Blogcritics: Comments on Lies don't matter

Comment by mark

Sat, 3 May 2003 09:17:51 EDT

What an interesting string of comments. I don't know if anyone is still going to this string after 5 days, but I would like to put in my 2 cents. Brian has proved that reincarnation is a fact. Back in the Fifties, a little known Senator from Wisconsin was standing in our hallowed halls screaming that he had a list (in his hand, mind you) of communist agents in the government and in Hollywood. But he never showed his list to anyone. In fact, our man Joe road this carnival for several years, became quite famous (or infamous) and ruined more than a few people's lives before the truth came crashing down on his head. So Brian (Joe) Flemming (McCarthy), show us your list of Bush lies, before you lose the last vestige of your credibility! Not holding my breath, Mark

Comment by jadester

Sat, 3 May 2003 06:53:02 EDT

heheh, maybe brian's a politician...

Comment by SlackMFer

Fri, 2 May 2003 22:00:48 EDT

brian, let's say everything that guy said is true (i don't have the time to go through all those links) but even if it IS, you're proud that you made a comment, were so grossly un-informed that you couldn't back it up in the LEAST, then played a little back and forth game until some other guy came and backed YOUR story up??!!! wow.

Comment by Joe

Fri, 2 May 2003 18:14:59 EDT

Yes, everyone is awaiting your apology for wasting their time.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Fri, 2 May 2003 18:03:00 EDT

And then there was silence.

Comment by Doctor Slack

Fri, 2 May 2003 09:11:37 EDT

Brian, I don't think Howard and Joe are ever going to answer your question. But I'll take up the quibbling, just for the heck of it: 1. Inspectors found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials to prevent discovery. 2. Iraqi agents posed as scientists while the actual scientists were quietly moved to Syria and Jordan. 3. We have firm evidence of Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda. 4. The tonnages of chemical and biological agents Iraq has not accounted for since 1991 are still a threat. 5. Satellite photographs indicate that Iraq is rebuilding former nuclear facilities. 6. We know Saddam recently tried to purchase uranium from Nigeria. 7. We have more satellite photographs showing new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites, specific coordinates of incriminating evidence at Saddam's palaces, and evidence indicating the Iraqis have imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium. That list is just for starters. It includes several statements on behalf of other parties that the concerned parties later flatly refuted. (Item 1 and Item 5, which was a claim by Bush on behalf of the IAEA.) It includes statements of things as facts which, scientifically speaking, could not be facts. (Item 4, the last part of 7.) And it includes reportage as established facts opinions that were later shown to be basically invented from whole cloth (Item 2), based on the kind of tenuous interpretations of webs of coincidence that we normally call "conspiracy theory" (Item 3), or drawn from forged documents so badly done that a freshman college student could have caught them (Item 6). Now, of course, all of these are only lies if we assume that the Bush Administration was both competent and conscientious enough to know that what they were spouting were falsehoods. Phillip Winn has been kind enough to demonstrate for us the "they weren't dishonest, merely ridiculously incompetent to the point where virtually nothing that comes out of their mouths on the subject can be trusted" line of defense. That's pretty much the only other alternative here -- but even it won't do for items 1 and 5.

Comment by fangsign

Fri, 2 May 2003 08:38:30 EDT

I love watching the brain dead liberals (aka: fascists) and conservatives (aka: fascists) go at it. You all trust your politicians way too much and you all put to much faith in the idea that government can solve your problems. The prove is in the fact that you have wasted so much time here arguing back an forth about this crap. And the fact that you all probably blindly vote for Democrats and Republicans. Maybe if you all got off your computers and actually did something to help yourseleves and your fellow man instead of putting all your faith in a bunch of boobs who don't the first thing about what life is really like, you could actually make a difference. Don't bother replying--I have better things to do. Like teach my kids not to be like all of you.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Fri, 2 May 2003 01:23:19 EDT

Still waiting. Patiently, though. No rush.

