Is Fox News preparing us for war with Venezuela?

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Venezuela has a lot of oil. We use a lot of oil. Venezuela is our fourth largest supplier of oil. Venezuela's president has a mind of his own. Two days ago, for example, he blasted US imperialism. Are we getting ready to do something bad to Venezuela to (l) teach it a lesson, and (2) get control of its oil?

Fox News is running a special on Venezuela. Is Fox beginning the brainwashing process, laying the ground work for something being planned by the Bush administration? Here is what Fox says in the promos for its special:

Part I (aired Tuesday night):

"Venezuela. A country in turmoil. Now our explosive investigation exposes allegations of political corruption, violence and how the policies of its controversial leader could put it on a collision course with the U.S. It's Part I of Steve Harrigan's series. Tuesday on the Fox Report."

Part II (to air tonight):

"It drives business and fuels our economy. Oil. It's the life-blood of America. But, are we about to be cut off? Venezuela. We expose the truth about its leader. Could Hugo Chavez create a crisis? It's Part II of Steve Harrigan's series. Tonight, on the Fox Report."

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/02/02/is_fox_news_prepping_us_for_war_wvenezuela.php

I get the feeling that there might be an outside chance that all this sabre-rattling towards Iran and Syria might be a smokescreen to go after Chavez. Chavez represents the poor in Venezuela, was democratically elected by the people TWICE, has reduced unemployment, and funded education and poverty-elimination initiatives -- which threaten the fundamental beliefs of our current administration. But Chavez also controls much of the world's oil along with others. I wouldn't be suprised if the U.S. came up with another "justification" to go into Venezuela, dispose of Chavez, and set up a U.S.-friendly government who will give the U.S. some sweeheart deals on oil that will directly benefit our administration's friends once again. Condi Rice has just recently spoken harsh words towards Venezuela which may be an omen of things to come. This would truly be yet another great travesty in American history.

Here is a link to more information about Chavez: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2118/stories/20040910005011000.htm
 
Canada has a bunch of oil shale. Maybe we should invade them too. They talk about us behind our backs. :)
 
Hey, it's not that hard to theorize since the Bush cartel is so transparent. :roll:

They've already backed one failed government overthrow attempt in Venezuela a year or two ago.
 
Exactly E-Z-B. I think some people seem to forget these countries have the RIGHT to critisize us instead of saying "Yes Massa sir." to us like some of these other countries. I think these countries fucking up our oil supply in terms of the flow only helps steer us more towards environmentally friendly resources which can help us in the long run plus getting away from oil's dependence only makes Saudi Arabia's influence over us weaker.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Say hi to Oliver Stone and Michael Moore at your next conspiracy theory meeting. :roll: :dunce:[/quote]

Four years ago, if you had told me that we would be going to war with 2 middle east countries (one for completely false and unfounded reasons), ban federal research of stem cells, have a president who trusts the voices in his head over the advice of his own "flesh-and-blood" father, censor anything on TV and radio that might offend a xian fundamentalist, and that we would re-elect a draft-dodging President who endorsed the worst attorney general in the history of the United States of America, I would have thought you were crazy. No more.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='neocisco']Say hi to Oliver Stone and Michael Moore at your next conspiracy theory meeting. :roll: :dunce:[/quote]

Four years ago, if you had told me that we would be going to war with 2 middle east countries (one for completely false and unfounded reasons), ban federal research of stem cells, have a president who trusts the voices in his head over the advice of his own "flesh-and-blood" father, censor anything on TV and radio that might offend a xian fundamentalist, and that we would re-elect a draft-dodging President who endorsed the worst attorney general in the history of the United States of America, I would have thought you were crazy. No more.[/quote]

Are you talking about Clinton or Bush ?

-War with 2 countries for unfounded reasons: Somalia, Yugoslavia,

-A 1996 federal law banned the use of tax dollars for research that destroys or harms embryos.

- a president who trusts the voices in his 'little' head over the advice of his own "flesh-and-blood" wife to stop fucking the interns.

-v-chip legislation and countless attacks on the public schools to filter internet access. FTC and FCC investigations and congressional hearings on mandated TV ratings, Videogame ratings, and threatened actions against recording artists for 'obscene' content.

- a twice elected draft dodger.

