Angry

"Peter Duniho" wrote
"Nick Danger" wrote in message
. ..
Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to
deceive
the other person right from the start.

You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction?"

Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a
problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some
pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement. Or, he
may have been lying.

"Nick Danger" wrote in message
...
Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a
problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some
pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement.

IMHO, he should have said something like "the CIA tells me they know for a
fact..." I don't say that I know something unless I actually do. Bush
obviously could not have known WMD existed, since they eventually turned out
not to. So for him to claim he did know such, had to be a lie.

In my opinion, since Bush did not *personally* know of the WMD, his
statements claiming unequivocable knowledge of them were lies. He probably
doesn't see it that way, and I *know* all those Bush supporters out there
don't see it that way. But I certainly do. His statements made NO
allowance for the possibility that there was an error, misdirection, or
outright untruth in the information he was providing.

I realize people are sloppy with the way they say things, but isn't that the
entire point to this whole subthread? People on both sides of the fence use
words in an ambiguous and incorrect way in order to try to give an
impression of something other than the truth. After the fact, they
equivocate, claiming ignorance or splitting hairs or somesuch. In all
cases, they clearly had the underlying intent to deceive to some degree
(whether about a blowjob or a war).

Frankly, my biggest frustration was watching Powell present the so-called
case to the U.N. I will grant that one assumes the "intelligence community"
uses more information than he was able to present in that forum. But I
certainly came away from his presentation thinking "um, so where did they
actually prove there were WMD?" At best, he had presented a case for
circumstantial evidence, and he certainly did not PROVE the case. Yet huge
numbers of people accepted his hand-waving show as proof.

As much as I might be critical of Bush for making what I perceive to be lies
about Iraq, I object MUCH more to the way everyone was so willing to just
follow along, even when the attempts to demonstrate the claims of WMD were
true failed utterly. It was a real-life "Emperor's New Clothes" situation,
and while Bush made full use of the situation, it couldn't have happened
without the complacency of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other people in a
position to question the claims.

The whole thing is disgusting. I can't think of a single federal politician
who can claim taking the side of truth and justice, Democrat *or*
Republican. They all make me angry.

Pete