1) “Unfortunately, in the real world caveat emptor is the standard, except in cases of children, mentally handicapped, and others that cannot protect themselves. You know it’s true installment loans OK. “
If I took my taxes to an accountant, and the accountant left out crucial information to me, I believe that accountant is morally accountable for misleading me into believing that I had done my taxes correctly. Let us assume that everything he did say was factually accurate. In the real world, people listen to the president and take impressions just as surely as facts. If you dispute this, that is fine, but I cannot think of any time in the past 50 years in which presidents have not used their rhetoric to make the public believe something while utilizing methods of persuasion that are factually correct, but misleading.
You may think that the fact people may have been misled, or at least mistaken about the reasons for war are “silly,” I do not
2) “We must have rules to organize society, rules are codified into law, violation of laws are based on fact, not opinion, not impressions. From this the societal perception of fairness springs, it can be no other way, otherwise witchhunts could again be justified based on “impressions.”
Perhaps you have me wrong. I am not suggesting that Bush committed a legal offense, that he should be impeached or that he committed a crime regarding his statements about Iraq’s connections to 9/11. I am suggesting that he mislead the American people into believing that there was a connection between them when he knew that no evidence supported such a contention.
But as you and the media finally now admit GWB NEVER LIED
I am afraid I will not admit such a claim, as I do not believe it. At issue here is Bush’s claims regarding Iraq’s connection to the 9/1 attacks. My arguments here do not go beyond that at this time. In fact, I do believe that Bush has lied, on many occasions, about many different things, including other reasons for the war in Iraq. I am simply saying that in THIS instance, I have not seen any evidence to demonstrate that he lied. Furthermore, you imply (if I may use a word that is clearly in dispute) that I or the media once said that Bush did claim Iraq was connected to 9/11. I am not familiar with the media making such a charge.
4) “So detractors have descended to the next best thing….he deceived us. If someone is caught in a lie, then fine, go after ‘em. But before that line is crossed, the accused is innocent. Further, in this instance the whole thing is undoubtedly a political attack, everyone knows this is a red herringe no one will be talking this silliness.”
I sincerely hope that a full invasion of another country predicated on support from a population that was mistaken in its beliefs (for WHATEVER reason) will not simply be forgotten or dismissed as silliness. People have been killed, governments changed, and American security affected one way or another because of this war. Also, since when have policy leaders been assumed innocent without proof? For 8 years, Bill Clinton was accused of just about every crime he could be accused of. He got impeached for one of them, the rest went nowhere, and yet I do not remember anyone complaining that he was innocent until proven guilty. We are not in a courtroom, and politics is not about legal technicalities. If Bush wins or loses this fairly certain it will not because of any legal analysis about his behavior.
