What Is A Lie?

[Tim Gratz]

Was it a lie for Bush to say that Iraq had WMD when he had intelligence reports that so indicated and that he believed? No.

Was it a lie for JFK to say there were no Russian missiles in Cuba before the evidence was developed proving there was? No.

Bush had every much right to rely on his intelligence reports as JFK did to rely on his. The fact that the CIA may have been incorrect in its assessment that Iraq had WMD no more makes Bush a xxxx than the CIA's original reports that there were no missiles in Cuba makes JFK a xxxx.

Is it a lie for John to call Bush a xxxx when he has no evidence to offer that Bush did not honestly believe the intelligence reports he had on Iraq? That, I suggest, is a lie in the sense that a statement made in reckless disregard for the truth is in fact a lie.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

On C-Span on September 29, 2003 Joe Wilson said that he opposed military action in Iraq because he didn't believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he foresaw the possibility of a difficult occupation. But prior to the U.S. invasion, Mr. Wilson told ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might "use a biological weapon in a battle that he might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat."

So if even the anti-war Wilson believed Hussein had WMD, how can Bush be a xxxx?

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bush did NOT lie.

Please read this important article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim, as someone who has not had a go at you for your political stance, can I please ask you to stop posting on the JFK threads about Bush. There are other more appropriate threads for this kind of thing. give it a rest buddy. Steve.

[Tim Gratz]

Buddy, John started the whole thing with: "A New Watergate."

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Tim, Its John and Andy's Forum, they can start whatever threads they like, or close the bloody thing down, if thats their choise. You like myself are a guest here,all i am saying is there are more appropriate places for this. I have always choosen not to attack your politics, and have deliberatly not joined in threads that have, but this behaviour is becoming tiresome just ease up. Steve.

[Tim Gratz]

Stephen, as you pointed out John can start a thread wherever he wants. But since he started it on the "JFK Assassination Debate" that was the only place I had to respond to it.

[Frank Agbat]

I generally try to steer clear of these debates, too. I have intentionally left my politics aside, and will attempt to write this post from as neutral a base as I can.

I joined the forum to read and post (when I can, which unfortunately is not as often as I would like) along with general discussion of the JFK assassination.

I'm aware that the owners of the forum have the ultimate right to post what they want, where and when they want. I respect this, as I respect the right to free speech -- something I think we all hold dearly.

I do, however, find it ironic that there are dozens of threads in the JFK forum that have a clear and unhidden left/liberal/socialist bias. Some are downright vitriolic and broad-brushed in their treatment of anyone deemed 'right of center' (whatever that is, really). Many of these threads have nothing to do with the actual assassination, or can only be tied there in a very tangential fashion (usually assuming facts not necessarily in evidence). These threads exist for week after week, and are never moved to this forum. Likewise, it seems to be perfectly acceptable behaviour to bash, but to attempt to post a defence is tiresome? This thread and its partner, however, were quickly whisked off onto this forum. (I would have never found it had the link not remained in the JFK section.)

While this is well within the rights of the moderators, it smacks more of "agenda" than "education."