Tomservo

This comes to you from MoveOn.org, so their bias is obvious, but it is a rather simple case of backpedaling as fast as Rumsfeld's legs can carry him.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

I dunno about this Censure Bush campaign, though. The election is in November, let's just let democracy run its course, I guess.

Oh, and to save onetime2 the trouble - "Politicians always contradict themselves, they always say they never said something they'd already said!" (Okay, I'm not really speaking for onetime2. No harm meant.)

Pacifier

The sad thing is, I'm afraid he and his administration will get away with this lie

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Mojo_PeiPei

Meh, Its policy, what are you going to do.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

smooth

I heard him claim that crap the other day but the reporter didn't challenge it like they did here.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Evil Milkman

It's policy for politicians to lie through their teeth?

Mojo_PeiPei

Yes, that and looking after our interests.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

hannukah harry

i think you mean "looking after their owns interests." sometimes, that happens to be ours (oil - and i'm saying that to mean the war was about oil, but oil is in our interest, and it is abundant there, and if it is secretly about oil, i would have supported the war if they'd only said it), but not always.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

galadrium

Hes just another one of the lying liars who tells lies.

__________________
Leading the Way

Lebell

Case in point:

When someone posts something from the conservative sites like Worldnetdaily, or from a conservative commentor, there is a RUSH to say,

"Well, look at the news source! That's BIASED!"

Meaning of course, that none of the facts have to be addressed.

But when an equally biased site, this time to the left, gets posted, at least Mojo_PeiPei is addressing what was said and not who delivered it.

I am not busting chops, but I am pointing out something that I have noticed happening FAR too often.

Edited to add:

Least I be charged with the crime of making this up:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=48471

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Ace_of_Lobster

Yeah its hosted on MoveOn, but its a clip from CBS.

Plus its Rumsfeld himself talking!
Really there is a big difference between linking this clip and linking to the rantings of some far-right nutbag. Im sorry if you dont see it.

__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die."
-Patera Silk

Lebell

There is a serious difference between dismissing rantings because they are rantings and dismissing commentary because it comes from someone or somewhere you don't like.

I'm sorry if you don't see it.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

HarmlessRabbit

There is a *big* difference between questioning the source as biased and posting from the NEW YORK POST, WHICH IS A TABLOID LIKE THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. I completely reserve the right to question the source, just like I questioned Drudge when he accused Kerry of having an affair based on article from The Sun, the worst tabloid in England.

And yes, of course moveon is biased. And I have no personal experience to say they are credible. So, I agree with you on that point.

tehblaed

Yes. MoveOn is biased.

There is no ranting. It's a video clip from CBS.

The same video clip coming from http://www.gop.org/ would mean exactly the same thing - Rumsfeld was trying to cover his tracks as quick as possible by avoiding the issue.

This video clip is not an editorial, it's not a ranting, it's not even an article. It's a video clip from CBS. Regardless of where it is.

Charlatan

Yes the clip is from CBS... however, the clip has been edited by MoveOn. In making the edit where they did we don't get to hear all that Rumsfeld had to say and not hearing that makes all the difference.

Just so my own bias is out there... I think Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration snowed America into invading Iraq (for whatever reason).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

tehblaed

Was it edited in the middle of the clip or was it just cut off? Editing parts out of the center of the clip would certainly change my viewpoint, but cutting it off before he could say something smart doesn't take back what he said.

maximusveritas

MoveOn's obvious bias does not come into play here. This isn't their opinion, they didn't make anything up.
All they did was cut it off at the end. I think it would have been better if they had let Rumsfeld finish his sentence at the end, but its not like he had anything smart to say in response.
From the transcript, this was his response:
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
He then goes on to talk about how David Kay is not done yet and Iraq is a big place,blah blah blah.

Sparhawk

Sounds like the should have left the audio on a little longer...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

shakran

You're right. As the transcript above shows (and I saw the actual program and the transcript doesn't really do his stumbling justice) MoveOn's editing actually made Rumsfeld look a little better. If they'd let it go for 10 more seconds we'd have seen that Rumsfeld was desperately trying to figure out what to say, and finally solved it by talking as though the offending quotes had never been mentioned.

pan6467

The people of the US and the men and women who are putting their lives in harm's way. DESERVE THE TRUTH ABOUT WHY WE ARE AT WAR! If it's for oil, or to avenge daddy or for whatever WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH OR WE NEED TO VOTE THE PEOPLE OUT!

