Truth took a holiday with Clinton, Obama, Edwards

I'm wondering how many furballs Frank James coughed up writing about the lies of his idols.

Hmmm, the 2005 Energy Bill (when Republicans controlled Congress) increased taxes on oil companies AND sought energy conservation and more money for alternative fuels?!?!?! Man, that TRUTH really puts a hamper on the weirdo surreal alternative reality world that is the Loony Left, doesn't it??
Gee, why am I NOT surprised?

Gee, why am I NOT surprised?

Posted by: John D | January 17, 2008 9:17 AM

Maybe because your numb from the neck up. Truth is a funny thing. Perception is reality to most. Take WMDs for instance, the truth, they just weren't there.

How about a fact check on the Republicans? Romney promising Michigan workers they'd get their jobs back?

John D - You need to do a little reasearch on that statment sir as to we hane collected over 500 pieces of WMD materials since the invasion.http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918, that squeaky liberal spring has been fixed.

John D - You need to do a little reasearch on that statment sir as to we hane collected over 500 pieces of WMD materials since the invasion.http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918, that squeaky liberal spring has been fixed.

sorry that post was for bill r.

I will try to make this comment without heavy sarcasm or a surplus of punctuation.

The 2005 Energy Bill did increase taxes on oil companies, but it did so while tax breaks of $4.3 billion to nuclear power producers and $2.8 billion for fossil fuel production. And while it is in support of so-called clean coal plants the jury is still out on how little air pollution those plants will create. Similarly, nuclear power is much more dangerous to produce and dispose of.

The Bill also increases use of E85. Which is good for farmers but bad for sustainable development in general as it cuts down on the amount of food crops available to the public, increases water usage and takes petroleum to power the farm equipment that tends the crops.

As for WMDs, they simply don't belong in this argument.

Rick, I went to the web site you referenced. The chemical weapons found were "badly corroded and degraded"and could not be used. So they were no threat to us when the war began. And 500 "pieces" is hardly a wartime stockpile.
The present danger of these weapons is that an individual terrorist or isurgent might reuse the degraded or unstable material, particularly Sarin, in an IED.
Of course there were no insurgents before we created the war and they couldn't use IED's against our soldiers when they wern't in Iraq.
We are forced to deal with the situation as it now exists. But it's important to remember how we got into this mess and that there was no reason to start this war outside of the theories and schemes of a group of scholars and advisors of George Bush.
A better understanding and memory of the Viet Nam experience might have prevented this tragic, misjudged war.

I find it refreshing that someone can call to the front the misleading statements in the Nevada debate. It is also an unfortunate truth that these misstatements would be revealed about a Democratic event, unfortunate because the Republican party has adopted this thin-skinned veneer of never admitting fault and questioning the patriotism of those who question any of their golden calves. At least the proud liberal tradition of exposing our faults and attempting to correct them lives on.

As for WMDs, they simply don't belong in this argument.

Posted by: Joe L. | January 17, 2008 10:10 AM

I'm sorry...I thought this was a discussion about truth, not an energy bill.
I just thought that if it were about truth, WMDs might be one of the best examples.

Rick, you need to read the links you post. Here's what I found in your article:
"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended..." So, yeah, they found WMD, but they were so old, they were no longer operable. But we already knew that Iraq had WMD in 1980. The Bush administration made the claim that they had them in 2003. And, yes, they did have them. But they were inoperable, which is just as lethal as not having them in the first place. Nothing new has been discovered, nor will be discovered, because the motives behind the Iraq invasion were bunk from the beginning--elaborate works of fiction.

Joe L. "Similarly, nuclear power is much more dangerous to produce and dispose of."

Perhaps this is why we don't have more nuclear power plants. Lumping production and disposal together as equally dangerous and not offering substantiation for the claim. And please do some research before spouting "Three Mile Island!"

Maybe because your numb from the neck up. Truth is a funny thing. Perception is reality to most. Take WMDs for instance, the truth, they just weren't there.