Comment by Howard Owens

Fri, 2 May 2003 01:10:58 EDT

I haven't visited this thread in days. Here we are, 50 post into it, including 15 by Brian, and Brian has yet to produce one single, clear, explicit plain statement that the Bush Administration lied. Not one example of a lie. Amazing. Who's doing all the lying here -- the guy who claims to care so much about lies, or Bush? Brian takes offense to my "ad hominem" attack, but yet he wants to base his entire argument an equal violation of logic -- a kind of strawman. He wants us to simplify our position, to save himself the working doing it. He's taunting, making a blanket statement: "Joe and Howard, go ahead, cause then I can incinerate your statement like a Harvest Day scarecrow." Unable to argue like a mature man and state his case explicitly, he want to only argue on his terms or not at all. I've never said, contrary to Brian's characterizations, that the Bushies didn't lie in the run up to the war. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But if Brian is going to post something that accuses the Administration of lying, he should be able to back it up. Apparently, he can't do that. His unwillingness to do that certainly suggests that he doesn't have the goods, he doesn't have the facts, he knows he's on the losing side of this argument, but just can't admit it. I'm not going to play your game, Brian. Either list the lies or admit that you can't prove a single lie. If you can't do that, you prove the complete stupidity of your position. Prove it, Brian. Prove just one lie. That's all we ask. One lie. Why are you so afraid to do that? Why are we on our 50th post and you have not been able to produce one single, irrefutable lie? Is your position that weak?

Comment by SlackMFer

Thu, 1 May 2003 19:37:05 EDT

this is getting sad. c'mon brian, back your statements up! is that too much to ask? there is no argument here, it hasn't even started (and looks like it never will) because you're trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look stupid. unfortunetly for you it has turned out the other way around.

Comment by Joe

Thu, 1 May 2003 18:48:18 EDT

It is somewhat tragic that your bloviating is somehow dependent upon my response. Had I known about this condition I would have tried to exacerbate the situation sooner. I hope the other folks who post articles here are more willing to defend what they say rather than trying to obfuscate and dissemble when someone questions them. Perhaps you ought to put a disclaimer at the beginning of your posts (eg:I will only discuss this with you on the condition that you acknowledge and affirm the validity of my statements beforehand and only if you want to talk about the aspects of the subject which I want to talk about).

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 1 May 2003 18:19:26 EDT

I'm willing to be patient.

Comment by Joe

Thu, 1 May 2003 18:12:15 EDT

Thanks for the opportunity, Brian, but you don't need me to respond to Phillip. And there's no telling when Howard will be back. (cricket, cricket)

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 1 May 2003 18:04:36 EDT

Brian - Can't you read?

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 1 May 2003 17:55:22 EDT

Phillip, I am more than willing to discuss the particulars of the Bush Administration's statements in the run-up to the war. I want to give you, Howard and Joe a chance to answer the question, though: "Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?"

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 1 May 2003 17:23:25 EDT

After 42 comments, you still won't list even a single example of something you consider a lie from the Bush administration. You hint that you at least have something in mind with vague references to Rumsfeld and Powell, but you refuse to respond to the specific instances I listed and answered to help get the ball rolling. You say, "I'll take what I can get," but then you refuse to engage in the conversation. You say it is a non-partisan issue, but then state that your question (and entire post) is designed to entrap Republicans so that they must either admit no moral standing or hold Bush responsible for lying. Still, you refuse to address the heart of the issue: You accuse Bush and his administration of lying, but refuse to substantiate your accusation even once, with even one simple sentence. This is crap, Brian, and I expected better from you. Take two aspirin and try again another day, when you're willing to discuss substance instead of inuendo. You list a series of straw man positions, none of which have basis in reality, and you still won't answer a simple question. You claim naivete, but practice accomplished dissembling and evasion. You call a simple discussion of your accusation "a rhetorical game" and dismiss it as unworthy of your time. You state that you'd be happy to have a discussion over details, but again refuse to do so. News flash: the discussion started. You've ignored it. Now the discussion is over, unless you step up to the plate. You wanted to know recently why I occasionally decided that I would post no more on a certain subject. This is why: it is a waste of my time.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 1 May 2003 17:10:40 EDT