NOONE should be able to say "we don't need to know" because we have the right to know, everything we believe as a country is at stake and we deserve to know the truth.

For the men and women who don the uniform and place their lives in jeopardy should KNOW THE TRUTH.

It is time for us to take back the government AND PUT PEOPLE IN THAT WON'T MAKE UP EXCUSES FOR WARS WE CAN'T WIN!

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ace_of_Lobster

No I see it.
You dont, because you dismissed this clip just because it is hosted on MoveOn.org (a source that you dont like).

__________________
"Hundreds of men must have told you how beautiful you are. Would you displease the gods to hear it once more? I wouldn't. Im young and I hope to see a god before I die."
-Patera Silk

Tomservo

That's amazing. The last twelve (thirteen, if you count this one) replies to my post are all arguing about the bias I mentioned in the FIRST LINE of the first post. I'm liberal-moderate, and gladly admit it. However, it *IS* an example of Donald Rumsfeld bakpedaling to cover his lies, or falsehoods, or whatever you want to call them. Many biases exist on both sides, but MoveOn.Org didn't put those words into Rumsfeld's mouth.

Tophat665

Must admit I laughed out loud to see that. rightens me that he's the Secetary of Defense. On the other hand, it is policy, and I kept thinking, "OK, Rummy, game's up and you're talked into a corner. If you were Leo McGary, what would you do now?"

Oh, I see it, Lebell, and you are right, but it's not germane to this situation.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

pan6467

Backpedalling and even lying to the public to some degree is ok. I would rather have someone in any public office sidestep, backpedal and avoid an issue than to give away public safety. However, when in war we need the truth no matter how lame ( then it is up to the public to decide in elections how long the war continues) since it is our children, our neighbors, our friends over there putting thier lives on the line. THEY NEED THE TRUTH!!!!!!!! We need the truth because it affects our lives and our dignity as a nation.

Unfortunately, that is not what the Bush Administration is doing at all. They are flat out lying to the people and have lied 3 times (and we'll see about this the fourth reason) over a war.

First they said he was harboring terrorists. NO PROOF AND IT WAS DENIED HAVING EVER BEEN SAID.

They then went to WMD and we had to stop him. NO PROOF AND AGAIN DENIED EVER SAYING OR IMPLYING YET POWELL TESTIFIED BEFORE THE UN.

Their third try was "imminent threat". AGAIN NO PRROF, NO SUBSTANTIAL OR UNSUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ANYWAY. THEN THEY DENIED EVER SAYING OR IMPLYING "IMMINENT THREAT".

Finally, their latest excuse is "humanitarian need, Saddam was evil and we needed to get rid of him for his people". WHILE PROVEABLE, THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE LET OTHER DICTATORS JUST AS BAD STAY IN POWER UNTOUCHED. THIS IS ALSO THE LAMEST OF EXCUSES.

The point is THEY KEEP LYING AND TRYING TO COVER UP THE LAST LIE. If this were Clinton the GOP would have rightfully impeached him and he'd be out of office and possibly facing treason. Yet, Bush remains unscathed as the GOP does everything to stop a true Congressional investigation. Thier talking heads sit there and berate anyone questioning the war.

WE NEED TO QUESTION THIS WAR BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ON THE LINES NEED THE TRUTH, WE NEED THE TRUTH OR WE ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF AGRESSION AND GREED. WE NEED THE TRUTH SO THAT WE, THE PEOPLE CAN DECIDE IF WE NEED TO BE THERE OR NOT.

And before some GOP person claims that I am saying the government can't wage war without the people's approval and therefore that hurts us. I say baloney. Iraq did not attack us, could not attack us and for the most part was never a threat to anyone. If we are attacked we need to fight back but invading countries for false reasons is NOT A DEFENSE IT IS AN OFFENSE AND SHOWS THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT WE WANT TO TAKE OVER.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

tecoyah

I am just curious.....If that had been from the Clinton administration, would you have the same reaction?

Honestly, tell us the truth.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

shakran

Pan6467: You just saved me a lot of typing. I agree 100%. Keep hammering those points home. Something's gotta counter the bullshit propaganda Bush & Co. are producing.

analog

Jesus... and people wonder why I never venture in here. Some of these arguments are arguments for the sake of yakking about what "side" you're on, and accusing others of .

