SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth, they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:07:47 +0100, "Oelewapper"
wrote:

Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram


Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!

Finally listened to it. American interviewers could take a large
lesson in how to aggressively interview government officials. So could
our government officials take a lesson in being more open.

Or maybe it's just the BBC English that impresses Americans....;-)

wrote in message ...
In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:

wrote in message ...
In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
control required.

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...
In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest
to
what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg


History looks at Jimmy Carter very kindly. As for his presidency, I don't
think that history will give it much thought, as it wasn't noted for
war-mongering and personal scandals. Certainly he had his problems to
overcome, like the hostage crisis, but he had his successes, like Camp
David.

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:

..

He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
control required.



I'm not sure many economists would concur withh your views about the
necessity of a recession to control inflation. Certainly in other times
inflation has been controlled without recession. In any case, that was only
one reason he lost the election. You are overlooking his foreign policy
failures, the Iran hostage crisis and Afghanistan for example. Nice enough
man but he exuded impotence.

Jarg

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:14:53 +0000, Jarg wrote:

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:

.

He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
control required.



I'm not sure many economists would concur withh your views about the
necessity of a recession to control inflation. Certainly in other times
inflation has been controlled without recession.

I have not heard many negative reports of Volcker's time at the feds.
Reagan could not do better than keep him.

As to wishful thinking, besides indluging in voodoo thing, it's not clear
to me that in the circumstances, inflation could have been brought under
control except by shock therapy. Massive increase in interest rates.

In any case, that was only
one reason he lost the election. You are overlooking his foreign policy
failures, the Iran hostage crisis and Afghanistan for example. Nice enough
man but he exuded impotence.

The dirty trick that Reagan played with Iran helped too. But at the end
of the day, the perception that the economy was terrible did it.

In article , Jarg
wrote:

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg

Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
time period.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything
real done.

It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.