Posted by: bill r. | January 17, 2008 9:30 AM

The truth is that the President NEVER said that there were WMD. He, and pretty much every other major intelligence agency in the western world said they BELIEVED that there were WMD.

They were wrong, but that doesn't make them liars.

The Pres. NEVER said there were WMDs? I guess the quotes at the link below are all fake:

http://zfacts.com/p/581.html

Bill R., so when Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, John Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Madeline Albright, Al Gore ALL spoke of Iraqi WMDs in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, they were lying too?

These lies the democrats are telling is very disturbing, especially Obama's.
Obama is an [admitted] former drug user and he should go through the twelve step program to quell the demons controlling his forked tongue.
Lies and half-truths to embellish one's very thin political record need to be addressed with some type of counseling or therapy.

Paulo

John D...Quite frankly I don't care who believed it or not. I expect the leader of our country to NOT make mistakes. Not ones of this magnitude. If it were a democrat who made this blunder, I would be just as angry.

John D - Instead of calling people names (i.e Man, that TRUTH really puts a hamper on the weirdo surreal alternative reality world that is the Loony Left, doesn't it?),
why dont'you provide a link to the sources of your comments (Bill R., so when Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, John Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Madeline Albright, Al Gore ALL spoke of Iraqi WMDs in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, they were lying too?)

Anyone searching for truth at the Trib? Please. The truth tilts here.

Paulo- Get real. Seems to me you forgot your precious Bush has had a drug/booze problem in the past. People make mistakes, and it's quite clear that Barack is not nor has he ever been a complete coke head. Get a grip.

Little Johnny D,
Congress is not authorized to view the most sensitive and secret information unless the President and/or Vice President authorize it. The Senators, Congressmen and former officials you are listing only had the information that was available to them, and that information was cherry picked by the Administration to leave the impression that it was FACT and there was no internal disputes about the ACCURRACY. Good night.

It is also an unfortunate truth that these misstatements would be revealed about a Democratic event, unfortunate because the Republican party has adopted this thin-skinned veneer of never admitting fault and questioning the patriotism of those who question any of their golden calves. At least the proud liberal tradition of exposing our faults and attempting to correct them lives on.

Posted by: timpac | January 17, 2008 10:47 AM

Well put!!! Bill R also correctly points out that we Americans with a mind of our own are outraged when a politicain, regardless of party affiliation lies. John D you'll never understand that idea. Tragic really.

That must be some damn good Kool-Aid.

So none of the Republican candidates have lied or stretched the truth? And it doesn't bother you to write an article that only condemns the Democrats as liars?

"Edwards said 'you should learn to speak English' before becoming a U.S. citizen. In fact, the law already requires, with few exceptions, that applicants for citizenship 'must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language.'"

While Edwards should perhaps be more aware of the citizenship test requirements, I wouldn't consider his statement a falsehood. The question Williams asked ("What would be the problem with English as an official language, as a bedrock requirement of citizenship?") was a stupid one since it ignored the fact that English *is* required and implied that it is not. While a better answer from Edwards would have been "Hey, bonehead, it is a requirement", I can't fault him for taking the question at face value and saying it should be.

Dumb Dumb Janet, please note the years that Democrats spoke of WMDs in Iraq. They include 1998, 1999 and 2000. History, Janet, says Bill Clinton was president during those years.
Eric, Dumb Dumb Janet, perhaps this link will help (but I doubt it):
http://brentroos.com/2006/05/09/what-did-the-democrats-say-about-iraqs-wmd/

kvh

Another issue concerning Obama's past [admitted] drug use is the [fact] that he said he'd invade our ally Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons...This is not rational thinking by any means.

Paulo

Was the British Intelligence Reports that showed Saddam's travelling WMD centers "cherry-picked," too? Or the Turkish and Israeli reports? What power, exactly, does Cheney have over the international intelligence community?

People need to understand that the intelligence failure before the Iraq war was a global intelligence failure prodded on by Saddam's failure to cooperate with UN inspectors.

No single government or single executive, except Saddam through his own malfeasance in an attempt to be embraced by radical Islam, had the power to cause it.

