Meanwhile, it can take its faux outrage, fold it five ways, and stick it where the sun don’t shine. It is an intellectual coward, and no amount of screeching and gibbering will hide that fact.

Why don’t you spend two minutes googling the definition of “hypocrite”, dumbass, and take a dose of your own medicine for once.

Are “falsehoods” and “misinformation” the same as “lies” to you? Or is their some tiered system we are unaware of?

Notice that shitmonkey has not bothered to meet any of the challenges put to him in the comments above. Perhaps he is content to continue to hurl his own shit in the hopes no one will notice his cowardice and stupidity.

The CPI report refers to the use of falsehoods and misinformation by the Bush administration. I can find no instance in which the authors of the report make a direct accusation of lying against Bush or his subordinates.

I consider the deliberate use of falsehoods and misinformation to be a form of lying. It will be the judgment of history whether Bush and his cronies are guilty of lying.

So Bush made mistakes, but didn’t set out to deceive anyone, is that it?

I have not said that.

And what’s so bad about making mistakes?

In this specific case, the actions taken by the Bush administration (whether mistaken or deliberate) have sent nearly four thousand Americans to their deaths, and maimed tens of thousands more, on the basis of falsehoods and misinformation. In the eyes of people with a normally developed sense of morality, that falls into the category of “bad”.

One does not expect a morally incompetent shitmonkey to understand such matters.

A lie is an untruth told with the intent to deceive, while a falsehood is simply an untrue statement.

So Bush made mistakes, but didn’t set out to deceive anyone, is that it?

And what’s so bad about making mistakes?

Are “falsehoods” and “misinformation” the same as “lies” to you? Or is their some tiered system we are unaware of?

Are you saying that the report in question did not claim bush lied?

Hhhmmm…the authors of the study that started this whole thread published the study for a group that soros helps fund. Left wing bias to the report? Oh of couuurrsse not…uh uh not at all (that’s called sarcasm meaty, look it up)

shitmonkey has yet to cite a left wing study that claims bush lied. We will wait in vain for him to do so, I suspect.

Meaty, do you understand the words “if” and “then?” I said IF A isn’t shown THEN proven etc….which means I didn’t say it IS a smear tactic, but I did say it would be IF the allegations of lies aren’t proven. See how that works? It’s called language.

Nice dance.

Perhaps shitmonkey can cite the specific statements in the report that he considers “smears”, and explain exactly why those statements should be considered smears.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps shitmonkey can cite the specific “allegations of lies” contained in the CPI report.

Perhaps not.

And nobody has said a crime was committed…

Indeed, no one in this thread has said that a crime was committed. Nor does it appear that the report make that allegation. Therefore, shitmonkey’s repeated howls about nonexistent accusations that crimes were committed were, in fact, a feeble attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that the Bush administration employed the repeated dissemination of falsehoods and misinformation as a means of selling a war of aggression to the people of the United States.

...but if a crime was not committed then what is the point of the report?

As has already been explained, the report documents the persistent and repeated dissemination of falsehoods and misinformation as a means of selling a war of aggression to the people of the United States.

Historians? UHhuh….spreading lies more likely…

Perhaps shitmonkey can be more specific regarding the lies he believes the CPI report will be used to spread, and how the report supports such hypothetical lies.

If there is no proof that bush actually lied then there is no point to the report.

False. As has already been explained, the report documents the persistent and repeated dissemination of falsehoods and misinformation as a means of selling a war of aggression to the people of the United States.

All I am seeing so far is allegations without proof, but then that’s the stock in trade of your side.

Perhaps shitmonkey can be more specific: What “allegations without proof” are contained in the CPI report?

shitmonkey has yet to cite a left wing study that claims bush lied. We will wait in vain for him to do so, I suspect.

Hhhmmm…the authors of the study that started this whole thread published the study for a group that soros helps fund. Left wing bias to the report? Oh of couuurrsse not…uh uh not at all (that’s called sarcasm meaty, look it up)

Meaty, do you understand the words “if” and “then?” I said IF A isn’t shown THEN proven etc….which means I didn’t say it IS a smear tactic, but I did say it would be IF the allegations of lies aren’t proven. See how that works? It’s called language.