It's a video clip. VID-E-O. It's not a picture, an edited sound clip, or a sock-puppet show. It's moving picture with sound, original and whole (no edits) except where it trails out at the end. It had to end somewhere. He'd already blatantly contradicted himself, what followed would not have changed that.

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills sometimes, and then I realize i'm in a Politics thread.

How about this: Why do you feel Rumsfeld lied (if you think he lied) about such information, and how does this lie affect how we accept things he says in general as being truthful...

OR

If you truly believe he just "slipped up" and "forgot" he had said that on at least 2 occasions (as evidenced in the video), then explain your thoughts on why it's not otherwise irresponsible to make such a sweeping generalization to begin with. He couldn't possibly know who ALL said what in the last 3 years, could he?

There's an actual topic. How about it?

Thank you to those who are actually engaging in debate. The rest of us appreciate it.

hammer4all

Just for the record, here are a bunch more quotes from the administration:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=24970

And some more good stuff:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/press-pack.html

http://www.moveon.org/censure/ad-doc.html

JumpinJesus

The Bush Administration had to know that it would be political suicide to knowingly lie to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that they were certain, regardless of what doubts may have existed, that weapons would be found. I believe this is why they pursued this avenue of justification.

The truth is that people like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld had been pushing to oust Hussein during the Clinton Administration but Clinton would not heed their wishes.

link

Some will argue that the desire to invade Iraq was an exercise in taking over a weakened Middle East nation to exert stronger American influence over Arab issues and oil supplies. The letter claims it was to mainain the safety of American citizens from the use of WMDs. That is an issue for a whole other debate.

My opinion is that, after 9/11, they had the justification they felt they needed. It did not matter whether or not Hussein was involved in the attacks, they knew the connection could be made in the minds of Americans, so they set out making that connection. They never came out and said that Hussein was responsible, but they uttered his name in connection with Al-Qaeda often enough that many began to believe the connection.

The use of WMD as a justification seemed obvious to them. Iraq had used chemical weapons in the past and Hussein would have liked nothing more than to get his hands on nuclear technology.
They were certain that Hussein had stockpiles hidden where they had not previously searched. The administration was careful to never come out and say they had definitive proof. This allows them to now claim that it was faulty intelligence or to use semantics to distance themselves from earlier claims.

Either way, I echo what pan6467 says, we have a right to know the full truth and the Bush administration has an obligation to the American people to divulge all information. Do we forget that our system of government demands that our leaders are answerable to its citizens?

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

brianna

I think he lied because the administration believes (with some validity) that the American people are incapable of understanding mistakes made by their leaders. If they came out and said, "we were wrong, there was no immediate threat, there were no WMDs, and had we known then what we know now the war would not have taken place." many American would be unable to accept this truth, we do not allow our government to be wrong or to opporate in shades of gray.

As someone who leans to the left and would like to see a populous that can handle the truth I think they should say that anyway -- but i hardly expect it. I imagine that were a right leaner I would feel that such lies benefit the ultimate future good (ie saddam was a bad man, democracy is great, etc) and thus are excusable. But it would still be a lie.

shakran

I don't think they believe that for one second. Their mantra is, repeat it often enough and it becomes true. That's why we have Rumsfeld claiming he never said stuff that he actually said. If he repeats that enough, it will be true because that's what people will remember. In the current political climate, you can lie and get away with it as long as it's not a lie about sex.

Except that it was not a mistake. They knew DAMN well that there was no solid evidence that Hussein had WMD's but they told us he did anyway. Bush knew DAMN well in the state of the union that the African yellowcake story was bullshit, yet he told us anyway. That's not a mistake, that's deliberate deception. They are now lying because if they do not it will become obvious to even the dumbest and most easilly manipulated among us that they lied before, which will put their administration in jeopardy, and because they know that, without a strong republican school of pirhannas to press the issue as we had when Clinton lied about his affair, they probably won't get called on it until it's far too late to change the results of the election. As I said before, tell the story often enough and the story becomes true in the minds of those you tell it to.

