Quote:
Really? So the defintion of "lie" changed somewhere along the line from "Making a statement that you know to be false", to "Making a statement that later turns out to be false"? When exactly did that happen Smash?
And did not Bush present his sources? Was the entire Congress not satisfied that his sources represented "the truth" as we knew it at the time? Did they not review the same sources that Bush was basing his statements on and come to the exact same conclusion?
I personally don't recall Bush making a speach where he said that: "Lot's of people have been coming up to me. You know. And telling me that those guys in Iraq have WMD, and we should really do something about it. I mean. You would not believe the number of people who've told me this...". I do not then recall Bush saying that he could not reveal who those people were when questioned about it.
One, a lie is a lie regardless of the intent of the person lying.
Two, it's impossible to ever know if Bush sat in the Oval Office rubbing his hands together shouting "I'm gonna git a big steamin pile of stinky ****** lies over on them there congress boys, I till you whit!"
Three, the number of occasions where Bush claimed there was evidence of something without citing any sources is liegon. I'm not going to bother to educate you if you won't take the four seconds it would require to find them.
Quote:
Nice cop out. My problem with your sources, is that they are usually just as vague and questionable as your own interpretation of something is. On the rare occasions when you actually do present sources with real data in them, they almost always end up supporting my arguement and not yours. Or should we rehash the "14million jobs outsourced! Ok. Maybe just 2 million. Ok. Well, I really meant 140k. Hmmm... Well maybe 2k, but we don't know that for sure...". You have a horrible track record with finding data that supports your arguments Smash...
No, I have an exceptional track record of arguing only based on facts. On occasion I am wrong. When that is the case, I say "oops, I was wgon there." Having been wrong once, or a few times, actually makes my track record that much more impressive because it shows that when I make an error I'm not bound to some sort of horrible insecurity where I have to continue to argue a lossing position in spite of reality.
Now, your track record is pretty clear on this front to anyone who's read more than one of your posts.
Quote:
There's a huge difference between rhetoric implying something about the opposition, or his military record, or any of a number of other "issues" surrounding a candidate. That's relatively normal stuff that you can expect during a campaign.
What Kerry has done, not once, but twice, is imply support from groups that are either unable or unwilling to do so themselves. He has done so specifically in such a way as to make it difficult, if not impossible for the otherside to refute his statements. See. Bush can respond about his military record, or spending, or taxing, or foreign policy. That's why those are normal issues brought up during a campaign. But he can't respond to Kerry when all Kerry does is make vague implications about people who can't be named, or questioned in order to verify the claims.
It's a bogus way to run a campaign. I find it hard to believe that it's coincidental either. This tatic has to be part of his campaign strategy. What that tells me is that Kerry's people don't think he can win on issues. They don't believe that if their platform is subjected to cross-examination it will hold up. This seems to me to be an attempt to put a thought in the voters minds (two thoughts actually: "Foreign leaders prefer Kerry", and "Military leaders pefer Kerry") while preventing the other side from being able to refute the idea because their source are unable to come forward publically (how convenient is that?).
Ultimately, it's what the voters believe about the candidates that will determine who wins the election. If Kerry can find a way to make the voters believe something while preventing Bush from being able to call him on it, then that's going to help him out. The only response to that sort of bogus approach is to attack the fact that he's making claims that can't be supported. He's left the Bush camp no alternative...
Fine, I have a simple wager for you.
If I can find two examples of Bush doing
exactly the same thing, that is citing support from unnamed sources within a larger group will you post the following:
"I was wrong to attack Kerry about that, Bush does it just as often"?
If so I'll link some sources, otherwise it's not worth my time.
Quote:
Ah. So it's a strawman to ask someone to support their claims. Got it...
No it's a strawman for any annonmyous source to automatically be lying. Again, as I've pointed out, and you per ussual ignored, it's virtually impossible for Kerry
to be lying.
If you want to make a case that no one in the miltary supports Kerry and than no world leaders support him, do it.
When you do, I'll say "You were right, he was lying."