- the worst attorney general ever appointed, who ordered the massacre of the branch-dividians. Who's stomping on civil rights now, biatch !

Gee, things are so different with Bush.....
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='neocisco']Say hi to Oliver Stone and Michael Moore at your next conspiracy theory meeting. :roll: :dunce:[/quote]

Four years ago, if you had told me that we would be going to war with 2 middle east countries (one for completely false and unfounded reasons), ban federal research of stem cells, have a president who trusts the voices in his head over the advice of his own "flesh-and-blood" father, censor anything on TV and radio that might offend a xian fundamentalist, and that we would re-elect a draft-dodging President who endorsed the worst attorney general in the history of the United States of America, I would have thought you were crazy. No more.[/quote]

Are you talking about Clinton or Bush ?

-War with 2 countries for unfounded reasons: Somalia, Yugoslavia,

-A 1996 federal law banned the use of tax dollars for research that destroys or harms embryos.

- a president who trusts the voices in his 'little' head over the advice of his own "flesh-and-blood" wife to stop shaq-fuing the interns.

-v-chip legislation and countless attacks on the public schools to filter internet access. FTC and FCC investigations and congressional hearings on mandated TV ratings, Videogame ratings, and threatened actions against recording artists for 'obscene' content.

- a twice elected draft dodger.

- the worst attorney general ever appointed, who ordered the massacre of the branch-dividians. Who's stomping on civil rights now, biatch !

Gee, things are so different with Bush.....[/quote]

You really think Somalia or Yugoslavia have anything on Iraq? Really?

Yeah Janet Reno stopped the Branch Davidians. But she didn't take away my right to privacy.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
Are you talking about Clinton or Bush ?

-War with 2 countries for unfounded reasons: Somalia, Yugoslavia, [/quote]

I like clinton, but I rarely defend him. That being said, somalia was in the midst of a bloody civil war. Yugoslavia was in the beginning of genocide. If we had invaded Iraq when saddam was gassing the kurds then they go together, but we didn't.

- a president who trusts the voices in his 'little' head over the advice of his own "flesh-and-blood" wife to stop shaq-fuing the interns.
Click to expand...

I may not always fully understand peoples obsession with how moral someones private life is, so I'm not even going to try. What I will ask though, did he create more terrorists due to fucking monica? Did he invade and occupy a country due to fucking monica? Did he work towards isolating the u.s. from the rest of the world, due to fucking monica? Seriously, as long as the guy isn't doing anything illegal, such as beating his wife, what happens in his private life should have little effect on how they are percieved to perform in their public life.


- a twice elected draft dodger.
Click to expand...

Who was the "war president" again?


- the worst attorney general ever appointed, who ordered the massacre of the branch-dividians. Who's stomping on civil rights now, biatch !
Click to expand...

At least she wasn't restricting the rights of the entire population, and continuously ignoring anti torture laws. And one thing you can say for her is, at least she got the right people. She turned the situation into a disaster, but she found the right people. Ashcroft, sporting his shiny 0 in 5000 record on foreign nationals, can't even get it right .0002% of the time..

Gee, things are so different with Bush.....
Click to expand...

Clinton wasn't perfect, but things are different.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

- a twice elected draft dodger.

[/quote]

yeah, how about someone who went awol from a post his daddy got him so he wouldnt have to fight. Yet he is willing to send over 2000 men and women to their death without any remorse. Time will show him to be one of the worst presidents of our lifetime, and possibly all time.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'][quote name='bmulligan']

- a twice elected draft dodger.

[/quote]

yeah, how about someone who went awol from a post his daddy got him so he wouldnt have to fight. Yet he is willing to send over 2000 men and women to their death without any remorse. Time will show him to be one of the worst presidents of our lifetime, and possibly all time.[/quote]

Not to mention Bush is a two-times drunk driver backed up by Cheney, a seven-times drunk driver (and that was back in the old days, when you had to be really really screwed up before the cops would bust you)

All Clinton ever did was smoke some mj - something that will eventually be legalized (drunk driving will never be legalized and I would argue that it does much more harm)
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'][quote name='bmulligan']

- a twice elected draft dodger.

