3) According to the preliminary findings of the 9-11 commission the claim that you are, “suggesting that he mislead the American people into believing that there was a connection between them when he knew that no evidence supported such a contention” is patently false. The evidence SUPPORTS a connection.
4) I take it your position is that you don’t have any proof that GWB lied about an Iraq/9-11 connection yet you just think you haven’t uncovered it. Ooo that’s rich. Since you are, “not familiar with the media making such a charge” as inferring that the president lied about a Iraq/alquada connection, just google “bush lied, you will get several thousand responses.
Plenty of times, (Salim al Ahmed, Ayman al Zawahiri, etc
6) Come on, Clinton lied under oath his impeachment was legally justifiable. If not for a benevolent Republican congress he would have been removed from office. Don’t forget they had the goods on him. If not for the conservative actions to preserve the integrity of the executive, Clinton would be far more disgraced.
7) The unattainable standard that you are holding GWB to is that he satisfy your every insecurity and suspicion otherwise he is to be suspected of lying. Irrational.
8) Okay, the purpose of this post: “When you want to open the door to censorship, by claiming deception can be based on omission, or how information is structured, you are saying all people must have all the information all the time and received in the same manner as the disseminator. Cannot do. If yours were the standard everybody is always guilty of deception, pick any instance, I’ll prove it” is that you first complained that he is guilty by an act of omission. The only remedy to omission is 100% inclusion otherwise you can always whine that information is being deceptively withheld. Further you complained that he structured his statements to deceive. The only remedy would be that the information be communicated in exactly the same form and in the same intervals (relative to time) as it is received. Further try these out, for you to presume to dictate the acceptable manner in which information must be disseminated to you and the public in order for that communication to be exempt from YOUR opinion of “deceptive speech,” IS CENSORSHIP. People are free in this country to communicate as they wish (barring of course some inflammatory or dangerous language). Unfortunately for you and the public you are expected to be responsible for your interpretation.
9) I’ll accept your definition that, “Deception is false representation of the facts.” Problem is that deception is also interpretive. And you are imputing deception where it doesn’t exist. It’s kind of like racism, much of the time it is alleged where it doesn’t exist. Like deception the charge is used to gain advantage by putting the accused on the defensive.
andy mahan – 9/
The failure of the anti crowd to understand simple English is an obvious political ploy. Despite the Vice President’s clear and accurate characterization of Iraq-alquada cooperation that, “We just don’t know” the author just can’t stop himself from purposely confusing the facts and claiming, “Dick Cheney not only floated the prospect of Saddam sponsoring 9/11, but Saddam being behind the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.” This is hilarious, people who make their living reading and writing being cruelly saddled with self imposed dyslexia. The main-stream media has done all it can to misinterpret the findings of the 9-11 commission solely to discredit the current administration. The American people are now beginning to see through this shell game and the press is going to be forced to tell the unnuanced truth. Simple question: where did anyone in this administration say that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack? They didn’t. When did this administration claim that there exists a link between Iraq and alquada? ). Given those indisputable truths, the fault of any misinterpretation must be born by the English challenged partisans.