Joe, I will take your continued silence on the matter as agreement. Phillip, A) I didn't see your comment 38 as I was writing comment 39. B) I honestly believed you were not being serious when you stated you didn't think Bush lied. From your tone in comment 33, I took it that you were basically rolling your eyes and making the statement sarcastically, as if to say, "Okay, okay. I'll pretend to say it for you. Happy now?" And now, with this comment

I flatly deny that President Bush told any lies in the entire time he has been in office. I don't know what to think. Surely you don't believe that, right? (To be clear--I don't believe a single President has lived up to this standard. But that doesn't render a discussion of a specific category--such as the Lewinsky scandal, or the Iraq War--impossible to conduct.) However, other parts of comment 39 finally do seem to be taking the matter seriously. So, I'm confused, but I'll take what I can get. It's slim pickins around here when it comes to war proponents being straightforward. To be clear--I don't think this is a game. I didn't want to play a rhetorical game where one person pretends to deny that the Bush Administration lies, then I list the lies, then we quibble over what kind of lies they were. I really did want to hear war proponents spell out clearly and specifically where they stand on the subject of the Bush Administration and dishonesty in the run-up to the war. I knew that listing the lies would turn the discussion toward quibbling over details (i.e., who knew what when, what is reasonable to believe so-and-so knew, what isn't). This discussion over details is important, of course, and I'd be happy to have it. But first I wanted to know how Howard and Joe felt about the overall issue. My confrontational question and attitude was meant to draw out some plain-spoken statements. (I will cop to being a bit naive--I am a liberal, after all.) But so far, I don't think a single war proponent has sincerely stated a position on the matter. This seems like a strange attitude toward this particular matter to me. There are myriad different POVs on the subject of Bush/war/honesty, I will grant you-- "I think they lied so much that they ended up lying even more often than they told the truth. They lied about everything, from start to finish." "Obviously Rumsfeld lied a bit, and Powell told that howler, but I think Bush gave himself plausible deniability, at least." "I can't tell who was lying and who wasn't, but clearly with regard to that one issue, you have to believe that they were all lying, or the entire senior intelligence leadership of the U.S. is less competent than a monkey." "I think every lie comes with a convenient alternate explanation, and Bush supporters will grab those .00001% possibilities every time." "In order to believe Bush told the truth, you have to believe he not only doesn't get intelligence briefings, but he also doesn't even read the newspaper." "All this talk of lying is liberal paranoia. Any reasonable person can look at the evidence and see that every one of these suspicious statements was simply an honest mistake." I am nearly certain that war proponents have developed some kind of general impression along these lines. Clearly, they have to have some kind of feeling with regard to the honesty of the Bush Administration. But I'll be darned if I can figure out what that position is for any of them, 42 posts later.

Comment by Joe

Thu, 1 May 2003 16:27:37 EDT

Brian, perhaps you've failed to read post 33? And I doubt my responses could necessarily be construed as implying agreement. Anyhow, I'd be more interested in discussing how the Administration lied about the existence of Bin Laden and Hussein. They haven't found them yet either, so they must not exist.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 1 May 2003 16:24:50 EDT

I'll remember this, the next time you try to hound someone for not answering your question. You've even changed your question since you first asked it, and I've answered all variations. Still you won't respond to the very simple and straightforward question put to you by Joe, Howard and me. I flatly deny that President Bush told any lies in the entire time he has been in office. I've done so once already, so I don't know why you claim that "nobody has denied this." It is truly embarrassing for Bush and Blair that nobody has found WMDs. If they are eventually found, it will server to further justify the idea that weapons inspectors would never have found them. If none are ever found, it will significantly undermine trust in their ability to accurately sift through intelligence data. But lying? As I've stated repeatedly, that's a specific accusation with a specific meaning, and I don't see what Bush has met the requirements. Clinton did. Ollie North did. Daschle has, Gingrich did, and on and on and on. But since you've made it all the way to comment #39 without mentioning even one despite repeated requests, I'll assume that we're all in agreement: Bush has not lied. One thing for sure: you have lied. You said, "I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question in a direct manner if you'll answer mine. I'll even do it first, if you insist. Give me your question. Here's mine: Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?" You can back-pedal now and say that was extended only to Joe, but I answered your question (an answer you've forgotten already in comment #39) and you still haven't answered mine. Hmm, wait. Is a "broken promise" the same as a lie? Maybe you are off the hook on a technicality...

