Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Coyne who wrote (406714)	5/15/2003 4:54:08 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>>If he believed it, he did not lie Are you a regular village idiot or do you only play one here????

To: George Coyne who wrote (406714)	5/15/2003 5:21:49 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

<You have not made the case that Bush has lied.> <the jury is still out on the possession of WMDs.> And how long would you like the jury to stay "out"? At least till the end of Bush's second term, or till everyone is focussed on the next crisis, right? We have 100,000+ inspectors on the ground. We have a team of experts, with all the skills and all the equipment. We have in custody many of the Iraqi scientists. We have zero evidence of WMD. The inspection team, as I posted, is packing up and getting ready to go home. Message 18948471 Why would they be admitting failure, and going home, if "the jury was still out"? <how can you assume that Bush did not believe that there were WMDs? If he believed it, he did not lie.> Using that logic, nobody ever tells a lie. Any President can simply say, "Oh, well, I thought it was true when I said it. Prove I didn't." Of course, since it is impossible to prove a negative, or prove that someone had (or didn't have) a thought, this is a method to wriggle out of responsibility for anything he says. Bush said he knew Iraq had WMD. He said it many, many times. Every senior Administration official said it. They said they had no doubts. There were no caveats, no hesitations. They said they had proof. Message 18948456 If he said he knew Iraq had WMD, and his "proof" later turned out to be forgeries, how does that absolve him of responsibility? The President said: "I know, I'm sure, trust me". Well, we trusted him, and he broke our trust. I'll use a simple analogy here. Let's say you go to the store, and buy a light bulb that is supposed to last for 10,000 hours. Let's say it burns out after 1000 hours. This is false advertising. You can take the light bulb back, and sue the company if they don't give you compensation. It is the bulb maker's responsibility to know how long the bulb lasts, and no excuses are accepted. He can't say, "we're still testing them, results of our studies won't be back for another decade, wait till then." He also can't say, "Gosh, we thought they'd last 10,000 hours, we didn't deliberately do false advertising, we just didn't know. Prove we knowingly lied." That shifts the burden of proof away from where it should be, and makes proving anything impossible. Why do we hold the President to a lower standard, than the company that sells us light bulbs?