Which Lie Bothers You More?

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Which Lie Bothers You More?

Post by JPP13 » Jul 10th 2003, 6:04 pm

I'm curious about this. Which lie bothers you more?

A married man, with a daughter, who on National TV denies receiving a blowjob from a young adult woman, when in fact he did.

Or----

The head of the Armed Forces getting on National TV and telling the milllions of viewers that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium form Nigeria. This was told despite the fact that an ambassador assigned to investigate the claim had 8 months earlier said it wasn't true. The DAY BEFORE the speech the CIA said it could not authenticate the statement. This lie was used in part as justification to attack a foreign country which posed no threat to the US. Thousands of Iraqi cicitzens are killed. And the death toll of US servicemen occupying the country grows daily. (2 today).

-----

So, in all honesty, what is worse? Because the first lie resulted in the country being shut down for 2 years while the sex police investigated the claim. (and Osama bin laden - remember him? - prepared). Over 40 million dollars was spent to see if he got a BJ.

Next week the Congress will vote on whether or not to lauch an investigation into the 2nd lie. What will they vote? What will the rightwing dominated media do? If a BJ is worth 40 million, how much are dozens of US servicemen worth?


A brief aside, because I think its funny. Isn't it interesting that Clinton's daughter, supposedly raised by the vilest human ever (if you listen to the wackos) is a Rhodes scholar studying overseas. And the Bush daughters, raised by the hero of ethics, are getting arrested and smoking pot with Ashton Kutcher?

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Jul 11th 2003, 5:06 am

A classic case of completely warped priorities. Lie 2 is one of the despicable set of lies 3,4,5,6,7,12 and 1,237,598 told to people worldwide and used to justify a war.

I have been reading in the press recently that Private Lynch (who was supposedly rescued in a fearsome gun battle by American troops from the clutches of evil Iraqi soldiers) did not in fact sustain her 'horrific' wounds at the hands of the iraqis but was in a car crash instead, during which her companion died. Both girls were pulled from the wreckage by Iraqi soldiers and taken to an Iraqi hospital where they received treatment from Iraqi doctors. Had it not been for this treatment, apparently, Private Lynch would now be dead.

It's all about spin. The opposition could 'spin' all they wanted about President Clinton's BJ, and force investigations, impeachment proceedings etc, as basically it didn't really hurt anybody apart from Clinton (and family) and could clearly be used to bring them political gain. Sadly, nobody has stopped to think that there are certain situations that shouldn't be subject to 'spin', inflammatory reporting, or any other tactic to pull the wool over people's eyes.

At least your country is investigating these things. Prime Minister Bleugh is ignoring that there is even an issue.

In another classic case of ridiculous priorities, my own government is currently spending more time, energy and money on banning hunting with dogs than sorting out our dire public services. And I mean much more. As an example:

House of commons debate on 'Foundation Hospitals' (don't ask) - number of MPs that showed up? 12.
House of commons debate on Education - slightly more than 12.
House of commons debate and vote on banning hunting? 360-something.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Jul 11th 2003, 10:31 am

starbug wrote: At least your country is investigating these things. Prime Minister Bleugh is ignoring that there is even an issue.
I wouldn't put too much merit into the "investigation" yet. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't just a halfway attempt by Bush sympathizers to squash the story as quickly as possible.

Maybe the investigation will go somewhere though, there are a good number of people that are not happy with Bush.

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jul 11th 2003, 2:53 pm

starbug wrote:At least your country is investigating these things. Prime Minister Bleugh is ignoring that there is even an issue.
Thats pretty funny that you mention it, because I've been under the impression that Blair is under much MUCH more pressure to come clean about all the lies told before/during the war than Bush will ever be.

Bush does his annoying little Snidely laugh and passes any accusations off as revisionist history. At least Blair has hundreds of people yelling directly in his face to come clean. The US government lost its balls to stand up to Bush long ago.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Jul 14th 2003, 4:50 am

I think he's under a lot more pressure, both from his colleagues in the government, and from the British public.

If he doesn't start saying something pretty useful soon, he could be in line to lose the next election over it. He's done some other pretty stupid things recently too...