Essentially, Bush & Co. think the american people are stupid sheep who will believe anything they see on TV. They've been proven correct in that belief before - after all, at this time last year 74% of us actually believed the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi, when in fact none of them were. But Bush alluded to it time after time in speech after speech, and, like the good sheep we were, the vast majority of our nation bought it, even though all the evidence pointed to the contrary.

Bush's people are masterful manipulators of the media - heck look at the speech he gave today. He said the world is safer from terrorism (yet minutes later he extended our sympathy to Madrid after they suffered a devastating terrorist attack), he said the Taliban was destroyed by the US-led invasion of Afghanistan (then why are they gaining power again now that we're paying attention to Iraq?). He even praised France, saying they were an ally in this war on terror (oh really? I wonder if it's still Freedom Toast on Air Force One). They say whatever is convenient to them at the time that they say it and they know full well that many Americans will buy it simply because they said it on TV.

It's the same situation as all those bullshit forwards I'm sure we all get warning us of crap like HIV infected needles in movie theater seats, gang members who drive around with their lights off at night, waiting for someone to flash their lights at them so they can kill them, or forwards telling us to forward the email to 50 people and Bill Gates will pay us a lot of money. All this stuff is complete and utter horseshit, yet the mentality of many is that because it's on the internet, it must be true.

If we truly want a country that is a representative of the people, we need to become truthseekers. That means no more bitching that you're missing your soap opera because the networks have cut to special coverage of something the government is doing. No more complaining that the coverage of the war is interrupting Survivor (as though the war isn't reality television). We need to seek out and actively demand information, because without information we are easilly manipulated. Information is power, and right now, the majority of the American public is powerless.

/rant

hiredgun

Ace, I don't think Lebell's intent was to dismiss the clip; What he wanted to point out (I think) was that it is hypocritical of people to attack a piece of political debate based on its source, unless there is something explicitly questionable about its content.

For example, in the thread he refers to, someone posted a political essay/analysis from an admittedly heavily conservative website. People then proceeded to respond by attacking the source itself rather than discussing in what ways, if any, the analysis was flawed.

So his point was that something is not incorrect simply by virtue of being hosted on a biased site (bias not necessarily being a bad thing).

Evil Milkman

I'm still curious on waiting for this response. Yearning for an education, if you will.

HarmlessRabbit

NO NO NO NO.

*I* attacked the source cited in that thread BECAUSE IT IS A TABLOID. The New York Post isn't a conservative source. IT IS A TABLOID. Like the National Enquirer is a tabloid! Like the Weekly World News is a tabloid. Like The Sun, which attacked Kerry on having an affair (which he didn't) is a tabloid!

I don't think the National Review has anything like the NY Post's Page Six.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm

saut

I can't watch the clip -- can someone tell me what he said?

shakran

To summarize, Saut, Rumsfeld said he had never said Iraq posed an immediate threat. One of the panelists then read two statements by Rumsfeld before the war saying Saddam was (in the first quote) an imminent threat, and (second quote) no nation on earth was a more immediate threat than Iraq. Rumsfeld then stumbled around trying to get out of it and (this is beyond the scope of the clip posted here) then acted as though the panelist had never brought those two quotes up, hoping the public would forget about it.

bouray

There is no surprise here, Rummy is just trying to cover their tracks as usual. Why worry about the truth when a blatant lie told enuff times can lead enuff citizens to believe whatever the Admin. wants.
In this day and age, I find it so hard to believe how many Americans fall for this Bush administration song and dance bullshit. Why can't people in this country see what this administration is doing to us? Look, during the ending years of Clinton all we heard from the GOP was a sermon about morals, personal responsibility, and bringing respect back to our country in the eyes of the world. What has happened---Our lovely president and his staff of Right-wing flunkies are leading us into the gutter.
I don't mean to rant, but imagine what would have happened if the Clinton administration had decided to attack another country and told various mistruths about the reason for going to war. My god, the Rushes and Hannities of the country would be crucifying every little thing that was said.
Imagine if Clinton or if we had Pres. Gore, had led this country into the biggest deficit in history, 2 years following a surplus, what the rantings of those on the right would have been like. After preaching fiscal reform and balancing the budget for 8 years, all of a sudden it is alright to be back in deficit because it had to be done to bring us out of a recession. Please stop the song and dance and all this hypocritical support the party no matter what BULLSHIT!!!!

