Originally posted by uzlessI've never accused Bush of saying that war was good for him politically.
come on man, it's same as when a sitting president who has a low approval rating and all the TV pundits start musing about a potential war on a country to raise his approval rating.
They all said the same thing when Bush was thinking of attacking Iraq. You'd never hear a politician say war was good for their party but you def hear the TV guys talk about i ...[text shortened]... 't take away from the fact that both Dems and Rep's know it to be true because it is true!
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwhy would you "accuse" him? You make it sound like it's a bad statement. Of course a war was good for him back then!! Look at what it did for his approval rating!!!
I've never accused Bush of saying that war was good for him politically.
Americans got scared and wanted a daddy figure to protect them. He stepped up and got the applause. 9/11 was the best thing for Bush politically. He was a laughing stock and was rediculed nightly on every tv talk show about how stupid he was. He woulda been laughed outta the Whitehouse and been labelled "worst president ever".
But history intervened and saved him.
Originally posted by uzlessI wouldn't accuse him if he didn't say it. I didn't accuse him. Didn't I just finish saying that?
why would you "accuse" him? You make it sound like it's a bad statement. Of course a war was good for him back then!! Look at what it did for his approval rating!!!
Americans got scared and wanted a daddy figure to protect them. He stepped up and got the applause. 9/11 was the best thing for Bush politically. He was a laughing stock and was redicule ...[text shortened]... itehouse and been labelled "worst president ever".
But history intervened and saved him.
Originally posted by AThousandYounggrr, your point a few posts ago was that lepomis was committing slander by saying some dems said it was good for them if the iraq war went bad yet not providing a quote.
I wouldn't accuse him if he didn't say it. I didn't accuse him. Didn't I just finish saying that?
And i pointed out that it's not slander even if no one said it.
If you never said, "World peace is good" but I said you did, does that mean i've "slandered" you?
Or does it just mean i've given you credit for saying something when you didn't.
By saying slander, you imply there is something negative with the statement when in fact there isn't. It's just truth.
Originally posted by uzlessYour point seems to be that such comments are not bad, and therefore "accuse" is the wrong word. How about "I haven't claimed that Bush said..."
grr, your point a few posts ago was that lepomis was committing slander by saying some dems said it was good for them if the iraq war went bad yet not providing a quote.
And i pointed out that it's not slander even if no one said it.
If you never said, "World peace is good" but I said you did, does that mean i've "slandered" you?
Or does it just e is something negative with the statement when in fact there isn't. It's just truth.
Slander might not be the best word, but what's the word you use when someone claims you said something when you didn't?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJames Clyburn (D-S.C.) House Majority Whip
Got a link?
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
Originally posted by lepomisThanks.
James Clyburn (D-S.C.) House Majority Whip
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something ...[text shortened]... s."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
A true statement if he's commenting about the Democratic party, but it was a stupid thing to say.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungclaimed is fine, but you seem to imply that if he did claim attacking iraq would be good for his approval rating, then it would be "bad" or wrong for him to do so even though he would just be stating the truth.
Your point seems to be that such comments are not bad, and therefore "accuse" is the wrong word. How about "I haven't claimed that Bush said..."
Slander might not be the best word, but what's the word you use when someone claims you said something when you didn't?
EDIT: I see from your post above that I am correct in this assessment.
But we're getting away from my original post. The fact that American voters are thought of in the way I pointed out by your politicians is remarkable. I suppose I should just give them credit for divising strategies for dealing with problematic issues but one would think the American voter would catch on eventually.
Here's the article, with statements attributed to Clyburn in bold:
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.
Clyburn also address the reasons behind declining approval ratings for Congress, which spiked earlier in the year when Democrats took over the House and Senate. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed just 37 percent approving of the performance of Congress.
"Remember right after the election it went very high on approval,?" he said. "Then all of a sudden people saw that we were not yielding the kind of result that they wanted to yield."
He said most Americans still do not know some of the domestic legislation that has been approved. Fewer understand that, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, that it takes 60 votes to pass anything legislation in the Senate.
Clyburn noted that while overall approval ratings of Congress are low, people still rate Democrats higher than Republicans. "People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don't feel real good about the Congress itself."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html
Originally posted by MerkA statement about another which is contested is slander unless it is demonstrated true.
It can be supported with fact. Ignorance does not equal slander.
You've made it quite clear that you like to avoid giving sources so that you can occasionally say things that aren't true. I've caught you more than once.