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 1 May 2003 16:12:55 EDT

Phillip, You wrote:

List them, Brian. I'll assign a score to each of them. I don't know what the point of this would be. We're all in agreement on the basic point, that the Bush Administration lied in the run-up to the war. Nobody here has denied this. If you would like to order, with a point system, what you see as Bush's sure-lies, probably-lies, maybe-lies, mistakes and misunderestimates, that'd be great. Obviously, you are familiar with the record, so you could do this. However, I don't see the point of my doing it. I assume that since nobody has denied it, despite being given ample opportunity, we're all in agreement: Bush and his Administration lied.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 1 May 2003 16:08:10 EDT

Since Brian seems to have abandoned this post, I'll list a few samples that I've heard widely described as lies. Lie #1. Colin Powell claimed various things to the UNSC in the failed attempt to secure a new resolution. Response. I'll score either two or three points for most of his claims, one for the aluminum tubing thing, and without a more detailed list, that's all I can do for now. I don't see any evidence that Powell knew the source of some of the information he was presenting, but there is no question that some of it was tenuous at best. The aluminum tubing issue was widely debated before and after his statement, so it seems to be a difference of opinion (1 point). Claims of WMDs at specific locations seemed to bounce back and forth between bad assumptions and flat-out mistakes, but I don't detect any indication that he thought the information he was giving the UNSC was false. Lie #2: Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate President Bush the elder. Response: I mention this because I've read this a couple of times from Jude Wanniski. I don't know if anyone else believes it or not. Since they now have in custody the man supposedly responsible for the alleged attack, I suspect we'll learn more one way or the other soon. Both of those fall far short of the standard of a lie. Even if it turns out that there are no WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam never tired to whack the Bush daddy, how would Bush and Blair have known that? The fault would have to settle on the people responsible for feeding the information to Powell and company, assuming that they themselves weren't simply mistaken as well. These are a far cry from having personal knowledge of a situation and lying about it, like Clinton and North (and probably Reagan) did. I might even be willing to peg Rumsfeld with a lie if I could remember the exact text of his denial of reports that the US was going to pull out of Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Then again, he's usually pretty careful about what he says, so he probably covered himself there too by not explictly denying it. Brian, it's clear you feel hoodwinked. It's clear you feel that Bush should have known better or given Saddam the benefit of the doubt. But don't just run away when people ante up and answer your questions. List the lies and let me respond. Maybe they have lied and I just haven't caught it amidst all of the knee-jerk hysteria coming from your corner of the internet. If so, I'll be disgusted right along with you. I hate lying politicians, a group which consists of almost all of them. If Bush has lied, I'll be annoyed at him like I am annoyed at all lying politicians. Heck, I'm already annoyed at him for being such a poor communicator, and people say I'm petty for that. I'm waiting for a list, Brian. Citations would be nice, but you can start without them if its easier, and I'll just ask for citations on the ones with which I'm unfamiliar. Thanks.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 1 May 2003 15:52:16 EDT

Jadester - You probably didn't read my most recent comment (#35 if you want to go back now), but between that one and #33 which contains a link to the definition of "lie," I think you'll see that there are a variety of possible explanations for Tony Blair's statement, and unless you have proof of Mr Blair's mental state at the time of that statement, you'll need to retract your accusation. To review: "We know Saddam has WMDs" is only a lie if it can be shown that Tony Blair actually knew Saddam did not have WMDs. As of the time I write this, no such evidence has been shown. Frankly, I don't expect that it ever will. We can say that Tony Blair (and by extension, George Bush) may (or may not, I'm not sure what the deadline is for deciding) have been mistaken. We can say that Tony Blair might (or might not) have been a complete idiot to believe what his underlings told him. But there is a world of difference between stupidity and lying. Carter was stupid. Clinton lied. See the difference?