They Lied, that is it.

shakran

Because they aren't looking. They'd rather watch Survivor and Fear Factor than actually look to see what their government is doing. It takes work to keep yourself informed of current events and the vast majority of Americans are lazy ignoramuses who don't want to have to think any more than they absolutely have to.

A friend of mine is very fond of saying that the majority of the country had a C or lower average in school. It's cynical, but he's correct. The majority of the country is average or below average, which means the majority of the country does not have the drive to inform themselves of what's going on.

pan6467

I have to,with all due respect Shakran, fervently disagree with you.

I believe that the majority of the US people truly are intelligent and care. The problem is they feel helpless in this situation. A MAJORITY elected a president in '92 AND '96 and he was not allowed to do the job THE PEOPLE put him in to do. It didn't matter in '96 that people told the GOP THEY WANTED CLINTON, the GOP kept hounding and persecuting and destroying.

In 2000, it didn't matter that GORE was elected by a majority, because Bush took over in Florida and won the majority of electoral college votes, which is ok, but the way it was done and where leaves lots of doubt as to authenticity.

The people in my opinion, just have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter who they vote for the GOP WILL TAKE OVER ANYWAY. Look at the hate and vile on the radio and in tv ads, it's a turnoff. The people, I have met and talked to feel it just doesn't matter who they vote for anymore. If they vote GOP they get patriotism shoved down their throat and watch us divide into 2 classes, and if they vote Dem. the GOP do all they can to prevent the Dems. from doing the job.

Hell, look what the FCC is doing to Stern after he stopped supporting Bush.

That is why more than ever people need to form rallies this Summer and Fall. And why the people who do care need to go out and do all they can to change the attitude of the people.

It is my belief that people will listen and once they realize that their voice does matter, we may start seeing large turnouts again.

In my mind only 1 of 2 things can happen, 1) people need to be given a true reason to vote or 2) this election is it, the GOP if they win will be so strong it truly won't matter next time and it'll take 50 years to change what the have and will do to this country.

It's just not Kerry that needs to be elected it is Dem congressmen that need to be elected also.

I can assure you that I have my passport and will apply for a visa if the GOP is reelected because this country will no longer be the one I love and the freedoms will be totally gone. The GOP like to point out that things we believed for years were rights are now "priveleges".

Clean air and Environmental protection? A privelege.

A national park system? A privelege, loggers and oil companies need the land and we don't have the money to finance it. (Teddy Roosevelt the FOUNDER of the NPS must be turning in his grave).

The best public education system in the world? A privelege, we don't need to educate the workers of tomorrow, when we can have wars and send them off to them.

Good paying decent jobs and workers rights? A privelege, this is a global economy and we don't want Nike to ACTUALLY have to pay for labor. Instead of charging $100 for a pair of shoes that cost $5 to make overseas, they'd have to charge $250 for that pair because it might cost them $20 to make here.

My wife got sick and was in the hospital for a week. When she went back to work she was fired because they "needed someone who could be there". It didn't matter she had worked there 3 years and never missed a day. When we called lawyers they said although that was shitty practice they couldn't do anything.

No education, no jobs, means they'll start going into the service. We can pick the best then and have a great big army and take over the World, Pinky.

It starts with a small group wanting change, and the people will listen if it makes sense and shows them how life can be better.

IT STARTS WITH A FEW VOCAL PEOPLE DEMANDING CHANGE AND GETTING MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED TO WHERE THE DEMANDS MUST BE HEARD IN A TRUE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

tehblaed

Shakran, may I have your children?

shakran

Hmm. I'm sure by the time they're two years old I'll be more than willing to give them to you

Pan, I agree with you that we need to start making a hell of a lot of noise. As far as the average thing, by definition the majority of people are average or below. Average is the most common condition - that's why it's average. If you add below average to average you always end up with a greater percentage than if you just look at above average. That's the point of why my friend says.

Also, your explanation of why people are lethargic (because they think the GOP is gonna screw things up no matter what they do) has merit only for the non-republicans. What I mean by that is, for example, look at the 74% of the country that believed many of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq, simply because the administration alluded to it. That's not an issue of saying "fuckit, they'll screw it up anyway, why should I vote them out." That's an issue of saying "they said it, so it must be true," even though evidence is readilly available to contradict what they said.

Hope that made sense - - i'm pretty tired tonight