Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
Geez. How specific do I have to be with you?
Okay... I'll rephrase. Calling someone a liar when there is no proof the person is intentionally saying something they know to be untrue, is an attack. Better?
Without getting too political here... You remember, "Bush lied, people died?"
I never understood that one, since his decisions were made based on the same intelligence and info that virtually everyone agreed on at the time. Then when it turned out to be faulty intelligence, suddenly he's a "liar." I'd call that a personal attack rather than a legitimate criticism, wouldn't you?
I've never understood that one either. I looked at it while reversing the logic. Specifically, what if Bush saw all that consistent intelligence and decided
not to go into Iraq? If a WMD then went off in the US, what would the criticism of Bush have been? Many would likely have said: "How could the President have ignored such consistent intelligence from all over the world including our own CIA and be too afraid to act and protect the nation?" It is my belief that no President could have done nothing in the face of that level of intelligence.
Carl