What you're perpetuating, Janet, is a fantasy. Congress and Bush knew the exact same information from the exact same intelligence sources. Saddam was interviewed by Dan Rather on national TV and his assertions that Iraq had no WMDs sounded weak and hollow there, too, because he was still refusing to allow inspections.

"I'm sorry...I thought this was a discussion about truth, not an energy bill.
I just thought that if it were about truth, WMDs might be one of the best examples."

Posted by: bill r.

Point taken.

And I will ammend my statement about the danger of producing nuclear energy. It was made in haste. It is a very efficient form of energy production but the disposal of its by-products is problematic to say the least. I will not say Three-Mile Island. I will however mention Zion, Illinois 1998, an incident that was kept from the public and leave it there.

What it comes down to for me is that for America to remain economically viable we must innovate. We must be ahead of the curve in green energy production, in agricultural innovation and in city planning. Simply throwing out a few meager incentives and boosting the production of nuclear power and coal does very little good.

Wow look at that Bush, Democrats--Republicans--the world, BELIEVED WMD were there...They did not KNOW WMD were there.. I am assuming you were out there protesting that going through the trouble of an all out war is not worth it for something you believe v know; especially while already involve in a war for a guy you KNOW killed 3,000 Americans before going out to do what you BELIEVE? I guess you know now that Bush, Democrats--Republicans--the world, BELIEVE WMD are in Iran, they do not KNOW WMD are in Iran.

Quercus Posted: "The chemical weapons found were "badly corroded and degraded"and could not be used. So they were no threat to us when the war began. And 500 "pieces" is hardly a wartime stockpile."

At one time the US had a nuclear stockpile of ~1400 weapons and the world wept, "My God, why would we need so many?". 500 "pieces" of corroded WMD found buried in the sand, in addition to the number that were moved into Syria prior to our invasion, while we ignorantly begged permission from UN Euro-Socialists, makes for an alarming display of how out of control WMD development has become under this farce of peaceful diplomacy. Let the peaceniks in the declining West have the wool pulled over thier eyes, but as the most powerful nation in the world we can't afford that luxury. It is our duty to restrict this trend as much as possible. Remember, WMD stands for weapon of MASS destruction.

The truth about truth and the lack of it from the clintons;

this is from tom - little t - the true independent - the independent MD - who has been on hiatus for a long, long time and did not make any recent remarks* such as those attributable to another tom who also uses a lower case "t"

(*other than a similar entry I made just a few minutes ago on a related topic)

here is a question for bill r. !!!!!!!!!!

did hillary vote for the war in Iraq because (with all of her experience) she believed the same intelligence as GWB (regarding WMD's) or did she vote for that war because her "experience" did not prevent her from being fooled by Bush ??? you want "truth", then answer the question - one of those two scenarios must be true

and as far as misinformation campaigns and corruption in general is concerned NO ONE outshines the Clintons

those who point out corruption among one party and yet give the clintons a pass truly have a double standard

if kathleen willey - a democrat - had made the exact same claims about a republican elected official that she made about bill clinton, the feminists among us would have made sure he never held office again and he might have even ended up in jail

if the actions taken by the clintons against billy dale - another democrat - had been taken by a republican administration, that administration would have 4-EVER (Sandlot emphasis) been branded as corrupted politicians who are perfectly willing to use major branches of government for their own selfish P.R./power mongering needs - you want truth - try this, the clinton's false accusations against billy dale were thoroughly proven beyond any doubt to be utter fabrications in a court of law - talk about smear campaigns against a public citizen (billy dale is not the only example of that)

bush isn't running in 2008 - the standard responses of "so what if hillary is accused of this and that,look what bush has been accused of" are illogical, idiotic and irrelevant

clinton is running - and she IS corrupt - vote your conscience but do not vote for PROVEN corruption - do not vote for hillary unless you are OK with corruption in high places

little t - tom the independent MD - the true independent

Truth is what those with all the power offer to the public to project the illusion that they (the public)are informed.

