's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

My, my. The Bushies lied about the health(57 posts)

My, my. The Bushies lied about the healthOldEdScott
Aug 23, 2003 3:20 PM
hazards of working at ground zero for political reasons. What a shock. Do tell.

These people are just outrageous.
i'm getting the impressionrufus
Aug 23, 2003 8:03 PM
that the bushies lie about everything.

do you have a link to a story?
Come on Ed - this type of yellow journalism..Live Steam
Aug 23, 2003 8:05 PM
even seems beneath you. Must be the Mark talking. Who in their right mind wouldn't have thought it wasn't good for anyone to breath. I was down there on many occasions and could smell the stench of burning, rotting flesh and burning steel and who knows what. I had friends and family members working their day after day. Don't even go here. They would do it again. They were there looking for family and friends who they knew would never be found. I don't care if you told them it was radioactive, they would still have gone. This is low and dirty. I would expect better from you. If you have a decent bone in your body you would ask Doug to delete this thread. Are you that desperate?
Here's a link. AndOldEdScott
Aug 24, 2003 6:28 AM
you're right, Steam. People would have done it anyway. There was no reason for the Jacobins in the White House to lie. It's just their nature. They're congenital liars.

Since you seem so desperately hung up on lying about little things like blow jobs, I would think you'd get tired of the big lies coming from your side.

Way to GO, Ed!cory
Aug 24, 2003 3:30 PM
I've been trying to make that point for a couple of years: Why is it a big deal when Clinton lies about an intern, but patriotic when Bush lies us into a war, among other things? Standard answer: "That's DIFFERENT."
Will these people never be held to account?
It's a rear-guard action, my friend.OldEdScott
Aug 24, 2003 4:14 PM
Mainly 'cause that's where they intend for us to take it.

(Oh jeez, I guess I ought to ask Doug to pull this one too.)
What's the difference?TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 9:20 AM
This will probably spark more debate than it should, but for me, the difference is this:

Mr. Clinton, a lawyer by trade, lied under oath (i.e. when he had "sworn" to tell the truth).

Mr. Bush has "lied" in a political context repeatedly - as did his father with the "no new taxes" LIE. If Mr. Bush is brought to testify before a grand jury, I expect him to tell the truth. At a press conference, I expect he will be a politician, and 'spin' the story his way.
A better man would have gladly exposed his mistress?czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 10:20 AM
Would you have a higher opinion of Clinton had he had rolled over imediately and provided the GOP witch-hunters with the prurient details that they were all salivating for?

Clinton told a stupid, but IMO defensible and moreover utterly irrelevant lie. Bush's lies are stupid too, but more importantly they have already cost untold thousands of lives.
I suppose he would have...TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 10:32 AM
If you're in court. And asked to give testimony. You had an indiscretion (which was not the first to be alleged). You have SWORN to tell the truth. Would you lie about it? A better man would have refused to answer, and been found in contempt. Clinton's lie isn't relevant because of what it was about, it was the forum in which he lied that gets me.

If Bush is ever held to account for his actions, I will hold him to the same standard of truth-telling before the court.

My first boss gave me some good advice to live by: never do anything that you would be embarrassed to recount from the witness stand, because there's a decent chance that you will have to.
There are some questions that shouldn't be asked.czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 10:58 AM
Nonetheless, I agree that Clinton should have refused to answer. Of course, being found in contempt would likely have had just as detrimental an effect on his ability to do his job and given his critics just as much an excuse to cite his contempt for our legal system. It would also have "proven" that he had something to hide, when at the end of the day it was proven that he didn't.

Personally, I think the kangaroo court that the GOP and Starr were running pretty much nullifies the oath that Clinton took. The whole process was politicized and perverted, belying any solemn invocations of the sanctity of our courts and the legal system. The "forum" you refer to was done far greater damage by the OIC and its leaks and corruption -- which nobody who was traumatized by Clinton's penny-ante machinations seems to care about.
There are some questions that shouldn't be asked.TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 11:03 AM
I agree that not answering and being held in contempt would have more severely impacted his ability to do his job. But you asked what a better man would have done, and that is what the better man would have done.

Had he refused to answer, he could have made Starr look like the jackass that he was, and he [Clinton] would have looked like the principled statesman that he was not. I have no sympathy for Ken Starr, but two wrongs do not make a right.
I don't think it made much difference.czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 11:32 AM
Even in a refusal to answer would have been seen as a defacto admission to whatever lurid and sinister rumors the GOP and its operatives were spreading.

