Until Kerry said he never said lie, he said he used the word misled

[Seansky]

I had no problem having voted for him. What's the big fear he has of calling Jr what he is? Why don't everyone asks "those who insist on not using liar as an adjective for both Jr and this admin, please prove we are wrong by calling both liars." "Proof to us that he is not one, show us the facts that prove they aren't liars and we will not call them so. And even apologize if we are wrong." Just prove us wrong...

[Mass]

1. Why? I am not willing to fight on words. Misled is something that can be

proven. Lied is not.

So in fact, you are the one who has to prove Bush has lied, which is difficult, not the opposite, while the use of the word " misled" is easy to prove.

Only an independant investigation on the way we went to war in Iraq could prove that he lied, which is why Kerry and others are asking for it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Great minds think alike!

[MindMatter]

13. Well, in that case ...

He should say, "I cannot tell you if President Bush LIED. I cannot read his mind or his heart. I do know that he has told the American people a great many things that are simply not true and he should have known better. We trusted that no President would flat-out LIE to us, and because of that, we now have a major strategic disaster on our hands and another $500,000,000,000 of debt for what? For a bunch of LIES? Friends, it is not my place to say if they were LIES or not. Each American has to decide for himself or herself whether President Bush LIED to you."

Democrats are too **&$&^%% timid.

[sandnsea]

24. Funny, he has

In almost those exact words. Last year, the year before, this year. Why didn't you hear it?

[MindMatter]

31. Has he ever used the word "lie"?

[sandnsea]

32. Just like you did

Doesn't know whether Bush intentionally lied or made honest mistakes or wasn't given the information by Cheney, bla bla, just like what you said. People who campaigned for Kerry should know that.

[rockymountaindem]

2. Here's what I said in my own thread

I called it "The importance of misleadership and framing the debate"

I've seen some people on DU complain about the Democrats' frequent use of the word "mislead" in place of what many feel would be the stronger word "lie"; as in "they misled us" as opposed to "they lied to us". Now, I can see why people would feel "lie" is much stronger than "mislead", but I think I have figured out why the Democrats may prefer "mislead".

Here's my theory... Republicans like to talk about "leadership" at every turn. Recall their mantra from the 2000 convention, "They have not led, we will". Think of all the times they say "so and so shows great leadership", as opposed to "he had all the right ideas". To wit, Paul Bremmer. They often conflate leadership with policy, motion with progress. But as we have learned, mere leadership is a poor substitute for actually leading people in the right direction.

In this sense, "leadership" has been turned into a buzzword for Republican tactics. By using the team "mislead", the Democrats are turning the Republicans' own word smithing against them. It's like saying, "Yeah, they led alright... misled "

Furthermore, anybody can just lie. When you lie, you're basically saying "I have no respect for your ability to discern the truth from my lies". That's one thing. On the other hand, when someone is leading you, you place your trust in them. "Misleading" implies a breach of trust, which is far more sinister than just plain lying. "Misleading" is like saying "I have no respect for your ability to even think for yourself, let alone figure out the truth".

In addition, lies are often thought up after the fact to cover one's mistakes or things that happened incidentally. Misleading, on the contrary, implies a premeditated campaign to deceive. In this case, the misinformation is a key part of the strategy, not something that gets slapped on later. This feeds into people's willingness to admit that Bushco duped them.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but in these ways I think "misleading" is a much more powerful term than "lying".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. I think it is an issue of proof

Misled is obvious and needs no proof. "Lie" means he knew he was misleading and how do you prove that outside of trial, evidence and verdict?

Kerry is, above all, an attorney.

[FlemingsGhost]

5. John Kerry is a career politician ... and a very wealthy one at that.

He is of the same class as the Bushes. They simply don't eat their own. It's bad for business.

In other words, he is part of the problem.

[unblock]

6. yeah, and those kennedys all suck too

:sarcasm:

[Mass]

7. And Franklin Roosevelt too, I guess, while Nixon and Reagan were great.

[FlemingsGhost]

11. "Behind every fortune is a crime."

I forget who said it, but it's usually pretty accurate.

[globalvillage]

19. Howard Dean

Lots o cash there.