[/quote]

yeah, how about someone who went awol from a post his daddy got him so he wouldnt have to fight. Yet he is willing to send over 2000 men and women to their death without any remorse. Time will show him to be one of the worst presidents of our lifetime, and possibly all time.[/quote]

Or he will go down as an idealist like Wilson, Nixon, or Carter who wasn't afraid to go out and fight for a cause. I'm no Bush supporter, but i there is another side.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'] Seriously, as long as the guy isn't doing anything illegal, such as beating his wife, what happens in his private life should have little effect on how they are percieved to perform in their public life.
[/quote]

While this is sterring a bit off topic, but I don't at all agree with this statement. Do you honestly think his public and private life are separated like two different individuals? It speaks volume about his character IMO. People criticize Bush and millions of others on thier character constantly and for things that have occured in thier private lives, they then take it to his public life. Is Clinton held to some invisible standard or something? Oh yeah and I think you're forgetting the most important fact of the Monica thing, the one that is technically illegal, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']
While this is sterring a bit off topic, but I don't at all agree with this statement. Do you honestly think his public and private life are separated like two different individuals? It speaks volume about his character IMO. People criticize Bush and millions of others on thier character constantly and for things that have occured in thier private lives, they then take it to his public life. Is Clinton held to some invisible standard or something? Oh yeah and I think you're forgetting the most important fact of the Monica thing, the one that is technically illegal, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.[/quote]

well legality shouldn't be the baseline standard of behavior but Clintion's affair was no different from the dozen's of other affairs many of our "greatest" presidents have had. Jefferson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower. Yet history doesn't diminish them due to their extra-marital activities. Politicians on both sides are really crappy people behaving outside the bound of decency, yet only Clinton is held to that standard?...gimme a break.

The reason I criticize Bush is that his character flaws IMO really do harm the presidency and the country. They affect policy and isolate Bush more than he should be.

BTW, Clinton did lie under oath as part of a grand jury investigation that found nothing,. nada.
 
well legality shouldn't be the baseline standard of behavior but Clintion's affair was no different from the dozen's of other affairs many of our "greatest" presidents have had. Jefferson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower. Yet history doesn't diminish them due to their extra-marital activities. Politicians on both sides are really crappy people behaving outside the bound of decency, yet only Clinton is held to that standard?...gimme a break.
Click to expand...

so you are justifying bad behavior because somebody else was doing it? if everyone else ate shit would that make it ok for you to eat shit? no, it is still shit, still nasty, and it is not ok to eat.

The reason I criticize Bush is that his character flaws IMO really do harm the presidency and the country. They affect policy and isolate Bush more than he should be.
Click to expand...

BTW, Clinton did lie under oath as part of a grand jury investigation that found nothing,. nada.
Click to expand...

ok, but you are still willing to admit that he lied under oath. so why the "found nothing.. nada"? why does that matter. if you are talking about character flaws which can hurt the presidency, isn't lying to a jury under oath, which is, although you won't admit it, totally disregarding the laws of our country and, really, disrespecting the people.

your argument is fully of fallacies and, well, ignorant statements. try and figure out what you want to say, then say it instead of clouding your judgement in half-truths and bias. and have a good day too.

are you talking about flaws in his foreign policy or in his character? i am confused by this statement. please clarify.
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']
While this is sterring a bit off topic, but I don't at all agree with this statement. Do you honestly think his public and private life are separated like two different individuals? It speaks volume about his character IMO. People criticize Bush and millions of others on thier character constantly and for things that have occured in thier private lives, they then take it to his public life. Is Clinton held to some invisible standard or something? Oh yeah and I think you're forgetting the most important fact of the Monica thing, the one that is technically illegal, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.[/quote]

well legality shouldn't be the baseline standard of behavior but Clintion's affair was no different from the dozen's of other affairs many of our "greatest" presidents have had. Jefferson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower. Yet history doesn't diminish them due to their extra-marital activities. Politicians on both sides are really crappy people behaving outside the bound of decency, yet only Clinton is held to that standard?...gimme a break.

The reason I criticize Bush is that his character flaws IMO really do harm the presidency and the country. They affect policy and isolate Bush more than he should be.