And nobody has said a crime was committed, but if a crime was not committed then what is the point of the report? Historians? UHhuh….spreading lies more likely….

If there is no proof that bush actually lied then there is no point to the report. All I am seeing so far is allegations without proof, but then that’s the stock in trade of your side.

meaty, just because some left wing study claims bush lied doe not make it true.

shitmonkey has yet to cite a left wing study that claims bush lied. We will wait in vain for him to do so, I suspect.

If the report (which I am in the middle of reading) doesn’t show that Bush said one things and then, prove he knew differently at the time then there is no proof that bush lied about anything, and this “report” is simply a left wing smear tactic on an outgoing president.

Perhaps shitmonkey can cite the specific statements in the report that he considers “smears”, and explain exactly why those statements should be considered smears.

Perhaps not.

What part of “No crime was committed” do you fail to grasp?

Who in this thread has claimed that a crime was committed? The smell of rotting straw man grows more pungent by the minute…

And how badly does it chafe your hide to know that no impeachment is coming down the line, that bush isn’t going to jail and all of the teeth gnashing is getting you guys nothing more than high blood pressure and angst?

I am well aware that an impeachment of anyone in the Bush administration is unlikely. The documentation of the long list of falsehoods and misinformation used by the Bush administration is itself a worthwhile task. It is likely that the CPI database will prove a useful tool for historians for many years to come.

If the report (which I am in the middle of reading) doesn’t show that Bush said one things and then, prove he knew differently at the time then there is no proof that bush lied about anything, and this “report” is simply a left wing smear tactic on an outgoing president.

What part of “No crime was committed” do you fail to grasp?

And how badly does it chafe your hide to know that no impeachment is coming down the line, that bush isn’t going to jail and all of the teeth gnashing is getting you guys nothing more than high blood pressure and angst?

BWAAHAHAHAHAAAA….....neener neener neeeeeeeneerrr

meathead, does the report have proof that Bush lied on purpose or under oath?

Perhaps shitmonkey can first explain why the CPI report would contain proof of an allegation it does not make…

what, really, can you possibly do about someone saying something that may not be true?

One can do exactly what this report does: Document the persistent and repeated dissemination of falsehoods and misinformation as a means of selling a war of aggression to the people of the United States.

Maybe the things said were believed to be true at the time they were said. Maybe they were true at that time.

Maybe shitmonkey can provide evidence for either of these claims. (Evidence truly is pesky, isn’t it? Especially when one has none…)

Aside from all of that, where is it against the law to lie in a speech or a press conference?

I know of no law against lying in a speech or a press conference. I do wonder, though, whether shitmonkey finds the persistent and repeated dissemination of falsehoods and misinformation as a means of selling a war of aggression to the people of the United States to be morally objectionable.

No, wait, we already know the answer to that: shitmonkey itself is more than willing to use falsehood to support an argument. So it cannot possibly believe that it is immoral to employ falsehoods.

So where did Bush lie under oath or to investigators that were pursuing a crime?

Who has asserted that he did so?

Is that the smell of scalded meaty I detect upon the ether of cyberspace?

No — that’s the smell of shitmonkey’s own straw man, rotting in the sun.

If there is no proof (you know that pesky evidence shit that causes prosecutors to actually file charges?) that Bush (or anyone else for that matter) lied on purpose with a plan to actually deceive the populace that what, really, can you possibly do about someone saying something that may not be true?

Maybe the things said were believed to be true at the time they were said. Maybe they were true at that time.

Aside from all of that, where is it against the law to lie in a speech or a press conference? The only time I have seen people get in trouble for lying was when they told legal investigators (such as the police) a lie OR they told a lie UNDER OATH.

So where did Bush lie under oath or to investigators that were pursuing a crime?

Putting aside the fact that you won’t actually reply to the substance of this comment, can you show me one law that says it is illegal to lie in general? (as in when you are not talking to the police or under oath?)

Is that the smell of scalded meaty I detect upon the ether of cyberspace?

Man that’s rank….take a bath (gratuitous insult thrown in to keep my vast right wing conspiracy union card)

the center for public integrity? Isnt that a soros funded group?

And if it is? shitmonkey cannot demonstrate that anything in the report is actually incorrect — so it waves “soros funded” in the air, hoping that no one will notice its failure to make a serious argument.