I do find it sort of odd that the US government aren't calling for Bush's head over this. Did you know that recently Nelson Mandela refused to meet President Bush (an unprecedented snub) because he is so appalled at the warmongering that went on in the Bush government?

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Post by JPP13 » Jul 22nd 2003, 8:18 pm

Well, well, well. The CIA, who was being hung out to dry by Bush as the scapegoat, provided today the several levels of memos forwarded to the White House last October. These memos proved the White House knew the nukes from Niger was a lie. But arrogance knows no bounds.

Also reported today, Joseph Wilson, the ambassador who investigated the nuke claims and blew the whistle on Cheney in the first place, had his family subtly threatened by administration officials.

If only a dead soldier was as important as a semen stained dress. If so, we'd be starting impeachment proceedings now.

Something else to ponder - Henry Kissinger was named as an unindicted co-conspirator for his lies regarding Chile and Cambodia by a European panel. He may very well be charged with war crimes. History does not look fondly upon those who lie to wage war.

Starjunior, I really like your perspective on this. Its nice to see Bush catch some of the heat Blair is under. I try and catch the BBC news nightly. It gives a refreshing view of things.

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Jul 22nd 2003, 11:44 pm

JPP13 wrote:If only a dead soldier was as important as a semen stained dress. If so, we'd be starting impeachment proceedings now.
Respectfully, I agree with the first part, but not the latter.

It seems to me that this was a very different country when we were all so fascinated/disgusted/disinterested in Clinton's sins. We were in a post OJ hangover, craving for the next scandal or tragedy. Princess Di was our fix for a while and then Clinton took over.

That was then, and it seems like a long time ago.

Now, we are, in some ways, a scarred and more patriotic country (though I wonder about the latter sometimes). We've been bruised not on foreign soil, but here, miles away from where I sit, as well as D.C. and in Pennsylvania.

9/11 smacked the country awake, and while I think we will always somehow regress back to our old ways, it's too soon for the masses to be calling for Bush's head. We're not ready to go down that road again. I think we're content with reality programming and Trading Spaces marathons (for the record, I'm hooked on Ground Force :)).

If the Towers still stood today, maybe we would be hearing more vocal calls for accountibility. Two consecutive administrations immersed in a blantant arrogance in the way they swagger with their power is a sharp, nasty pill to swallow, but we now that blood has spilled here, we've channeled our fury elsewhere. If at all.

Unless the Bush administration becomes completely unglued before then, I think people will reserve the anger for when election time rolls around.

Gary

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:04 am

GaryEA wrote:If the Towers still stood today, maybe we would be hearing more vocal calls for accountibility. Two consecutive administrations immersed in a blantant arrogance in the way they swagger with their power is a sharp, nasty pill to swallow, but we now that blood has spilled here, we've channeled our fury elsewhere. If at all.

Unless the Bush administration becomes completely unglued before then, I think people will reserve the anger for when election time rolls around.
I agree with you on this. The main problem with 9/11 is that it gave the Bush admin free reign over our country. Anytime there was a questioning in any of the asinine things they have done thus far (and will do) the questioners patriotism was questioned and the towers were invoked. It is disgusting, but it doesnt surprise me. America is a stupid country for the most part, we think of ourselves as free and free-thinking individuals but yet we don't question a goddamn thing (the majority of us that is, whom i lovingly refer to as the m-asses), and sit by while our freedoms are taken from us one by one.

And I wish that people would reserve their anger till election time, but unless this is dragged out long enough it won't matter. We could always pray for another scandal :) . And even then, what candidate looks good on the left these days? The best shot we have is if Hillary runs, she would atleast get the votes since she is a name people recognize.

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:12 am

From votetoimpeach.org:

High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Impeachment is the direct constitutional means for removing a President, Vice President or other civil officers of the United States who has acted or threatened acts that are serious offenses against the Constitution, its system of government, or the rule of law, or that are conventional crimes of such a serious nature that they would injure the Presidency if there was no removal.