BTW, Clinton did lie under oath as part of a grand jury investigation that found nothing,. nada.[/quote]

Where did I say only Cliinton is held to that standard? My complaint was that clinton wasn't held to hardly any standard at all in alonzo's statement. In my view all politicians who act with grave indecency in the lives are not great men. Roosevelt was pretty much of poor character from my understanding of some of the stuff I've read, but it's only my opinion. I think 100 yrs from now Clinton will likely end up just like Roosevelt in history books, but that doesn't mean I won't think he's of poor character either. And these guys aren't totally awful people that deserve death or anything, i just don't see them being role models for me anytime soon. I just didn't see the whole idea behind holding one person's character flaws against them but not another's and how we can totally separate his private life from his public just because it's Bill Clinton, but if Ben Affleck, Geroge bush, or somebody else did it you all probably wouldn't be able to do that.

I do agree though, legality shouldn't be a standard and I only used the grand jury thing to indicate contrary the original statement that he had ndeed done something illegal. And like someone just mentioned no matter what the grand jury ends up finding, lying under oath to one is still illegal.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'] Seriously, as long as the guy isn't doing anything illegal, such as beating his wife, what happens in his private life should have little effect on how they are percieved to perform in their public life.
[/quote]

While this is sterring a bit off topic, but I don't at all agree with this statement. Do you honestly think his public and private life are separated like two different individuals? It speaks volume about his character IMO. People criticize Bush and millions of others on thier character constantly and for things that have occured in thier private lives, they then take it to his public life. Is Clinton held to some invisible standard or something? Oh yeah and I think you're forgetting the most important fact of the Monica thing, the one that is technically illegal, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.[/quote]

Thing is, I haven't criticized bush about his past. I may have joked about it, but I haven't used that as a reason not to support him. Therefore, I am not holding clinton or bush to a different standard.

Also, the lying under oath was a part of his personal life brought into the spotlight, it wasn't part of his actual job. Yes, you could argue that as president testifying was his job, but if bush was brought to court over handlings of his former oil company and lied, that wouldn't be part of his job.
 
[quote name='munch']

so you are justifying bad behavior because somebody else was doing it? if everyone else ate shit would that make it ok for you to eat shit? no, it is still shit, still nasty, and it is not ok to eat.

ok, but you are still willing to admit that he lied under oath. so why the "found nothing.. nada"? why does that matter. if you are talking about character flaws which can hurt the presidency, isn't lying to a jury under oath, which is, although you won't admit it, totally disregarding the laws of our country and, really, disrespecting the people.

your argument is fully of fallacies and, well, ignorant statements. try and figure out what you want to say, then say it instead of clouding your judgement in half-truths and bias. and have a good day too.

are you talking about flaws in his foreign policy or in his character? i am confused by this statement. please clarify.[/quote]

You misunderstood me, I am not justifying anything. Cheating on your spouse is wrong no matter how you look at it. However, one can still be a "great" president (or leader) even if one has flaws.

Sure Clinton lied under oath and he damaged himself greatly for it. He was also punished because of that lie. But it didn't exist in a vacumn, the circumstances that brought him to that place do matter IMO. Hell, Bush gets a pass all of time on his war lies because "we're at war". (rolly eyes)

In talking about GWB's character....

Bush on the other hand lies much more often under any circumstance. The fact that Bush isn't in front of a grand jury doesn't diminish it one bit. What ,you think a lie only "disrespects the people" if it is perjury...puh-leeze. Bush's lies fit a pattern of him only wanting to hear/promote one version of things. That is very dangerous way to run a country.

also munch, spare me the condescending attitude.

Duo_Maxwell- I understand what you are getting at about the character issue and I respect that position. If you require your heroes to be great people in private life as, I can't disagree with that. I am just saying sometimes, it is not always necessary to include everything about a person when judging their job.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='usickenme'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']
While this is sterring a bit off topic, but I don't at all agree with this statement. Do you honestly think his public and private life are separated like two different individuals? It speaks volume about his character IMO. People criticize Bush and millions of others on thier character constantly and for things that have occured in thier private lives, they then take it to his public life. Is Clinton held to some invisible standard or something? Oh yeah and I think you're forgetting the most important fact of the Monica thing, the one that is technically illegal, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.[/quote]

well legality shouldn't be the baseline standard of behavior but Clintion's affair was no different from the dozen's of other affairs many of our "greatest" presidents have had. Jefferson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower. Yet history doesn't diminish them due to their extra-marital activities. Politicians on both sides are really crappy people behaving outside the bound of decency, yet only Clinton is held to that standard?...gimme a break.