[FlemingsGhost]

8. Do you realize Joe Kennedy made a killing during WWII?

At the same time Prescott Bush did.

No sarcasm here.

[unblock]

14. i think what one does with one's wealth matters.

yes, i am aware that the kennedys were rich.
i am also aware that few riches are acquired in a saintly fashion.

what of it?

[FlemingsGhost]

16. Yes ... let folks exploit, oppress and even kill their way to riches

Sooner or later they all become philanthropists for the tax breaks, anyway. Besides, white collar crime is "victimless."

God Ble$$ America.

[unblock]

18. you are aware that nader has plenty of money, too?

or are you perhaps waiting for some homeless saint to run for president?

i'm not sure what your point is, other than to say that rich people suck.

[FlemingsGhost]

20. Yes, I am aware.

I'm waiting for the American people to finally empower themselves and stop looking to the wealthy, elite to represent their best interests.

Until the American people realize the "American Dream" is a myth, we will continually elevate "leaders" who are walking, talking conflicts of interests.

It's going to take a revolution.

[karynnj]

33. Until Kerry married Teresa, he was one of the poorest Senators

in spite of his connections to many wealthy people. He also inherited money from his mother - I think in 2002 or 2003.

He could have been very wealthy, but he chose public service.

[Fla Dem]

17. Apples and Oranges..........

Hmmm, the difference here is that while Kennedy made his fortune in movies, real estate and liquor importing ( some would say bootlegging), Prescott Bush made his money running business for Nazi Germany.


After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.

Bush's partners in the secret web of Thyssen-controlled ventures included former New York Governor W. Averell Harriman and his younger brother, E. Roland Harriman. Their quarter-century of Nazi financial transactions, from 1924-1951, were conducted by the New York private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman.

Although the additional seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act did not take place until after the war, documents from The National Archives and Library of Congress confirm that Bush and his partners continued their Nazi dealings unabated. These activities included a financial relationship with the German city of Hanover and several industrial concerns. They went undetected by investigators until after World War Two.

At the same time Bush and the Harrimans were profiting from their Nazi partnerships, W. Averell Harriman was serving as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's personal emissary to the United Kingdom during the toughest years of the war. On October 28, 1942, the same day two key Bush-Harriman-run businesses were being seized by the U.S. government, Harriman was meeting in London with Field Marshall Smuts to discuss the war effort.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

[FlemingsGhost]

21. What's wikipedia say about the Kennedy assassination?

Let me guess: Dallas. lone gunman. Oswald. Ruby. Warren Commission.


Uh huh ...

[Fla Dem]

36. Should have checked before you replied.

Actually if you'd bothered to look, Wikepedia has quite a bit to say about the Kennedy assassination. It reports the findings of the Warren Commission as well as the House Select Committee on Assassinations. But it also chronicles many of the other theories.

Granted Wikipedia is not the most extensive research source, but was a quick source to point out the inconsistencies of you comparing the profiteering of Prescott Bush, which bordered on treason, to Joe Kennedy's financial gains, some of which may have been made illegal over a period of time, not related to the war.

A short reference included in the Kennedy bio.........

"President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963 at 12:30 pm CST while on a political trip through Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged at 7:00 pm for killing a Dallas policeman by "murder with malice", and also charged at 11:30 pm for the murder of the president (there being no charge of "assassination" of a president at that time). Oswald was fatally shot less than two days later in the basement of the Dallas police station by Jack Ruby. Five days after Oswald was killed, the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, created the Warren Commission, chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren, to investigate the assassination. In the 1970s, both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Oswald was the assassin. The HSCA also concluded that Oswald was likely part of a conspiracy to kill the president, although the committee did not uncover sufficient evidence to identify the other member, or members, of the conspiracy.

Critics have proposed a number of Kennedy assassination theories which contradict the various theories on exactly how the assassination took place that have been proposed by the government's official reports. There is no consensus among government investigations, let alone amongst their critics, on the number of bullets fired at the president, the direction from which all the bullets were fired, and which of the bullets struck the president, and Governor John Connally who was also wounded in the attack.