Comment by jadester

Thu, 1 May 2003 14:11:20 EDT

i'd like to bring to peoples' attention the fact that my country's pm, Tony Blair, told a blatant lie in the runup to the war: "We know saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we are going to take them off him" Now, after the war has happened, it's "the aim of the war was always to liberate the iraqi people from an oppressive regime" the fact is, educated or not, what he and our great british government were saying were guesses rather than the truth. This may seem "just a formality" in the aftermath of a seemingly successful war, but if it is to set a precedent as to the level of blatant lies that are told by politicians even in countries that consider themselves good (as opposed to evil), it does not bode well.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Thu, 1 May 2003 12:22:07 EDT

In comments #4 and #9, Howard asked you to name an example of something you considered a lie by the Bush adminstration. You have not listed one. In comment #17 you offered to answer a question directly, even first, if someone would answer yours. Even though many people have been asking, still you've listed nothing. I've answered your question, and I asked for a list. I still got nothing. Have you been lying to us? These aren't difficult questions we're asking you. You made a claim and we're asking you to back it up, and you evade, claiming that the most interesting thing about the whole exercise is that we can't think of any lies on our own. A novel argument - let's see how it works elsewhere. Um no, it doesn't. Put up or shut up, Brian. I agree, lies matter. Ollie North disgusted me when he lied to Congress and excused it on the basis that it was the right thing to do. Nonsense. If Ollie was so sure it was right, he should have been willing to pay the real price of his lying and deceit and gone to prison for it. I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I don't blame him for the actions of his attorney general, though you've suggested that I should. I don't blame him for sex in the white house. I do blame him for lying boldly and directly to the American people and shaming himself. That is unacceptable and there were consequences. Ditto on Bush. If you'll ever get around to substantiating your claims, we'll take a look and see if they are in fact lies or maybe just "instances where a reasonable person would be very suspicious" as you're suddenly describing them - as if you'd know what a reasonable person would do! 8^) List them, Brian. I'll assign a score to each of them. 1 point for a difference of opinion, 2 points for a bad assumption later proven false, 3 points for a mistake, and 10 bonus points for each lie. Joe and Howard and I are all waiting, Brian, so make a list and I'll check it twice for you. Number them please, for easy reference. Thanks.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Thu, 1 May 2003 11:52:29 EDT

Phillip, Yes, it is ridiculous. The question is simple. Has the Bush Administration lied in the run-up to the war? If you had said to me, during the Lewinsky scandal, "Tell me where you stand--has President Clinton lied about this scandal or hasn't he?," I would have considered that a legitimate demand. And I would have answered without hesitation, "Yes." And I would have had no problem listing the lies he had told to date. (In fact, at the time, I did do that, because I was furious with the guy, and I was frustrated with fellow liberals who refused to see what a legitimate issue--that it's about lying, not sex--Clinton's enemies had going for them.) I would probably also have volunteered to list his half-lies and probably-lies and evasions and equivocations as well. I wouldn't have needed you to pin me down on each one of them, and I wouldn't have said, "You have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt," a defense that could still (in a tortured way) be made about many of Clinton's obviously dishonest statements on the scandal. I would not have stood behind these technicalities to protect Clinton. Why? Because lying matters, no matter who the President is. But, even though the lies are just as obvious in the case of the Bush Administration--and at the least there are instances where a reasonable person would be very suspicious--not a single war proponent here has been able to bring himself to mention a single one of them. Your facetious statement above is the closest anyone has come. It is May 1, 2003. The record is what it is. What any reasonably informed person should know--and especially what someone who publishes opinions about Bush and the war should know--is what it is. The subject is the Bush Administration, the war, and deceit. That nothing leaps to mind--or that you claim nothing leaps to mind--speaks volumes about your ability to ignore lies when they are told in the service of a cause you support.