The reason I criticize Bush is that his character flaws IMO really do harm the presidency and the country. They affect policy and isolate Bush more than he should be.

BTW, Clinton did lie under oath as part of a grand jury investigation that found nothing,. nada.[/quote]

Where did I say only Cliinton is held to that standard? My complaint was that clinton wasn't held to hardly any standard at all in alonzo's statement. In my view all politicians who act with grave indecency in the lives are not great men. Roosevelt was pretty much of poor character from my understanding of some of the stuff I've read, but it's only my opinion. I think 100 yrs from now Clinton will likely end up just like Roosevelt in history books, but that doesn't mean I won't think he's of poor character either. And these guys aren't totally awful people that deserve death or anything, i just don't see them being role models for me anytime soon. I just didn't see the whole idea behind holding one person's character flaws against them but not another's and how we can totally separate his private life from his public just because it's Bill Clinton, but if Ben Affleck, Geroge bush, or somebody else did it you all probably wouldn't be able to do that.

I do agree though, legality shouldn't be a standard and I only used the grand jury thing to indicate contrary the original statement that he had ndeed done something illegal. And like someone just mentioned no matter what the grand jury ends up finding, lying under oath to one is still illegal.[/quote]

Ok you're calling them men of poor character. Don't forget in Roosevelt's circumstance it's implied his wife may have been gay so where does that leave him? Seriously some people get married for the political aspect and while I find it distasteful it's done. Part of the reason I suppose is because you're most likely looked upon more favorably when married.
These people do it to appease the "family" constituency. You see with some people you absolutely or make that most people you have to look perfect to survive as a politician. Gay? Less votes for you. Single? This MAY cost you votes. Married? You can more play the family or couples bit to get votes. Etc., etc.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Ok you're calling them men of poor character. Don't forget in Roosevelt's circumstance it's implied his wife may have been gay so where does that leave him? Seriously some people get married for the political aspect and while I find it distasteful it's done. Part of the reason I suppose is because you're most likely looked upon more favorably when married.
These people do it to appease the "family" constituency. You see with some people you absolutely or make that most people you have to look perfect to survive as a politician. Gay? Less votes for you. Single? This MAY cost you votes. Married? You can more play the family or couples bit to get votes. Etc., etc.[/quote]

I totally agree. How many Presidents have been single dudes?

Let Presidents have mistresses, and the country's leadership will improve greatly.

I'd rather a Prez lie about a BJ then lie about a war.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Sarang01']Ok you're calling them men of poor character. Don't forget in Roosevelt's circumstance it's implied his wife may have been gay so where does that leave him? Seriously some people get married for the political aspect and while I find it distasteful it's done. Part of the reason I suppose is because you're most likely looked upon more favorably when married.
These people do it to appease the "family" constituency. You see with some people you absolutely or make that most people you have to look perfect to survive as a politician. Gay? Less votes for you. Single? This MAY cost you votes. Married? You can more play the family or couples bit to get votes. Etc., etc.[/quote]

I totally agree. How many Presidents have been single dudes?

Let Presidents have mistresses, and the country's leadership will improve greatly.

I'd rather a Prez lie about a BJ then lie about a war.[/quote]

the problem is you are making it seem like it is an either/or. I'd rather have a president who doesn't lie about either. call me an idealist, call me what you will, but once you become the leader of our nation, you have an obligation to tell the truth.
 
munch, a question. I am not trying to trap you but do you believe a lie is a lie no matter what...or can their be varying degrees of a lie?

Personally, I kind of believe both. It's like any lie will knock some points off your character but a bigger lie will "count" more. That is why I am less bothered by Clintion than Bush.
 
Munch I'll quote what Chris Rock said here: "It's not Pastor Clinton, not Reverend Clinton. He's just a man and a man is about as faithful as his options.".
"Hillary ain't a hero, Aquaman's a hero. Hillary Clinton put the whole country in danger. She's the first lady, she needs to be the first in line to....".
chuckles.
But seriously dude, do you think I like it? I use to be all like you with a crimp in my ass. Is that to say I use to be all about "morals" like Republicans, in that sense, yes. Now I've kind of seen the light and that's not necessarily a bad or good thing, I just see things more honestly now in some ways or at least there. I have to acknowledge that shit happens.
Most of those honest people you want don't want to run for office because all their shit would come out no matter how great their tendencies are. Basically any little bit of allegations of proof or deviency come out and they're screwed.
 