Lee Harvey Oswald denied shooting anyone, and claimed he was being set up as a "patsy". He claimed the photograph of him holding the alleged murder weapon was a fabrication, and that he would prove his face was pasted on the body of someone else holding the rifle. However, Oswald himself was then murdered by Jack Ruby, while in police custody, and so there was never a trial to determine his guilt or innocence. Some critics contend that Oswald was not involved at all and that he was framed.

Among the most widely posited conspirators in the assassination are the CIA, the mafia, the KGB, and Fidel Castro, Vice-President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and some sort of military-industrial complex led by U.S. Army Generals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

More extensive discussion under Kennedy Assassination.......

"An official investigation by the Warren Commission was conducted over a 10 month period and published its report in September 1964, and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza, was the assassin. A later official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was conducted from 1976 to 1979, and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald probably acted with at least one other person. The assassination is still the subject of widespread speculation, and has spawned a number of Kennedy assassination theories."

more......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

[Island Blue]

9. And Johnny Damon is a career baseball player ...

and a wealthy one at that. Does that mean that he doesn't try when he's playing the Yankees? I really don't see your point.

[FlemingsGhost]

10. That's okay, I don't really see your point, either.

Your analogy is, ummmm ... lacking.

[seito]

12. I sure would like to have a lot more "problems" like John Kerry

...please :)

[FlemingsGhost]

15. Oh, you will. When the GOP decides to leave the crime scene,

the DLC will shove one of their stooges down our throats.

You are mistaken if you think any real change will come from such a corporate-friendly puppet.

[JanusAscending]

22. If that's the case,

why do you bother to hang around here? Is it just to prove your "superior thinking"? You sure do have a terrible attitude! Reverse discrimination" anyone??????????:evilgrin:

[FlemingsGhost]

26. I am sorry you are threatened by me

I've been "hanging around here," since day one, because I enjoy discussing politics.

I am under the impression that this site welcomes those with progressive political ideas and ideals. That's still true, right?

[JanusAscending]

29. RIGHT !!

You've already "said it all"! It would take a bigger person than you to make me feel threatened. I still stand by my last comment! This is my opinion, "nuff" said ?? of course you are entitled to yours, .............but it's wrong. I don't know what you think is so "progressive" about your ideas, they seem VERY NARROW to me!

[sandnsea]

27. You know, I don't like Clinton

I don't think he did the best job for working people as he could have. But I would take him 1,000 times in a row over any Republican. You've been LIED TO if you don't know that's the truth. YES, people on the far left LIE too.

[karynnj]

34. or a career public servant

[blm]

38. Kerry doesn't have the kind of money you claim - He and Teresa have a

legal agreementwhere their money is completely separate.

Kerry never had the money that is claimed by his detractors. One of his aunts who had money paid for his Yale tuition, as his parent's couldn't afford it - his dad was a career public servant.

[sandnsea]

23. It wouldn't matter if he did

Nobody would hear it until an annointed one gave the "grassroots" permission to remove the cotton from their ears and acknowledge that he said it. And the annointed ones would never stoop so low as to credit Kerry for anything, so what's the point of singling him out on this anyway.

Why does everybody want him to be responsible for saving the world if they aren't willing to follow him when he does.

[JanusAscending]

25. GO GET 'EM GIRL !!!!!

:applause: DC

[Sydnie]

28. Thank you for saying that

You're right. Even if he did they wouldn't be satisfied ... they would still find some reason to kick him, wouldn't they?

Speak the truth ... LOUDER! :applause:

[unblock]

30. it's a little ritual the democratic party has of pissing on its own

running for president and not winding up in the oval office is just about the worst offense possible in the democratic party.

it doesn't matter if gore or kerry got more votes, it doesn't matter if both elections were stolen, it doesn't matter if the reason they didn't do better was the supreme court or the media or nader or whatever.

what matters is that they came in second, and therefore they must be pissed upon. there's always plenty of "reasons" to cite for why the campaign was great or terrible or whatever, but the key is, he came in second. THAT's the big offense, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the elephant in the room.

just imagine what would be said if kerry had eked out a victory....

[wisteria]

35. WHY? The lie hasn't been proven -yet!

This post is actually nonsense. I would actually wonder about John Kerry's judgment if he were to come out and call Bush a liar. Mislead is the proper word in this instance.

[LSK]

37. lie is the proper word - look it up in the dictionary

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie