say that I prefer one over the other because one's more likely to pursue certain policies and/or execute them more effectively. And I can't even be sure of that.

I learned early in life that you can't take anything a politician says at face value, I don't care what side you're on.

exactly. That is why the bush apologists seem naive, to me. They cannot accept that Bush lies to them, to all of us, as if he is immaculately conceived to be president.

My personal thoughts are similar to yours: I accept as a given the strong likelihood that any politician, of any party, will, if not thoroughly watchdogged, lie, cheat, and or steal.
The trick is to select that politician or party which, on average, addresses the highest percentage of your interests.

I've had four years of Bush, I KNOW I don't want anymore. I don't think the world or the US would survive four more years of Fascism.
I've heard Kerry speak, and I'm reasonably satisfied a high enough number of my core issues are being addressed, that I have no qualms about voting FOR kerry as opposed to voting AGAINST Bush.

could Kerry end up doing equally horrible things if elected? sure, its possible. I don't think so, but I'm not so naive as to think it can't happen. However, I would hope, that forcing Bush II to a single term would be enough of a direct message to Kerry that the previous policies are not acceptable.

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think Bush has lied about anything, though I do believe he has mislead.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I don't think Bush has lied about anything, though I do believe he has mislead.

that's a fine hair split.

but even so, don't both produce the same result? the people are misled into believing something that isn't true.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I don't think Bush has lied about anything, though I do believe he has mislead.

What's the difference then? Can you post a definition of each please. I speak English. It's my third language but I think I speak it quite well and I don't understand the difference. If you mislead people with words, you are a liar. You might be a nice liar, a white liar, but you're still a liar.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I don't think Bush has lied about anything, though I do believe he has mislead.

As do I. As was Clinton. But somehow the left never called him a liar.

I believe Bush probably HAS lied. But he isn't the all out liar the zealots try to paint him out to be.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Both being Skull and Bones with corporate backing, you honestly believe that?

Honestly believe what? That they'll pursue different policies? I guess that depends on one's perspective. To someone on, say, the far left, their policy differences might be meaningless; they would say that both candidates are prisoners of corporate greed, and in a macro sense I can see their point. But I think there are meaningful differences, even if they're only on the margin.

My focus is on the Supreme Court. I think there are probably real differences in how Bush and Kerry would approach their appointments, and Bush worries me. I can't be certain but I think Kerry would be more likely to appoint moderates, which is my preference.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
that's a fine hair split.

but even so, don't both produce the same result? the people are misled into believing something that isn't true.

I agree; it's a fine split and produces the same result. But, it might mean the difference between an impeachable offence and one that is not. I think the administration has been very careful to keep the outright lying limited to the President's advisers.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Troll:
What's the difference then? Can you post a definition of each please. I speak English. It's my third language but I think I speak it quite well and I don't understand the difference. If you mislead people with words, you are a liar. You might be a nice liar, a white liar, but you're still a liar.

One can mislead without lying by omitting information, interpreting information in ways that favour their position or implying something that is untrue without actually stating the untruth.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
As do I. As was Clinton. But somehow the left never called him a liar.

I believe Bush probably HAS lied. But he isn't the all out liar the zealots try to paint him out to be.

Can I ask YOU to post a definition of lie and mislead then? All this talk about what words mean and I'm the only one that has been to the dictionary!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
One can mislead without lying by omitting information, interpreting information in ways that favour their position or implying something that is untrue without actually stating the untruth.

If you read the dictionary definition provided by Troll, misleading is a form of lying.

Re: impeachable offense. Lying would only become impeachable if it did it under oath. That was the only reason Republicans had an excuse to go after Clinton.

I wanted to say this last night, but the servers went down, and then Troll said it so much better(): why should Bush lie when he has Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al to do it for him? That's why Zim was insistent that the rest of the administration be left out - he knew he'd lost in one post if he hadn't. It's stupid to consider Bush separately from his administration, though, because they're a package deal.

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

EDIT: BlackGriffen said it better than me ... and before me!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I agree; it's a fine split and produces the same result. But, it might mean the difference between an impeachable offence and one that is not. I think the administration has been very careful to keep the outright lying limited to the President's advisers.

I don't need impeachment, I just want him voted out, preferably.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
... why should Bush lie when he has Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al to do it for him? That's why Zim was insistent that the rest of the administration be left out - he knew he'd lost in one post if he hadn't. It's stupid to consider Bush separately from his administration, though, because they're a package deal.

Absolutely, though some appear to think it's much more damaging if the President lies as opposed to one of his underlings lying ... therefore the President uses his underlings to do his lying for him. I hope the American public is smart enough to see through this deception.

I am easily more concerned about the outcome of the US elections than I was about the recent Canadian federal election; Canadian elections don't affect my cost of living or safety as much as the US elections do.