Smasharoo wrote:
Quote:
Well, now you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't-- inferring something from what you cannot possibly know. You don't any way ofknowing what Bush knew or didn't know. That's a straight-out assumption on your part.
You are quite correct. Allow me to rephrase.
Ok. Let's do that...
Smasharoo wrote:
I called GWB a liar when he spoke words in the State of the Union which are catagorically, undeniably false. It's my personal oppinon that he certainly should have known they were false.
And I didn't even make the assumption that Kerry was a liar when he spoke words in his march 14th speach which are catagorically, undeniably false. I simply stated that if he's claiming to have conversations with foreign leaders, that maybe he should provide proof.
Smasharoo wrote:
So either:
1)He knew they were false and he, indeed willfully and intentionally lied to try to make a better case for Iraq
He knew that he was making up those foreign leader conversations, and intentionally lied to make a better case for his presidential bid
Quote:
Or:
2)He's so completely out of the loop that he's unaware of the veracity of the intel used by his speechwriters. In my mind this would make him incompetent to be President, but that is, of course my oppinion.
He's so mentally incompetant that he can't tell the difference between reality and make-believe. In my mind this would make him incompetant to be President. But that is, of course, my opinion.
Quote:
You're right though, I can't read the man's mind. He did without question lie, however. Intent is an issue that will never be resolved.
See. Here's where the two scenarios differ though (in exactly the way I explained to Joph earlier in this thread). When Bush gave his speach in the State of the Union address, he was commenting on second (or third!) hand information. He did not personally witness the gathering of the intel that was in the speach. He did not personally gather that information together and confirm its validity. He has staff that does that.
Kerry's comments were made about first hand information. He wasn't saying that his advisors gathered some intel about some foriegn leaders and based his statements on that. He specifically said he had "private conversations" with "foreign leaders".
The huge difference is that if something in Bush's speach was wrong, there are a number of points between the information gathering and the vocalization of the speach where the incorrect information could have been inserted. In Kerry's speach, there is only one place where that false information could have come from, and that's Kerry himself. I can't understand why you can't see the distinction there.
Also. Not to be overly obvious or anything, but
intent is what makes something a lie. If you can't determine intent, then you can't assume something is a lie. You'll note that I never said Kerry was lying. You did say (many times) that Bush was.
But hey. I'm the one who makes assumptions about things, right?
Edited, Fri Apr 2 18:28:41 2004 by gbaji