Actually, you get only cherry picked half truths at the very best and outright treasonous lies at worst, most all the time to make them (those in power) richer.

Right, Frank James?

Gee Hil-Billary and Hussein Obama not telling the whole truth? Shocking.

As a modrate with no party affiliation (or affliction)I have to point out that WMD was a global thing, it wasn't just Bush. We should avoid tagging lies, because every politician is guilty, guilty, guilty. Remember "I did not have sex with that woman!"

I guess the LIBune censors do not like those who put forth the truths that Democrats spoke of Iraqi WMDs long before Bush became president, otherwise my post would have gone through.

Anyway, this is specifically for Dumb Dumb Janet and Eric (though LIBune reporters might want to take note as well as the rest of the Loons on the Left):
http://brentroos.com/2006/05/09/what-did-the-democrats-say-about-iraqs-wmd/

I think an important question hasn't been brought up. What about North Korea? They were no doubt on the way to WMDs. Why was Iraq chosen? Oil?
Smaller Army? Do we fight the fights we can win, or fight the fights that need fighting?

Ok, so the Democratic candidates are all liars. But I wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Republican after the past 7 1/2 disastrous years. Call it the wages of sin - you Republicans picked GWB as a candidate, knowing full well that he was going to stack the cabinet with neocon spendthrift- warmongers and others to whom his daddy was beholden. What assurance does anybody in this country have that any of the Republican candidates won't go neocon on us? Romney is well on his way.
So, don't complain when we get a dishonest president.

tom (t), you are not a true independent and you know it. Although Frank did identify an example of dishonesty on Hillary's part, your reference to Kathleen Willey is sad proof that you're not capable of distinguishing between Bill and Hillary.
Hopefully you're not an OB/GYN.

And Paolo, you are raving as usual. If we followed your logic, we should leave Pakistan alone (even though the vast majority of terrorists either went to school or are holed up in Pakistan) and beat up on less dangerous countries to teach Pakistan a lesson. Sounds rational to me!

cara wrote;

"tom (t), you are not a true independent and you know it. Although Frank did identify an example of dishonesty on Hillary's part, your reference to Kathleen Willey is sad proof that you're not capable of distinguishing between Bill and Hillary.
Hopefully you're not an OB/GYN."

ouch - LOL - that is truly very funny - excellent zinger - touche'

however, I am indeed a registered independent - in the last gubernatorial/local election in my state, I voted for 4 different parties and 2 independents

as far as mixing hillary and bill though - you are right - when it comes to integrity, I do have a little trouble telling them apart since neither possesses that attribute - you cara, like all of those who are OK with the hillary candidacy set many double standards - not the least of which is that hillary has personally chosen to run on bill's record - both as part of her experience/resume' and as for painting a portrait of her vision for america's future as a return to a time of bill clintonesqe policies and leadership style - it is hillary that does this herself - this makes the entire record of bill fair game - and lastly you do not address the fact that such behavior on bill's part regarding k. willey would have most assuredly tainted the spouse of any republican elected official who later ran for office

I am not as funny as cara but I am more accurate, more logical and more on point

hillary is the candidate of choice for everyone who wants the corruptions of the america's past revisited

Fact is, all of the Democrats are thieves, which makes them far worese than liars. Anyone promising to hand over the money I have earned to someone else who has made stupid decisions is just a thief -- and nothing more.

To cara: after YOUR side elected Bubba twice, you have no standing to call anyone else dishonest. since your side has approved of dishonesty, lying, and warmongering (30,000 dead civilians in Serbia), you are just a hypocrite.

REMEMBER: when you lower the bar to the ground, don't whine when anyone can jump over it.

You nimrods just don't understand do you. Bush is a problem for one more year and then we have problems with someone else for the next four years. Forget Bush and what his administration did, it's old news. Concentrate on the people you've got running to replace him. The main problem here is that you have to many people that vote for the party (my grandfather was a democrate, my father was a democrate and I always for for the person running for the democratic party. That kind of thinking is what gets us the caliber of person that we elect for President. Wake up. Vote for the person who cares about the same things that are important to you.