[quote name='usickenme']munch, a question. I am not trying to trap you but do you believe a lie is a lie no matter what...or can their be varying degrees of a lie?

Personally, I kind of believe both. It's like any lie will knock some points off your character but a bigger lie will "count" more. That is why I am less bothered by Clintion than Bush.[/quote]

I fully understand what you are saying. like, would you lie to a Nazi if you had Jews in your house or something like that. But, you can't just brush aside lying under oath. When Ollie North lied under oath it was a big deal, but when Clinton did it, it was ok. of course there are varying degress of lying, but i think you should make a difference between the "lies" told by Clinton and Bush. There is no doubt that Clinton lied. He has admitted. On the other hand, there is no proof that Bush lied, at least yet. The problem is the partisan nature of everyone when it comes to Bush. You want him to lie, so he lied. If you can show me evidence, not from a reputable source, that he implicitly lied i will concede the point.

But to answer your question, yes there are varying degrees of lying, but that does not mean i can expect a president to not lie. that is not having a "crimp in my ass," which, by the way, is a totally stupid to say.

And, for the record, i am not a republican.
 
[quote name='munch'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Sarang01']Ok you're calling them men of poor character. Don't forget in Roosevelt's circumstance it's implied his wife may have been gay so where does that leave him? Seriously some people get married for the political aspect and while I find it distasteful it's done. Part of the reason I suppose is because you're most likely looked upon more favorably when married.
These people do it to appease the "family" constituency. You see with some people you absolutely or make that most people you have to look perfect to survive as a politician. Gay? Less votes for you. Single? This MAY cost you votes. Married? You can more play the family or couples bit to get votes. Etc., etc.[/quote]

I totally agree. How many Presidents have been single dudes?

Let Presidents have mistresses, and the country's leadership will improve greatly.

I'd rather a Prez lie about a BJ then lie about a war.[/quote]

the problem is you are making it seem like it is an either/or. I'd rather have a president who doesn't lie about either. call me an idealist, call me what you will, but once you become the leader of our nation, you have an obligation to tell the truth.[/quote]

Agreed, but then you have to be practical.

Or you can vote for Nader. I don't think any women are that desparate... :wink:
 
[quote name='munch']. On the other hand, there is no proof that Bush lied, at least yet. The problem is the partisan nature of everyone when it comes to Bush. You want him to lie, so he lied. If you can show me evidence, not from a reputable source, that he implicitly lied i will concede the point.

.[/quote]

okay one example..

"[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

—President Bush, in a Q and A with reporters after an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, July 14.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
(Near the bottom of the page)

"Yesterday [the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission], the [International] Atomic [Energy] Agency, and myself got information from the United States authorities that it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the [Iraq] region. I have just informed the Council that we will withdraw the UNMOVIC and Atomic Agency inspectors. …"

—U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a Q and A with reporters, announcing the reluctant withdrawal of U.N. inspectors from Iraq, as necessitated by the imminent U.S. invasion, March 17. The

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=433&sID=7


Now one can argue about the effectiveness of the inspection but an outright lie is not a valid arguement. Some might say "who cares, Saddam was bad guy" but a lie is still a lie.

or this following exchange....

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have talked to Senate Democrats, and I will continue to talk to Senate Democrats. And I'll continue --

The Post: Did you --

THE PRESIDENT: We had a meeting with -- I think before Christmas we had the leadership in, didn't we?

MS. DEVENISH [Nicolle Devenish, the White House communications director]: That was Republicans.

MR. McCLELLAN: For Social Security?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: The bipartisan meeting at the end of last year, toward the end of last year.

THE PRESIDENT: And before we went on the Christmas break?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: It was right after, I think Harry --[Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid was there, I know for certain. I'm trying to remember -- I can't remember all who were there. But, yes, I have, and will continue to do so, and continue to speak to the people.
Click to expand...

maybe not " I didn't have sex with that women" lies but He is nowhere near honesty.

That is the thing that is most puzzling. It is not not giant lie that one can point to, it is a casual relationship with the truth. Maybe you don't consider that a "lie" but it should still be troubling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top