I asked if a better man would have exposed his mistress, which is the only thing Clinton could have done to mollify his persecuters. Of course, it wouldn't have mollified them one bit -- they would have continued their obstruction of his administration and their smear campaign against his friends and family.
I agree,TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 11:36 AM
I agree that it would have been seen as a defacto admission. But it would have made him at least appear principled. Regardless, it's over with, so the Democrats now get their turn at the smear game.
Full circle: Is exposing your mistress "principled" ?czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 11:54 AM
IMO, it is not, and he would have recieved no less criticism had he forgone the principles of loyalty and chivalry for the principle of legal CYA.
Hahahaha! Now he's chivalrous? LOL!!!!!!Live Steam
Aug 25, 2003 12:06 PM
Yeah he was very gallant getting head from an impressionable intern that was close to his daughter age. Now that's funny in a sad way! LOL!
Gee, Lancelot, maybe she wasn't so weak as you assume? nmczardonic
Aug 25, 2003 12:11 PM
Um, no...TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 12:12 PM
I have entirely contended that he should have refused to answer those questions and been held in contempt. That would have been the principled and "chivalrous" thing to do. Far more principled than lying under oath.
You also conceded. . .czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 12:20 PM
. . .that to refuse to answer would have been assumed to be an answer in the affirmative. Moreover, it would have been an invitation to open-ended speculation.

This could be one of those situations where ethics and morals fall on opposite sides of an issue.
Yes I did,TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 12:28 PM
The "chivalrous" thing to do was to take the brunt of the assumed affirmative and open-ended speculation, but be the better man for it.
Don't think it works that way.czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 12:36 PM
Clinton could not have taken the brunt. A refusal to answer would have focused even more attention on Monica. In effect, he would have been hanging her out to dry to save his own backside.

But I get what you are saying in general.
Agreed nmPdxMark
Aug 25, 2003 12:21 PM
I think you're forgetting something.DJB
Aug 25, 2003 12:26 PM
OK, so forgetting is too kind a word. Ignoring is more like it.

Clinton lying to Starr wasn't the first time he lied under oath about Lewinsky. But in that case he was 'only' lying about perjury (and subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice...).

The first time was in the Jones case.

Think what you may about why the case was brought forward, the fact is, Clinton didn't just lie about getting a bj or three, he lied about committing sexual harassment. He knew full well the stakes he faced. The questions about Lewinsky couldn't have been asked if they weren't relevant to the case.

Every time you trot out the "He only lied about sex" line, you're winking at sexual harassment. You approve that he (temporarily) got away with it.

Paula Jones: Paragon of credibility? (nm)czardonic
Aug 25, 2003 12:39 PM
That was up to the court to decide. (nm)DJB
Aug 25, 2003 5:07 PM
Can you say, Anita Hill? (nm)94Nole
Aug 25, 2003 7:47 PM
Who the hell are the Bushies?Ace Rimmer
Aug 23, 2003 8:17 PM
And who put them in charge of clean up? Where was OSHA? EPA? DNR?
Union Saftey Adivsors, and company saftey commitees, which are made up of management and labor,all of these people and then some have reponsiblity for workers saftey. The ultimate responsiblity lies with each companies saftey director which they are required by OSHA to have. Those buildings were full of toxic building products used back in 60's, and anyone that entered that area should have known that, or have been made aware of the proper PPE that they were required to wear. I've worked on demo projects, where I haven't felt well for weeks after the job is over, I hate to think what caused it.
It's ok guys. This isn't Ed.jesse1
Aug 24, 2003 3:42 AM
I've seen Ed's posts before, and I know this isn't him. There's not enough info. The style of writing isn't up to his standards.
If it is him, he's either been taken over by aliens (don't forget Mars is pretty close right now), or someone has given him a case of the big cans of Fosters.
Just stunned into uncharacteristic, stutteringOldEdScott
Aug 24, 2003 6:32 AM
silence by the continuing outrages perpetrated by the cheap third-world junta that has seized control of the White House
This doesn't seem so terrible.Sintesi
Aug 24, 2003 7:32 AM
There is no data in regards to what risk there was, in fact the biggest complaint is there was incomplete data not opposing data to what was officially told the public.

I do think that, if possible, partisans running this up the flagpole should determine what the actual risk was before calling this outrageous.

Another thing, immediately after 9/11 downtown was utter chaos, everyone was terrified of another attack, etc.... I can understand how a desire to reassure the public and keep them calm might lead some officials to omit some news about what "might" have been a danger that they "may" have deemed slight (although they had no proof of that apparently). It's a judgment call that in retrospect may have been a bad one but still the pressure on officials at that time was immense. You think you can be trusted to make the right decision every time under those circumstances?

