Why do so many Liberals seem to not understand?

Question

They don't know the difference between a lie, an incorrect statement, and felony pergury.

If I tell you the world is flat

It is a false statement on my part if I say it and I believe it to be true.

It is a lie if I know it isn't true and say it anyway

It is felony perjury if I say it in response to a question asked of me in a court procedure or if I write it in a notarized document to be entered into evidence in a court proceding.

As to Saddam WMDs, he had them at one time, not only Bush said it, so did Clinton, Kerry, and every other Liberal politician at one time. We even saw him use them on the Kurds in the North. We gave him a decent amount of time to hide, move, or actually get rid of them, but Bush saying Iraq had WMDs is at worst an incorrect statement on is part, not a lie, and certainly not felony perjury.

univee, you make it too easy for me. EVEN in the event that somebody lies to me, or to all of us, it isn't perjury unless the lie is told while giving testimony in a court proceding.

Mathmatically a lie does NOT equal pergury.

Stiggo, you are correct, I have no way of knowing if he knew beforehand there were no WMDs, just as you cannot know that he was aware there were no WMDs. Again, if he did lie about it to us, it was not while giving court testimony and therefore, just a lie, not perjury.

Al Cracka, finally, someone who likes Clinton but is willing to admit he was convicted (Impeached) by the House of Representatives for purgery. You can't possibly be a Democrat, you apparently live in reality.

Stiggo, forgive me for reitterating my original point and making it seem like I was refuting that you said it was perjury. I cannot read Bush'e mind and say that he did not know, you cannot read his mind and say that he DID know. Therefore, I cannot swear he was not lying, and you cannot know that he was. In either case though, all those who accuse Bush of perjury don't know what they are talking about.

Answer 1

Oh No...another inconvenient truth...

Answer 2

Part of the problem with this example is that it appears there was ample evidence suggesting that at least some of the President's claims were false; for instance the report by Joseph Wilson about yellow-cake uranium. That report directly contradicted what the administration had been saying (and Wilson's wife subsequently paid the price for 'disloyalty'). Similarly, several intelligence reports existed showing a weak, at best, link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. If the President himself was aware or not of these reports, I have no idea. However, as Harry Truman once famously said, "the buck stops here"; the President is responsible for the statements and actions of his administration. If the Vice President knowingly lies, the Undersecretary of Anything knowingly lies; even if some random White House intern knowingly lies to the public, the President is responsible.

I don't fault Bush for claiming there were WMD's in Iraq. Everyone thought so (Clinton included), and to be honest, Saddam was a good actor, because he really made it seem like he had them. However, I do fault him for over sensationalizing the threat Iraq posed to our own national security, leading us into a war we certainly did not need to be in, and a war which has caused even more human suffering than existed when Saddam was in power. I also fault the Congress (Democratic members included) for authorizing this, especially when they had access to much of the same intelligence the President did. And I fault the American people, who despite clear explanations of the war's faults still overwhelmingly backed the invasion (I think it was around 72%).

"Truthisback" makes some interesting points, but I take issue with the argument that "just because we haven't found it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist". By that logic flying unicorns, Elvis and enchanted toilet brushes which belch the national anthem could all still exist...we just haven't found them yet.

Answer 3

I know the definition of a lie, an incorrect statement, and felony perjury (I also know how to spell perjury).

I also know the difference between a founded accusation and innuendo.

I also know how to read a calender and am able to see that the Bush and Reagan administrations continued to do business with Saddam AFTER the attacks on the Kurds took place. That's something that cons love to forget. Between 100 and 200 thousand Kurds were killed while Reagan and later Bush 41 were president and neither one of them did a God Damn thing about it.

Answer 4

The Bush administration has covered all the categories of deception that you posed in your question. Did Saddam have WMDs at the time that George Bush decided to invade and was Iraq a threat to us? The UN inspectors were in Iraq, not finding any WMDs, and Bush made them leave so that he could invade. The inspectors asked for more time but Bush was insistent on invading.

Bush hyped the threat that Iraq represented, which was zero, because he was determined to invade Iraq. He had all of the intelligence available, which we now can see was shaky at best and certainly not a basis for launching an invasion of a sovereign nation.

Bush talked about “mushroom clouds” when he knew there was no evidence that Iraq had access to nuclear weapons materials. The whole Valerie Plame incident was an attempt by the Bush administration to punish Wilson for pointing out that there was no basis for Bush to conclude that Iraq had tried to purchase materials for nuclear weapons. Libby committed felony perjury to protect the Bush administration.

Anyone who objected or even questioned the necessity for invading Iraq was branded un-American and a traitor. Bush lied and spread falsehoods in order to accomplish a plan to invade Iraq that had been developed by the neocons in the 1990s.

Answer 5

There's one problem with your claim. You have no way of knowing whether or not Bush knew the statement to be incorrect when he made it. Of course he's going to say he thought it was true, and of course you're going to believe him. But there is no basis to believe him, really. We know he wanted to invade Iraq (See his statements from the time he took office, months before 9/11), we know that the weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD's, we know that there was no actual consensus in the US intelligence community to support the claim. So, despite your attempt to change facts, at worst Bush lied, pure and simple.

I never said it was perjury. I specifically said it was a lie, which you said it wasn't.

Answer 6

"As to Saddam WMDs, he had them at one time, not only Bush said it, so did Clinton, Kerry, and every other Liberal politician at one time. We even saw him use them on the Kurds in the North. We gave him a decent amount of time to hide, move, or actually get rid of them, but Bush saying Iraq had WMDs is at worst an incorrect statement on is part, not a lie, and certainly not felony perjury."

So "bush said it" for real AND "Bush saying Iraq had WMDs is at worst an incorrect statement on is part"

Huh? Which is it ,man?
WTF?

Which ever you finally choose, THAT is not the "felony perjury".

Launching a pre-emptive strike and then NOT withdrawing it after you ADMIT, as Bush did, that it was launched based on bad intelliegence from the Pentagon is an impeachable breach of the Genevoa Convention.

But Bush is a Republican, so who cares,right?

Answer 7

You're picture does not include the part where time passes and people learn new things. Bush kept insisting the were WMD's long after it was shown that there were none of any significance.

That's when it becomes a lie, hence perjury... not that Bush ever allowed himself to make any statements for the real record (just the slimy old news propaganda machine that served and still serves him)...

Just as Gonzo lied when he said that no one at the Justice Dept. objected to the wire-tapping policy.

A very significant person did, and that was Ashcroft. And Gonzo knew this, and that made "I can't remember" a lie, hence perjury.

Too subtle for you?

Sorry.

Answer 8

Nice try, Alberto. When Bush said that Saddam had WMD's he meant at that moment, in spire of the United Nations inspectors proof that he did not. It was a lie and Bush knew it.

Answer 9

wow. i cannot beleive anyone is so desperate they are still trying to defend the wmds! that is so pathetic.

and they did lie. there was vast amounts of info that they didnt exist - this was carried by news media aqround the globe, just not in the bush-controlled US. Saying they didnt have the info is ridiculous.

but youre just going to spout out the same old stupid lies I guess, burying your head in the sand.

man i am so glad Im not an american, and dont have to deal with your unbearable stupidity

Answer 10

when Bush said that one of the reasons we needed to go to war with Saddam was that he would not allow UN inspectors inside Iraq, was he lying or making a false statement or what?

When in fact they had been there and were told to leave before the bombing started.

Answer 11

If Clinton hid behind executive privilege like Bush does, he never would have testified and never would have been found guilty of perjury.