Is the US media giving us disinformation to aid the US war effort? Should it?

There is evidence to support Bush's assertions, there is none at all to support glynch's. Whether or not you believe the evidence (not surprising that you do not - you are apparently incapable of believing anything at all that you do not want to believe), it is there.

Where is glynch's evidence? None. Nada. Zip. Won't even try to present any, we're supposed to just take him on faith that he knows something the rest of the world doesn't.

The evidence has repeatedly been presented. The arguments have been repeatedly made. Just because you (or all of France, for that matter) have a hunch that he's lying means nothing.

The onus is on Bush, and the case has been made. Just because you do not buy it does not mean that it is invalid.

Irrefutably? What the f* do you want, a signed letter from Osama stating that Saddam has helped him? Evidence has been shown, that there are links. We are battling one piece of that evidence right now in northern Iraq (Ansar Al Islam). Again, you simply refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence. That is your problem.

Specific example. And don't say the "faked" nuclear program evidence. You know as well as I do that he had nothing to do with that, although I'm sure you'll try to convince us that he penned it himself.

Lied about what? And where is your evidence? This is the whole problem here - you assume that he lied about something. Don't know about what, can't prove it (or even support it), but dammit, he lied about something...

Why? Point to me one single post where I have intentionally attempted to mislead or misdirect someone here. I will point to any number of your posts where you have attempted this. Pretty much every single one of your posts is disingenuous - hell, you're doing it right now.

Again, the core of the problem is exposed. You simply assume that every word that comes out of Bush's mouth is a lie - it is not possible for him to be truthful, apparently. You have nothing to back it up, but you're sure it's a lie.

Do you automatically assume that everyone is lying? Or just those that you don't personally agree with?

 

Bush has claimed that he inherited a recession from Clinton. This is a lie. Should I go on?

 

Just as Clinton inherited a boom.

Does Bush (or Clinton, or Bush I, for that matter) set interest rates?

Another example of a lie. A valid one this time, please.

 

tree...I'm on the run here, so I can't get into the debate right now, but two points quickly...

1) I am a little worried about you buddy, no joke. You're getting a bit buggy...are you sleeping or is your (understandable) tension about the war keeping you glued to CNN 24/7? I made it as clear as I could that my questions re: your military career had no ulterior motive, and you respond immediately accusing me of thinking you were lying; I feel no need to but for your sake will re-iterate : There was NO ulterior motive, and it, I swear on all I hold important, it never even occurred to me that you weren't in the military, not even for a second. Just because we disagree idealogically doesn't mean I assume you are a liar, and I hope the reverse is true. I am serious man, you are worrying me.

2) On a lighter note, congratulations re: your big news. I hope all is well, and I seincerely hope that you get to stay near home base, wherever that is, or if not get to return around the important time. First time, I assume...haven't been there myself, but it must be a load of various emotions, and I wish you well.



Peace,

JAG

 

WTF?

Bush has said that he inherited a recession. The last recession started in March 2001. Bush knows this. Thus, Bush has lied.

That little bit about the interests rates appears to be a diversion on your part.

BTW, your conclusion does not make sense.

 

No worries,

The recision started long before 2001. It started with all the dot.coms going belly up, and that was during Clinton's run.



DD

 

Has any real evidence been posted here? Or is it the same old conspiracy theory crap?

 

I would like to make a propostion. Let's not accuse either the U.S. or other countries opposed to the war for doing what they're doing solely for $$$. I dont' ask this because it's not true. It may well be true, but there is evidence that both sides will gain some financial benefit from the sides they've chosen to take. So in all the arguments over who makes money from taking which side, it almost always ends in a draw.

Let's at least wait and see what happens after the fighting is done. If America sets up administration for long term and starts handing out contracts to companies, then we can argue it again. Or if France puts through some kind of UN resolution which includes some kinds of contract guarantees for itself or will put them in a better position to score the contracts.

I think neither are necessary. In Afghanistan it didn't take long at all for the govt. to be handed over to Afghanis and it shouldn't take long here. Once they are in charge there won't be any need for UN resolutions saying who can or can't get contracts.

In the interim let's just go on the presumption that both sides are acting out of more noble beliefs. This doesn't mean that it's true, just that both sides have an equal amount of evidence and so arguing that point is always a wash

 

You know I get called on this evertime I mentioned this

The National Bureau of Economic Research makes the call on when recessions start. Here is a link to their website:

http://www.nber.org/

According to them, the last recession started in March 2001:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/

 

Are you saying that Bush was able to begin a recession in about 1.5 months?


BTW, did you look over the page you referenced?

Notably, I like:

Figure 2. Current Industrial Production
The dark line shows the movement of industrial production in 1999-2001



Figure 3. Real Manufacturing and Trade Sales
The dark line shows the movement of manufacturing and trade in 1999-2001


Look at when the downturns started.

And also:
FAQs
Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in causing the recession?

A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession.

 

No I am saying that Bush and his Admin keeps claiming every chance they get that they inherited a recession from Clinton. This is a lie and they know it.

 

It's a lie only if you think they believe that a recession may never had occurred if it wasn't for 9-11, but no one can determine that with certainty.

Else, the economic downturn was already well underway. It is no 'lie'.

Personally, I think the subject is rather over-emphasized anyway. We were overdue for a downturn. There was probably little Clinton could have done to avoid it.

 

I am not following your logic at all.

BTW, the NBER on November 26, 2001 reported that a recession had started in March 2001. After November 26, 2001, everytime that Bush has stated that he inherited a recession from Clinton he has knowingly lied. This is fairly cut and dried.

We can debate the politics of why he is lying about when the recession started, but I rather not go there.

 

It is not cut and dried, just because some organization OFFICIALLY names it a recession at a certain day and date, does not mean that it started THAT VERY DAY !!!

The recession or the START of the recesion was clearly underway during the Clinton administration.

By the way it was not Clinton's fault that the recesion happened either, it is simply a matter of the economy going through the natural progression after a faux industry failed....IE the Dot.coms

DD

 

The NBER has the responsibility of making the official call.

You might also want to look closely at the 1991-2001 expansion. During that time there were both upturns and downturns. Clearly when Bush took office, the economy was still in expansion but also in a downturn.

Also didn't the dot com bubble burst in the spring of 2000 (~1 year before the start of the recession)?

 

The causes for the recession may have started in the Clinton administration. The recession itself did not.

 

No Worries,
You're really stretching here. If this is your best example of a bald-faced lie, then Bush must be more honest than I ever thought.

 

There were so many to chose from

I chose one that contradicted an irrefutable fact that he tells all of the time. Mentioning this lie also would not be contrued as a personal attack (like mentioning his DUI, cocaine, pot, National Guard, ad nauseum lies). In additional, this lie can not be dismissed as ex tempore dribble (like "The Iraq people love us", "The terrorists hate our love of freedom"). Finally, this lie is not political cover for his legislative agenda (like "long term tax cuts will get the economy moving again".)

I am glad you asked.

 

I don't really think this is a lie. When the temperature is 105 degrees on June 19th, I say that it's summertime. By this logic you would say I'm lying since the summer solstice has not yet occurred. But in reality, everyone knows summers is coming very soon and there is nothing you can do to stop it, so it's pretty much summer.

 

Whatever works for you.