--

The Day Dan Rather Lied

The Day Dan Rather Lied :)
http://www.kfyi.com/promo/liddy_hill/audio/daydanratherlied.wma
Permalink Steve-O 
March 4th, 2005
I think he just made some false statements.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 4th, 2005
Dan may have lied, or he may have been misled, but President Bush is still a dangerous asshole.
Permalink muppet 
March 4th, 2005
<g> snything similar for the day(s) bush lied?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 4th, 2005
What day was that?

There could be, that is if he lied...
Permalink Steve-O 
March 4th, 2005
Google reports 146,000 results for "Bush lies".
Permalink misanthrope 
March 4th, 2005
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
&#8226; President Bush, 1/3/03

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
&#8226; President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
&#8226; President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
&#8226; President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
&#8226; President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
&#8226; President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
&#8226; President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
&#8226; President Bush, 10/2/02
Permalink Almost Anonymous 
March 4th, 2005
&#8220;One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.&#8221;
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

&#8220;If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq&#8217;s weapons of mass destruction program.&#8221;
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

&#8220;Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.&#8221;
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

&#8220;He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.&#8221;
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

&#8220;We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq&#8217;s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.&#8221;
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

&#8220;Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.&#8221;
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

&#8220;Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.&#8221;
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

&#8220;There is no doubt that &#8230; Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.&#8221;
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

&#8220;We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.&#8221;
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

&#8220;We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.&#8221;
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

&#8220;Iraq&#8217;s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.&#8221;
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

&#8220;We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.&#8221;
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

&#8220;The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons&#8230;&#8221;
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

&#8220;I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force&#8211; if necessary&#8211; to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.&#8221;
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

&#8220;There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years &#8230; We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.&#8221;
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

&#8220;He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do&#8221; Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

&#8220;In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.&#8221;
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

&#8220;We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.&#8221;
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

&#8220;Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation &#8230; And now he is miscalculating America&#8217;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction&#8230; So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real &#8230;&#8221;
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
Permalink Steve-O 
March 4th, 2005
So, how are these any different than the "Bush Lies"...
Permalink Steve-O 
March 4th, 2005
Steve, I'm a bit ill to go through those one at a time (I will, if you insist), but most of those are, well, context-free, semantically null, and from people other than Clinton.

to address the very first:

+++&#8220;One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.&#8221;
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998+++

Seems like he did a good job, they weren't there, were they?
Permalink muppet 
March 4th, 2005
I insist you do read them. And btw, you can make any excuse you want, "taken out of context", "faulty intelligence", "Bush Senior, Collin Powell, Swartzkopk lied to the democrats", "The devil made them do it", blah, blah, blah.
Permalink Steve-O 
March 4th, 2005
There's a big difference between lying and telling what you believe to be the truth.
Permalink Bush rulez! 
March 4th, 2005
All of AA's examples were ACTUALLY PRESIDENT BUSH. Your examples were from people in Clinton's cabinet, for the most part, which don't qualify in a comparison of apples to apples. The rest seem pretty inocuous, to me. If you're going to write off any rational explanation as "excuses", then I suppose it's futile to argue with an idiot like you.

It's just too bad that this country is half full of idiots. Really that was a fact we were all aware of already, it only took the election to drive it home.
Permalink muppet 
March 4th, 2005
Like I said, excuses excuses. Btw, I notice that when you can't argue for your position, you resort to name calling.
What else should I expect from "muppet".
Permalink Steve-O 
March 4th, 2005
"Your examples were from people in Clinton's cabinet, for the most part, which don't qualify in a comparison of apples to apples. The rest seem pretty inocuous, to me."

OMG could you be any more of an apologist? They are quotes by Clinton, two Democratic Presidential candidates, and a lot of elected Democratic congresspersons.

To say on the one hand that Bush is evil *because of his statements about WMD* then wave your hands about THE SAME STATEMENTS from Democratic leaders is the purest partisanism - if a Republican says it, he's deluded. If a Democrat says it, he's mistaken.

I just lost any respect I had for you, muppet.

