HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 22, 2006 By now it should be obvious to everyone, as it was to me before he and I began this debate, that Mr. Keyes will remain resolute in his personal opinion that the President is a liar. I never hoped to change his believe by questioning his assertions, I am merely trying to point out that by asserting his opinion is, indeed, fact, it is he that is the confirmed liar and not Mr. Bush. He wants you to think I’ve tried to say the President did not lie, I did not. I’ve said that in order to prove a lie, an absolute requirement is the element of "intent." Mr. Keyes has ignored my assertion repeatedly and continues to posit circumstantial evidence bolstering his opinion. Mr. Keyes, your allegations would be thrown out of the lowest court in the land. As a reminder of how difficult it is to prove someone lied, I would refer you to Bill Clinton’s evasions in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. "Did you have sex with Ms. Lewinsky?", he was asked. "No," he replied. Lip stick stains and one pearl necklace notwithstanding, he was still not convicted of perjury. If I recall, he resorted to quiveling over the legal definition of "is." Nothing in what you’ve provided proves Mr. Bush lied. To your credit, you did prove that someone on Tony Blair’s staff plagiarized, but I still say that you distorted those facts. You implied that "a college student" wrote the thesis "several years earlier." Even this second citation you provide confirms that he was a "post-graduate" student which, we both know, can be a significant distinction. Especially in light of your second distortion – this citation states that the paper was published only a few months before it was plagiarized although he did base it, in part, on research he had done years earlier. Assuming (which you should often admit rather than claiming as fact your opinions) that he was an undergrad student while doing that first research in ’91, I would also assume that he studies had progressed mightily by ’03 taking him well beyond the status of ordinary "college student." And, in fact, as I pointed out last time, it did. He is a research fellow at that Monterrey Institute. Without pardoning the Blair administration for plagiarism, to belittle their source is inaccurate. Your further citation of the El Bar speech may have helped our audience understand your opinion, but it does nothing to bolster your allegation in a hypothetical court of law. It may not surprise you to hear that my opinion of the IAEA and its investigative capability is not high. I suspect that the President has similar reservations. Common sense (I know, I’m a Pain that way) tells me, as it did the President, that Sadaam considered our country his enemy, that he was a proven liar (we can go down that road if you want to see how to prove a court case for perjury), and that he was diligently trying to avoid arms inspections. To err on the side of caution regarding debatable allegations of uranium shopping was, in my opinion, absolutely the correct stance in the aftermath of 9/11. Regarding the mythical video, your new citation still does not produce the video. Nor do you address my rebut – that it wouldn’t matter, the alleged statements were made pre-9/11 and all prior assumptions should have, rightfully, been reassessed after that event. However, since every story about this story never mentions anyone actually seeing the video, and since the story include obvious bigotry against the President, to call it credible is far-fetched. In summary, please Thomas, go on believing as you do – it’s a free country precisely because of men like Mr. Bush and our soldiers throughout history. But don’t go misrepresenting your beliefs as facts unless they are. I realize that a large segment of our readership is equally hysterical in their rage against the war and also have a foggy perception of truth vs. lies, but even a landslide of opinion cannot morph into fact. Either you can prove that the President intended his mistaken words to deceive or you can’t. If you can’t, you can not legally call him a liar. But, just as I can call Clinton a lying, scumbag whoremonger, and Ted Kennedy a drunken murderer IN MY OPINION, you can do the same of Mr. Bush. Isn’t America wonderful!! ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@direcway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