This should be investigated and corrected if indeed an error was made but you shouldn't be trying to make partisan hay out of this or try to characterize the administration as malignantly aligned against the public to serve the narrrow interests of big business. That really doesn't wash with me. You may want to consider that this is a tiny speck in an ocean of things the Bush administration did right during 9/11. No?

BTW, you come across so obviously biased and partisan it's difficult for people to take your views seriously. Your world weary sarcastic pose merely causes peoples' defenses to go up and resist your premise immediately regardless of merit. Your argumentative, aggressive, provocative style may be making you ineffective and easily disregarded. Something to consider.
Doubt I'd have much effect on you in any event.OldEdScott
Aug 24, 2003 7:44 AM
We'll just wait to see what the American people think of the accumulated record of deception, come next year. Maybe they'll think it's great, in which case, you win. That's politics, eh?

I didn't vote for Bush so there.Sintesi
Aug 24, 2003 8:47 AM
But this is tiny in comparison to all the good that was done yes.
Fine, they'd have been much better off causing panic...TJeanloz
Aug 24, 2003 8:13 AM
Yeah, keeping people out of Manhattan for a few weeks while the EPA tried to collect data would have been really productive.

The problem with all of these lies is that not one of them that I have seen rises above the level of everyday political positioning. An honest politician? Hah.
Hey Ed maybe you should read before you stick ...Live Steam
Aug 24, 2003 12:04 PM
your foot in your mouth. From your original post it is evident you just read the snippets in the CBS News article. This is typical yellow journalism on their part as well as yours. Read the report and tell us all that you would come to the same conclusion. The link is attached to the original article, but I have provided it here for your convenience.

Before you and the rest of the shoot from the lip, Dumocrats start attacking Bush on lies, you should have proof. Lack of evidence is not proof. The American public will see right through your intent. The American public is sick and tired of dirty pool politics and mud slinging. That was proven to be fairly evident in the last election cycle and will be a bigger factor this time around. I can see the desperation in your party. Losing more seats in both houses and losing the executive office again, has you all in a panic. I am looking forward to 2004!

Your friend,
Bill AKA Steam

PS your party has no problem supporting a murderer for the last 34 years, who had the transcripts from his trial sealed with daddy's money. I will happily supply the board with background information on many of the higher profile Dumocrats and their lies and dirty deeds. There's plenty of them and the Net is a great source for finding them.
Will you visit me in the detention camp when yourOldEdScott
Aug 24, 2003 12:31 PM
party solves the Dumocrat Party problem once and for all? I hear PATRIOT II is on the way. But please do visit. I'll miss your felicitous and constructive criticisms!

('Lack of evidence is not proof' could apply to all sorts of recent public policy decisions, don't you think?)
tired of dirty pool politics and mud slinging!? LOLPdxMark
Aug 25, 2003 6:32 AM
Well, with your unflinching support of the Party that perfected "dirty pool politics and mud slinging," I find your new-found quest for a higher political discussion fascinating. Is "Dumocrat" how you avoid mud slinging? Do you not see the contradiction in your indignant posturing, or are you just "dum?"

How many years did your GOP demonize Clinton (as many of you on this Board still do), over a Whitewater investigation that was groundless, went no-where, and ultimately resulted in exoneration? How about politically-motivated funding of the Paula Jones suit, which finally hit paydirt when Clinton lied about Monica's BJ?

As for citing first sources, you should thumb through them before you accuse Ed of mis-representing facts. If you had, you might have found this conclusion (Exec. Summary):

"EPA's early public statements following the collapse of the WTC towers reassured the public regarding the safety of the air outside the Ground Zero area. However, when EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was "safe" to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of concern, including particulate matter and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Furthermore, The White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring
statements and delete cautionary ones."

More explicitly, anything said by the EPA was to be cleared by the WH (see p.15):

However, the White House's role in EPA's public communications about WTC environmental conditions was described in a September 12, 2001, e-mail from the EPA Deputy Administrator's Chief of Staff to senior EPA officials:
All statements to the media should be cleared through the
NSC [National Security Council] before they are released.

Or even more explicitly (p.17):

When we asked the EPA Chief of Staff whether she could claim ownership of EPA's early WTC press releases, she replied that she was not able to do so "because the ownership was joint ownership between EPA and the White House," and that "final approval came from the White House."

So, the point here is... The EPA is supposed to be giving people information that is as accurate as possible - based on evidence. Here is a study showing that the EPA gave assurances that were not suppoerted by evidence, were not even supported by the EPA, but rather were explicitly "approved" by GW BuSh's WH.