Bush has a TON of problems. The PATRIOT Act, DHS, putting Ashcroft in the AG office, not firing the heads of the CIA and FBI on 9/12, not firing a lot of military leadership after Abu Gharaib, the ongoing abuses in Guantanamo, Norfolk, and Iraq, his growing wall of secrecy around the Executive Branch - the list goes on.

But to simply use the WMD thing then excuse the democrats who said the same thing?

Hypocrisy.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 4th, 2005
How about...

When did Kerry lie?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 4th, 2005
+++THE SAME STATEMENTS from Democratic leaders is the purest partisanism - if a Republican says it, he's deluded. If a Democrat says it, he's mistaken.+++

All right Philo, you fucking moron, let's analyze this a bit.

Steve-O posted a bunch of crap about Dan Rather. I commented that regardless of Rather's integrity, Bush is still an idiot.

Stevey then responded by bashing Clinton (as if this were the least bit relevant). Then for evidence, he cites questionable quotes by several Democrats (most of whom weren't Clinton)

Now maybe you're one of those sort that figures one "Democrat" is the same as another (sort of like all niggers are the same), but in that case, you're twice an idiot.

Apologist? No. I just said that Steve's arguments weren't relevant to his initial assertion, and they weren't.
Permalink muppet 
March 4th, 2005
Philo -

The statements posted by Almost Anonymous and by Steve-O are almost entirely not the same. I suggest you reread them critically.

e.g.

&#8220;Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.&#8221;
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

vs.

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
&#8226; President Bush, 1/3/03

The first statement says: Saddam Hussein, or the leader of another state with similar disregard for international law, could attack our allies and this could, in turn affect us.

The second statement says: Saddam Hussein is capable of attacking every person in the USA.

Only one of these statements is true.
Permalink Devil's Advocate 
March 4th, 2005
Maybe the Clinton admin lies (falsehoods) seem innocuous compared to Bush's lies because Clinton didn't invade Iraq after great public fanfare of said falsehoods, spend hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars, cause the deaths of 1500+ coalition soldiers and untold numbers of innocents, and deliver the ruined nation into the hands of islamic fundamentalists.

So how is it that Clinton's lies seem innocuous by comparison? That is a puzzler...
Permalink Mordecai Ali Van Allen O'Shea 
March 4th, 2005
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

they're not 'untold'
Permalink muppet 
March 4th, 2005
Does Joel have variations of the checkmark that are bloodied and bruised?

There is a world of difference between diplomatic talk when you aggrandize perceived threats, and sober sales talk when you're actively trying to sell a nation on a war. I read into Clinton on crew's rhetoric a little bit of hyperbole, but on the flip side they weren't eagerly getting the troops ready to invade. The stakes, and responsibility for accuracy and truthfulness, are vastly higher for the latter.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
March 4th, 2005
Well, all we have is a range-- an estimate-- not a precise figure. That's what I meant by 'untold'. You want to argue over that characterization? Sheesh
Permalink Mordecai Ali Van Allen O'Shea 
March 4th, 2005
Steve-0, thanks for agreeing with me.

"There could be, that is if he lied..."
"So, how are these any different than the "Bush Lies"...

First you say Bush didn't lie and then you imply that he did lie, but it's ok because everyone does it? So ok, we're agreed then, Bush is a lier.

Maybe you should think about taking Bush off that mighty high pedistal you have him on. He's just a politician like the rest of them and frankly not a very good one.

The political debate the US has pretty much reached rock bottom: My pampered, rich, Yale graduate, in the pocket of every corporation, power hungry candidate is better than your pampered, rich, Yale graduate, in the pocket of every corporation, power hungry candidate. It doesn't matter if you're on the winning team, you're all losers anyway.
Permalink Almost Anonymous 
March 4th, 2005
First of all, my post was meant as a joke to poke at Dan Rather. Muppet and AA started with the tired, old, Bush bashing crap. Remember, the original post was about Dan Rather. But as soon as someone critizes a sacred leftist cow, the dummycraps have to respond with the only weapons in the arsenal: Bush Bashing (when the post had nothing to do directly with GWB).