I went on factcheck.org and it seems that their explanations go a bit deeper than your cut and paste summary. I would advise that you would go into better depth and avoid posting overly general bullet points. Unless of course you were in fact posting a add for factcheck.org....;-)

Fact is, all of the Democrats are thieves,
Posted by: Walter | January 17, 2008 3:23 PM

Is that the truth that you found when they did your last colonoscopy?

did hillary vote for the war in Iraq because (with all of her experience) she believed the same intelligence as GWB (regarding WMD's)
little t - tom the independent MD - the true independent

I do not know whether she was shown the "real" intelligence or cherry picked intel. Doesn't really matter to me because she is not one I will vote for. I hold Bush as our leader accountable. I hold other politicians accountable for not making sure the intel was accurate. I will say that the republicans held the majority so you can take what you want from that. As an independent, who do you hold accountable? It must be nice being an independent....you don't have to take accountability for anything.

bill r wrote;

"I do not know whether she was shown the "real" intelligence or cherry picked intel. Doesn't really matter to me because she (Hillary) is not one I will vote for. I hold Bush as our leader accountable. I hold other politicians accountable for not making sure the intel was accurate. I will say that the republicans held the majority so you can take what you want from that. As an independent, who do you hold accountable? It must be nice being an independent....you don't have to take accountability for anything."

glad to see you are not falling for the phony hillary BS - my opinion on the whole WMD thing is that VP cheney is behind the cherry picking of intel - why did he want a war ?? is it simply because he wanted to make his rich buddies richer with government contracts ?? probably, but did he also know some other classified intel that led him to believe that we really needed the war - yes, the intel was cherry picked but I think it was "hyped" that way because they really did think there were WMD's (like cops who plant evidence because they think they have the right guy and want to make the conviction more likely) - that doesn't make it OK - two wrongs do not make a right - but that being said, if they knew all along there were no WMD's, it would be a disaster to pretend there were and get egg on your face when there was none - you would have to believe if things were really that sinister (they knew in advance they would find no WMD's), then they would have just planted the smallest of "suitcase" evidence and declared they were right all along - it would not have been that hard to do - especially if you planned for this contingency in advance because you knew in advance you wouldn't find anything - (most democrats know two wrongs do not make a right - EXCEPT the clintons and their minions) - nevertheless, the repubs got their come-uppance in 2006 and GWB is NOT running in 2008 and the world IS better off without Saddam Hussein over there in 2008 (the next president can thank Bush for that).

As for how 2008 goes, I am still undecided - I like 3 democrats and three republicans so far - but Hillary is not among those I would vote for because of the character issue and the polarization issues - she's a phony and a less effective one than her hubby - also I liked Ron Paul on several big issues until he went off the deep end regarding mis-statement of a number of historical events - I cannot support Ron Paul's historical revisionism no matter how much I like his libertarian ideals and Hillary's ENTIRE campaign is about NOTHING other than an attempt to rewite history with regard to Bill and Hillary Clinton's mistakes in the 90's - the ONLY thing PHONY HILLARY is honest about is that Bill and Hillary's political legacies are irrevocably intertwined - they are about power for the sake of power and constantly disinforming everyone who thinks otherwise

Fact is, all of the Democrats are thieves, which makes them far worese than liars. Anyone promising to hand over the money I have earned to someone else who has made stupid decisions is just a thief -- and nothing more.
Posted by: Walter | January 17, 2008 3:23 PM

Really have that compassion thing going, don't you, Walter? I'm betting that you think you're a good Christian as well. Brother, I hope you never are victim to a "stupid decision", because I just know you'll flat out reject a helping hand.

Mr Frank James

"There's a Nobel Prize in it for anyone who can come up with a device that, in real-time, would detect the misstatements, distortions or outright lies politicians utter and issue an immediate warning alarm to the unsuspecting public."

I think I have that "device" - its called your eyes - anytime you see thier lips moving you will detect the misstatements, distortions or outright lies.

DO I get to stand next to Al Gore?