Where is the lie? Did the WH lie to the public in Sept. 2001, or is the EPA telling a lie now? It seems clear the GW BuSh's WH lied to the public.
"it did not have sufficient data and analyses " ???DougSloan
Aug 25, 2003 6:53 AM
That's the best you can do to dredge up a "lie" attributable to the President? Sounds like a nit-picky expert witness in trial hair split, but hardly a legitimate public policy concern.

Some are crying wolf with these "lie" claims so often that no one is going to listen.

Stating that someone has told a "lie" when you have no or very little evidence of it is a lie, too. Anyone concerned about that?

I still have yet to read about any like told by Bush, that he stated a fact that was known to be false by him at the time. Anything?

The fact that Dumbya's ignorant of facts doesn't seem to preventOldEdScott
Aug 25, 2003 7:08 AM
him from cavalierly disregarding the truth or falsehood of what he says, in pursuit of his political aims. He's ignorant about Iraq, so he just stupulates weapons of mass destruction et al to justify a war. He's ignorant about the health threat posed 9/11, so he just stipulates all is well. Consequences be damned. Ignorance is a great defense.

'Known to be false by him at the time.' Talk about a nit-picky hair split!

Here's what you just said, filtered through my fiendish Dumocrat distortion machine:

Dumbya doesn't give a sh!t what's true, he just knows what he WANTS to be true, and as long as he's relentlessly ignorant of the facts, you can't call saying it a 'lie.'

Wow. That's worthy of Clinton there, Doug.
You have that backwards...Tri_Rich
Aug 25, 2003 7:11 AM
It is only by spliting hairs that you can claim Bush has been telling the truth. His statements have been clearly designed to mislead the American people.
LOL!!! Clinton demonized himself!Live Steam
Aug 25, 2003 8:45 AM
He and Hillarity were never cleared of wrong doing in Whitewater. The star witness died mysteriously in prison and his wife went to prison rather than be forced to testify against the Arkansas mob, knowing she would never have survived to tell her story. Ken Star concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to continue - not surprising and no exoneration for the Clintons.

Tell me that Hillarity didn't know she was receiving a $50,000 check from a criminal with criminal ties to communist China. Tell me that the Clinton administration and the DNC didn't sell their collective souls to communist China. Look at all the proof. Barbara Boxter was in on the deal as well. I can understand some foreigner not agreeing with this administration, but this president is a patriot first and puts AMERICAN interests first unlike the Clintons. That's fine with me. I am an AMERICAN. Too many foreign interests have a hand in what happens here as it is. I think we need to stem that tide.

The days immediately after 9/11 were considered a national crisis. During times of a national crisis, the president has wide spread authority. His office tried to prevent further panic. Again, the report only says that the WH had final say as to what was reported and it says that a few minor changes were made to the wording of the release. The report says that it has yet to be determined what the health risks were and what the long term affects may be. Again who, whith a modest intelligence, would have thought that air was safe to breath?
Apparently Dumbya didn't have a 'modest intelligence,' sinceOldEdScott
Aug 25, 2003 8:54 AM
he thought it was just fine.
Lack of evidence is not proof.rufus
Aug 25, 2003 12:39 PM
works for WMD's. "we know" they're there. we have no evidence of it, but they are there, believe us.
george isn't smart enough to be evil.MR_GRUMPY
Aug 24, 2003 1:15 PM
He's got some bad dudes working for him, that I wouldn't turn my back on, but all in all, george seems like someone that I could be working with. If he hadn't been born to George I, he would have ended up as a customer service rep, who I would have to visit a few times a day, to explain how he had screwed up a customer's order. I'm sure that he could get by on $25-30,000 a year.
"lie lie lie bla bla bla Bush lie bla bla ... " nmDougSloan
Aug 25, 2003 6:25 AM
Inform yourselves?Jon Billheimer
Aug 25, 2003 9:11 AM
I realize that the far right ideologues on this board share the president's contempt for any information which might contradict their ideological mindset. However, for anyone who is genuinely concerned with the current dysfunction in American representative democracy you might want to check out Robert Kuttner's article at dealing with the Bush administration's Orwellian use/misuse of language and information, and the link within that article to a recent speech delivered by Al Gore.

"lie lie lie bla bla bla Bush", etc. is definitely having some unsalutary effects both on America's political and economic future.
What so many of you fail to grasp...TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 9:33 AM
What many of you fail to grasp is that even if the Bush administration DID lie, which I fully acknowledge they did, we support their actions rather than their words.

I don't care who Bush said would benefit (read "lied about" if you are a Democrat) from the tax cut, I still think it was the correct thing to do.

