Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
That is why I need you. Help me see the light. I can identify a lie when it is presented to me with factual truth. It seems that we gone from Bush and Cheney lied to lies of ommision. That is pretty convenient, isn't it. Then we find that the data omitted was not material to any relavant question. So, I am concluding the whole "Bush Lied" thing is just an empty phrase.
|
Here's what I'm saying, and ALL that I'm saying: Bush wanted into Iraq. There's anecdotal evidence that he was talking about Iraq the afternoon of September 11, when there was NO intelligence to link the two, false or otherwise. Then he culled the intel he needed to support the conclusion he had already arrived at and brought to the table.
What I'm inviting you to consider is that you're making the same logical blunder. You've concluded that Bush Didn't Lie, and that conclusion blinds you to the (ample, btw) evidence that he did. I know it LOOKS like you haven't seen any evidence that satisfactorily contradicts your position... but notice that you HAVE a position, and you're holding the evidence up against it. That's not exactly what you'd call the scientific method.
I assert that you're not actually interested in knowing whether Bush lied, per the second sentence that I quoted. I assert you're mostly interested in defending your pre-supposition.