A Constitutional Imperative
Impeachment appears six times in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders weren't concerned with anything more than with impeachment because they had lived under King George III and had in 1776 accused the king of all the things that George W. Bush wants to do: Usurpation of the power of the people; Being above the law; Criminal abuse of authority.

http://votetoimpeach.org/

Nixon was going to be impeached because he misused the FBI and CIA.

That is sounding more and more like what Bush has done.

http://votetoimpeach.org/
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Post by JPP13 » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:14 am

GaryEA, even though you said you disagree with me, I think your point was exactly correct. I was just echoing what Sen. Bob Graham said today - If Bush was held to the same level of accountability as Clinton he'd be impeached. But I can't disagree with anything you said.

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:24 am

fnordboy wrote: I agree with you on this. The main problem with 9/11 is that it gave the Bush admin free reign over our country. Anytime there was a questioning in any of the asinine things they have done thus far (and will do) the questioners patriotism was questioned and the towers were invoked. It is disgusting, but it doesnt surprise me. America is a stupid country for the most part, we think of ourselves as free and free-thinking individuals but yet we don't question a goddamn thing (the majority of us that is, whom i lovingly refer to as the m-asses), and sit by while our freedoms are taken from us one by one.

And I wish that people would reserve their anger till election time, but unless this is dragged out long enough it won't matter. We could always pray for another scandal :) . And even then, what candidate looks good on the left these days? The best shot we have is if Hillary runs, she would atleast get the votes since she is a name people recognize.
It was interesting watching the country suddenly finding their patriotism, and in a bigger extent, their religion, after we were attacked, but c'mon - where was it beforehand? We pull it out when a tragedy takes place, and then go back to our set ways. It's simply the way we are, but it's also our our weakness and everyone sees it.

I want to criticize the administration during war time, with full respect to those in uniform, I'm going to. That is not a taboo, it doesn't aid the enemy. It actually upholds the basic principles we founded the US on.

Today I heard that the wife of an Army general or coloenel (can't remember) wrote a letter to the wives of those who are serving overseas. Why the letter? Because the families were starting to rumble because Bush's war plan was beginning to have no end in sight, and they wanted their loved ones home. Sounds perfectly reasonable, except it "aids the enemy", according to the letter.

So you can't criticize the administration, and you cannot openly want your husband home. Spare me.

I would have voted across party lines if Powell had run, but that didn't happen and we got Bush 2.0, full of one-liners, preaching to the country during the State of the Union. Now, we're finding that the sermon was less than holy.

Am I surprised? Hell, no. From day one, the WMD angle was laughable in that Bush was going to go in no matter what the U.N. found. He wasn't looking for WMD's - that would have been icing on a cake if they did - he was looking for an excuse.

Am I angry. Yeah. I want some accountibility coming from my government, not a bunch of figure heads pointing fingers at each other. And don't tell me to withdraw my opinion because it might aid the enemy.

Keeping my trap shut is exactly what the enemy wants, so why is it that I'm supposed to be the good American, but the administration changes its spin on a daily basis? Who's helping who?

Gary

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:29 am

All I know is my vote is going to GaryEA in 2004 :) I guess that is better than wasting it on Cthulhu....or is it?? <cue doom inspiring music>

JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Post by JPP13 » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:32 am

I guess in the end I agree with the cliche that we all get the government we deserve. We deserve a president who says "Bring it on" , right before a dozen more men are killed. We (sort of) elected this guy. And now we are reaping what we've sowed.

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:33 am

fnordboy wrote:All I know is my vote is going to GaryEA in 2004 :) I guess that is better than wasting it on Cthulhu....or is it?? <cue doom inspiring music>
LOL!

Gary

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Jul 23rd 2003, 12:36 am

JPP13 wrote:I guess in the end I agree with the cliche that we all get the government we deserve. We deserve a president who says "Bring it on" , right before a dozen more men are killed. We (sort of) elected this guy. And now we are reaping what we've sowed.
"Bring it on." What courage. :roll:

The cynic in me, that sees the BS for what I think it is, likes to refer back to the old George Carlin philosophy about policitians: "Garbage in, garbage out".

We elect BS artists, and we should expect BS the moment we vote. Getting out of the loop is the real problem.

Gary

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests