Is W a Liar or an Idiot? You be the judge

[mburbank]

This is tken from a transcript of W's interview with Diane Sawyer.

DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: — an active —

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?

PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.

DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

[The Unseen]

What the hell is a causis belli? :/

Anyways, George is an asshole.

[sspadowsky]

Wow. Amazing. I don't know whether to be disgusted or awestruck.

[Perndog]

Does there need to be an 'or' in there? Liar and idiot has a nice ring to it.

[mburbank]

I have an apple.

I am engaged in activities that could result in my attaining an apple.


What's the difference?

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by The Unseen

What the hell is a causis belli? :/

He meant CASUS belli. It basically means a "cause for war."

[The Unseen]

Thanks, King Spaghetti!

[kellychaos]

"And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country. "

Why does he keep inisting on mentioning Iraq in conjunction with Al Qaeda when, thus far, there has been no link found, financial or otherwise, between Sadam Hussein and that organization?

[CastroMotorOil]

Mohammad Atta was trained in iraq

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I have an apple.

I am engaged in activities that could result in my attaining an apple.


What's the difference?

False analogy. A better one would be:

I know he has an apple.

I am engaged in activities that could result in my attaining his apple.

What's the difference?

[sspadowsky]

Actually, it's a dead-accurate analogy. Once again, you are convinced you're right (though you're not sure about what), so you're being a contrary prick just for the sake of being a contrary prick.

[phnompehn]

False analogy. A better one would be:

I know he has an apple.

I am engaged in activities that could result in my attaining his apple.

What's the difference?

You just said almost the exact same thing, only from a different perspective. If the original analogy was false, so is yours.

I'm going to assume that when you say "I know he has an apple," you're putting yourself in Bush's perspective, referencing to Saddam.

If that stays the same, then when you say "I am engaged in activities that could result in my attaining his apple," you are suggesting that Bush is trying to take Iraqi weapons, assuming that by "his," you mean those of Saddam.

One of us has said something stupid.

And now I want an apple.

EDIT: And as for whether Bush is an idiot or a liar, he's an idiot who attempts to lie. Sort of a poser liar.

[mburbank]

OAO is a weiner

OAO is engaged in program related activities which may result in his becoming a weiner.

What's the difference?

[The One and Only...]

It's not the exact same thing. Burbank stated that he has an apple. I stated that subject X has an apple. Both of wrote similar second lines, which means that the first line seperated the analogies. It's a nitpick, but it's still there.

[Bennett]

weiner

[phnompehn]

Originally Posted by Weiner

I stated that subject X has an apple.

In bizzaro world, we declare our variables (subject X) before we make our statements (Analogy in question). Your universe continues to amaze me.



...I mean, bizzaro amaze me.