Ok, then AA tries to be a smart-ass with supposed "Bush Lies". Well, I thought I would respond with the same rhetoric from the democrats. And then all you, kool-aid, drinking, liberalista's get your undies in a bunch and start with your excuses about how it was different when democrats wanted to go after Hussien. Muppet starts with his insults, because that's the only thing he knows how to do when he is called to the carpet.

As soon as you kool-aid drinking, wannabe liberals, are ready to be consistent and display some resemblence to honesty, then your position will have some credibility, like the real liberals of the past (Prior to 1950) who fought for civil rights, labor rights, child rights, women's rights. Until then, you will continue to lose elections, and keep turning over red states.
Permalink Steve-O 
March 5th, 2005
"First of all, my post was meant as a joke to poke at Dan Rather."

Good one.

I didn't come on to do any Bush bashing as you said. But I simply couldn't let that "that is if he lied..." comment go -- it's one thing to support your president, it's another to be completely naive about it.

"Well, I thought I would respond with the same rhetoric from the democrats."

See that's where you go off course. You make the false assumption that because I'm trying to shed some light on your false assumptions that I must be a Democrat. Nice try but I'm not. So what are you trying to prove anyway?
Permalink Almost Anonymous 
March 5th, 2005
AA,

I agree, there are many conservative (and libertarian) reasons to hate bush.

And enough of this 51% of America are fools -- I'd put that number at at least 80%. Present company excluded of course.
Permalink D 
March 5th, 2005
Steve-O
You weren't joking, you were trolling. You got exactly what you expected, a defensive reaction from people you tried to taunt. And now you cry foul because off-topic replies?
Permalink Mordecai Ali Van Allen O'Shea 
March 5th, 2005
Mordecai,

I don't know if you knew this or not, but the off-topic is the repository for "troll" like posts, to keep some sanity in the other forums. So no suprise on my part. If anyone is confused here it seems to be you.
Permalink Steve-O 
March 5th, 2005
Ah, so you think that's what this forum is here for, for your nonsense? Ah. Ok.
Permalink muppet 
March 5th, 2005
No, it's here for your nonsense as well...
Or is this part of that liberal inconsistency again: any posts that have a conservative bent to them are nonsense, any posts bashing coservatives & GWB are truth...
Permalink Steve-O 
March 5th, 2005
Who's talking about political slant?

"I don't know if you knew this or not, but the off-topic is the repository for "troll" like posts"

So in other words, your position is that this place is all for hate and bile and antagonism.

That's funny because I thought it was for anything that didn't pertain to "Joel on Software"
Permalink muppet 
March 5th, 2005
Geez, man you jump to some off the wall conclusions. A "troll" post can be anything like, I think J2EE is better than .NET, or VB6 programmers are not real programmers. Or I think Bush Lied or I think bush tells the truth... Has nothing to do with vile, hate, as you put it. Take a chill pill. Maybe you should lay off the off-topic forum for a while and get some perspective.
Permalink Steve-O 
March 5th, 2005
Ok.

Did Kerry lie?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 5th, 2005
No, Kerry did not lie, he was misled, fooled, hoodwinked, had the wool pulled over his eyes by the GWB.

There, happy now muppet?
Permalink Steve-O 
March 5th, 2005
I'd just note that those Clinton statements are dated.

It does not take even a month to stop such a program if one is inclined to do so. It isn't as if the centrifuges are spinning and there's nothing the controller can do.

And to change an existing bumper sticker....

"When Rather lied, noone died."
Permalink I am Jack's little lie 
March 7th, 2005
> &#8220;One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.&#8221;
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


Small point:

Given that this is supposed to be a lie, how come the weapons of mass destruction didn't actually exist?

Clinton said Saddam wouldn't get them, and Bush couldn't find them (despite claiming that they were there).

Isn't that interesting?
Permalink  
March 7th, 2005
I think you may have misunderstood somewhere.

Clinton's 'lie' was definitely a lie. It was just not this statement but another he made (about relations with Monica) that was his big lie.
Permalink I am Jack's lie littany 
March 7th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics