CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

Yahoo ^ | February, 5, 2004 | KATHERINE PFLEGER Associated Press writer

[Dr. Frank fan]

You demonstrate why you would never be allowed to sit on a jury. You have a considerable misunderstanding about the nature of alleging and proving guilt and the very nature of evidence and its use.

Hm. You seem to have the misapprehension that this was a jury trial in a court of law. It was not.

In fact, you turn it on its head, insisting that we must believe all allegations until we prove the perpetrator is/was innocent.

Not "all" allegations. I do indeed believe that it is misplaced to give the benefit of the doubt to someone like a Saddam Hussein, and place the burden of proof on others, rather than vice versa.

Obviously, were this a jury trial in a court of law, the rules of evidence would be different. But this is not a jury trial in a court of law, like I've said. Why do you think/assume it is?

Believe what you will.

I'm puzzled as to what it is you think I "believe". I've already explained that I don't necessarily "believe" (or disbelieve) the drones/anthrax story, for example. I have not stated any "beliefs" of that nature in this thread. I don't know why you have such a difficult time understanding my posts. It's presumably some combination of (admittedly) me not explaining myself very well, and (I dare say) you not reading my posts very carefully let alone thinking about what is in them.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Bush did not say 'imminent' as is being bandied about. That will not be the basis of the Dims' accusations.

I'm glad to hear that, but still a little puzzled, because in the link you provide Kerry (or whatever Kerry flunky wrote that statement) DOES accuse Bush of having called Iraq an "imminent threat".

It really seems true: lefties and anti-war folks think that "imminent" is a magic word which can be wielded to win all arguments. All I can say is *shrug*

[George W. Bush]

I'm glad to hear that, but still a little puzzled, because in the link you provide Kerry (or whatever Kerry flunky wrote that statement) DOES accuse Bush of having called Iraq an "imminent threat".

No. Absoltuely not. Kerry does not say that Bush said it. He's just trying to make you think Bush said it. But that's not Kerry's actual accusation.

Dang, I keep thinking other people will see it. Plain as day. And I'm no whiz.

Check out my #53 on that thread. You'll see that Kerry avoided accusing Bush while making people think he had. You can assume a lawyer was consulted here and that they can prove their charges and their quotes.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Kerry does not say that Bush said it. He's just trying to make you think Bush said it. But that's not Kerry's actual accusation.

Oh I see, he "only" says this:

that’s not what the Bush White House told the American people. They said Iraq posed [....] and, yes, an ‘imminent threat’

Yeah that's much different. (??)

I'm sure you have a great point here of some kind, I'm just not sure what it is.

[George W. Bush]

Yeah that's much different. (??)

The term 'Bush White House' includes not only Bush but all of his cabinet, spokespersons, political staff, and even his secretary and janitor if you get right down to it.

So you have Bush. Then you have the 'Bush White House' which includes dozens of other people who may have made impromptu remarks to the press, these quotes for instance, that might be taken out of context.

At any rate, the thread demonstrates that about 30 FReepers failed to detect this key difference. You're one of them because you thought that 'Kerry (or whatever Kerry flunky wrote that statement) DOES accuse Bush of having called Iraq an "imminent threat".'

You fell for it. And everybody keeps bitching about the lies. Well, it's not an actual lie. It's a propaganda ruse, one far more successful than it should be as evidenced by its success with hardened FReepers. I also checked signup dates for that thread. About 90% of them have been here for 3-5 years. And we wonder why the sheeple don't catch this stuff!

Just a pointer: one of the original missions of this forum was to expose media bias and half-truths. But I suppose that's not as much fun as blind fury and cheerleading.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The term 'Bush White House' includes not only Bush but [...]

Yes, I understand the nature and slipperiness of Kerry's circumlocution, and I congratulate him on it. Bravo Kerry. We'll see how far he gets with it.

What's your point exactly?

You fell for it.

That's right, I did. I interpreted his remarks to be an accusation that Bush said "imminent threat", as will everyone else. That is his intent, of course. (Because lefties think "imminent" is a magic word that, if they can JUST pin it on Bush directly or through slippery circumlocution, they win all arguments. I guess.)

Doesn't mean he's not engaging in deception when he does this. Deception is actually the intent, as you've explained nicely.

Still don't understand quite what your point is.

And everybody keeps bitching about the lies. Well, it's not an actual lie. It's a propaganda ruse,

Well then, allow me to retroactively explain that I have been bitching about (in Kerry's case) the deceptive propaganda ruse.

Got a problem with that?

About 90% of them have been here for 3-5 years. And we wonder why the sheeple don't catch this stuff!

Doesn't this just illustrate how deceptive and dishonest Kerry's ruse is? You seem to think that all this is somehow exculpatory of Kerry and anyone else who uses this lawyerspeak you've identified. I'm not sure why.

It's not exculpatory at all.

Just a pointer: one of the original missions of this forum was to expose media bias and half-truths.

And you've done so, you've identified Kerry's "the Bush White House" phrasing, which is certainly a half-truth.

But for some reason you seem to think it's OKAY for Kerry or someone else to do that, and that we are wrong to argue against it. Um, I beg to differ.

But I suppose that's not as much fun as blind fury and cheerleading.

Show me where I've engaged in "cheerleading". "fury"? perhaps. ;-) But "cheerleading", hell no. That's a load of bulls**t (he said furiously... ;-)

[George W. Bush]

But for some reason you seem to think it's OKAY for Kerry or someone else to do that, and that we are wrong to argue against it.

How can you be so thick? I'm saying that Kerry can use this ruse all the way through November if people don't recognize it and refute it.

Some of the media and Dims are lying outright, saying Bush said 'imminent'. Kerry, the nominee, has to be more careful and is using this ruse and, judging by you and these others, will get a lot of mileage out of it. The media sits back, waiting to cheerfully parrot both versions to the sheeple.

You and the others demonstrated that you, FReepers no less, couldn't even see the ruse and thought it was merely the lie, the others carrying on the usual Dim-hate rhetoric. Not a good sign. And large amounts of rebuttal text don't change the facts.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Kerry, the nominee, has to be more careful and is using this ruse and, judging by you and these others, will get a lot of mileage out of it.

no he won't. Or rather, he'll get just as much "mileage" out of it as he would have gotten otherwise.

Kerry will say his ruse, I'll just say "BUSH never said that". like I've been saying. The fact that he has some verbal construction which is (for all I know) "legally accurate" makes the statement more deceptive, not less. I'll just include that in my complaint then.

So I'm not sure why we're talking about this. Your point is that the Kerry statement is a deceptive ruse. I agree. Good point! later,

[JustPiper]

Why are you not on the ongoing terror thread, you would be an asset! Would you post this there?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072462/posts

[FBD]

thanks JP!

Regards