I don't care what evidence was given for removing Saddam Hussein, I still think it was the right thing to do.

Do I blindly support the Administration? No. I think the USA Patriot Act is a piece of trash. But for the most part, I look at the decisions that have been made, and I say: "that's probably what I would have done." There are, of course, exceptions. And when it comes to 2004, if the best the Democratic Party has to offer me is John Kerry or Howard Dean, I, as an independent "swing" voter, really don't have a choice but to vote for another 4 years of Mr. Bush.
What so many of you fail to grasp...Jon Billheimer
Aug 25, 2003 9:44 AM
I think you're absolutely right about the American people supporting the administration's behaviour and excusing it's dishonesty. So how does that bode for the future of American democracy? Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. If you give away your right and expectation to receive accurate information you give away the only tool you have with which to make informed decisions. I would think that would concern anyone who values representative government. Also, if you are concerned about the preservation of liberty and respect for constitutional rights I would think that the Patriot Act, especially in the hands of the Ashcroft zealots, would scare the bejeezus out of you.
What so many of you fail to grasp...TJeanloz
Aug 25, 2003 9:53 AM
I made it clear that the USA Patriot Act is, in my mind, a worthless piece of trash.

And furthermore, I agree with you that accurate information is the basis of representative democracy. However, it is naive to expect that the Government would provide accurate information. I prefer to distrust all information that comes from the Government, and look to non-government sources for a more accurate picture.

I think the "Information Age" bodes very well for representative democracy - we now know, sooner than we ever have before, news and varying viewpoints. Can you imagine how much "lying" the FDR administration did during WWII? Information is king. Independent Information is the only kind worth looking at.
Machiavelli couldn't have said it better (nm)Starliner
Aug 25, 2003 10:23 AM
Excellent! From The Prince, Chapter 18OldEdScott
Aug 25, 2003 10:44 AM
But it is necessary ... to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived...

Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion...

For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.
Your candor is appreciated...PdxMark
Aug 25, 2003 10:41 AM
It's the one reasonable explanation I've heard that reconciles support for selected BuSh policies with his lack of truthfulness about them.

Part of the reason for pointing out BuSh's lies, or statements that lack "sufficient data or analyses," is that his supposed candor seems to be a rallying point for his faithful. In some of these discussions I've been seeking from the BuSh faithful here explanations to reconcile what BuSh says with what he does. I didn't get a single reasonable explanation in those situations because, I suspect, there wasn't one.

The problem as I see it is that not all of BuSh's supporters realize he is lying to them about some of these policies. They believe him. They think what he says about a policy actually explains or is consistent with that policy, when it's not. I don't think it's unreasonable to support certain BuSh policies. I just think it's unreasonable to support them for the reasons BuSh gives.
Hahahaha! A truly unbiased source of information! LOL!Live Steam
Aug 25, 2003 9:40 AM
Al Gore is one to talk about mincing words. He has parsed words so often I wonder if he knows what the meaning of the wors "is" is, too. Oh that's right he was taking a leak and uh, he didn't know he was in a Buddhist Temple! Hahahaha!
Hahahaha! A truly unbiased source of information! LOL!Jon Billheimer
Aug 25, 2003 9:46 AM
Steam, you're hardly one to comment on information bias, IMO.
Touché :O) nmLive Steam
Aug 25, 2003 9:54 AM
LMAO! Steam, you're one of a kind! You almost sink theOldEdScott
Aug 25, 2003 10:04 AM
board with post after post of unvarnished wing-nut vitriol above, then complain about information bias! I wish I was half as nervy as you -- I'd get rich in this business!
Where do I sign up?Live Steam
Aug 25, 2003 10:43 AM
Maybe I can be like a Carville from the right :O) He throws all sorts of stuff out there hoping something will stick.

Hey these guys got caught with their hands in the China bowl. I know they were investigated, but it was on Janet Reno's watch. What was she going to do about it?

Bush's alleged lies are just that. You will need to prove he lied. It is easy to prove that Clinton, Hillarity, Al Bore and the rest of that disgraceful bunch were selling tickets to the WH for anyone willing to pay the price. I don't know why the Republican party didn't pursue this to it's fullest. I think this was a far greater and more dangerous offence against the sovereignty of this nation that anything I can think of. I think it should be brought back to light during the 04 campaign. I will have to make that suggestion at the next meeting :O)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OldEdScott
Aug 25, 2003 10:46 AM
"I don't know why the Republican party didn't pursue this to it's fullest."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn't that the way it works ? :O) nmLive Steam
Aug 25, 2003 2:28 PM