Smasharoo wrote:
I was under the impression that the burden of proof rests on the person accusing someone else of lying? At least that's what most civilized people do. Maybe in your world, everyone is a liar until they prove themselves to not be, but that's not the way the rest of us do things (or it's not how we *should* do things).
I see. So when Kerry talked about "foreign leaders" he was to beleived unless proven wrong, correct?
The onus was on those who would imply that he was not being forthright to provide evidence that it *hadn't* happened, correct?
Would you like me to pull up the thread with your thoughts on the subject?
Don't need to. I remember. And we had the exact same argument at that time. You are correct. The onus of proof rests with the person making the claim. In that thread, I presented my reasons why *I* believed that kerry lied about those claims. Assuming he was referring to "foreign leaders" meaning dignitaries, the recorded facts were against him.
It's extremely unusual for a congressman to talk directly to any foreign leaders. They don't deal with foreign affairs, and don't generally have any contact with them. He certainly should not have been making phone calls. It would be highly irregular for him to do so, and would have some pretty questionable implications all by itself (and there's no record of him ever doing so). There are state department records of which members of the goverment (including Kerry) do have meetings with pretty much anyone. The only recorded incident in wich Kerry was even in the same room as any sort of foreign leaders was when he was attending the same party as some minister from Spain (IIRC).
So while I can't say with 100% certainty that he's lying, it does look extremely fishy (as I said back then). Making such a claim, when there was virtually no opportunity for him to have had any coversations with "foreign leaders" was a bit over the top. Let's just say my "BS'o'meter" started ringing right about then (as did many others).
You're also twisting situations. Anyone making any claim needs to provide some support for what he's saying. This applies to Kerry as well. If he says he's heard from foreign leaders who think that someone should beat Bush (implication from context is that Kerry is that someone), then he needs to provide some support that this happened. A location and time maybe? Just one?
Remember. The whole "Iraq has WMD" did not go unquestioned either. Bush made the statement. Lots of people questioned it. He then turned over the piles of intelligence that he used to based the statement on. This is the same intelligence which was provided to Congress. They looked at it and came to the same conclusion (and signed a war powers act as a result).
Bush supported his claims. That supported ended up later being false, but at least he wasn't afraid to provide documented reasons *why* he said what he said. Kerry just kinda denied things, and then sidestepped (Oh. I meant like labor leaders or something!), and then kinda let the issue go away. He never supported his statement, he never said who he was referring to, and he never provided anything close to proof of his words.
So yeah. You need proof to call someone a liar. But you need proof when you make a claim about something too. In the case of Kerry, he made a claim and provided no proof. I called him on it, and provided lots of evidence that suggested he was lying (or hugely stretching the truth). In the case of Bush, he made a claim and provided ample proof. Tons of it. So much so that Congress voted in war powers. Then, after the fact, it turns out that one part of his claim wasn't correct. It turns out that his sources of evidence were wrong. So, now you call him a liar? He had no way to know, and there is no reasonable reason to suspect he did know, that the intelligence about WMD in Iraq was wrong.
Quote:
Or is it that anyone you don't like is lying unless they prove otherwise? That's pathetic and you know it.
Yes, in fact, anyone who states something that is proven to be false who is in a position of great power and influence and has ever access to the same information proving it false is lying unless proven otherwise.
What access Smash? You still have provided zero support for you claim that Bush had full access to intelligence proving that Iraq possessed no WMD.
Um. And Congress presumably had the same access. Why aren't you calling them all liars? After all, they signed a war act. Is it because Kerry voted for that resolution?
How blatantly partisan can you be Smash? It's a lie when Bush looks at a set of information and comes to a conclusion, but it's not when Kerry does the same exact thing?
That's just amazing logical doublething there Smash. How exactly do you do that?
Quote:
He had access to the correct infortmation, that's unarguable. He made a statement that was false, that's unarguable.
Um. I'm arguing it. Show me this mountain of information proving that Iraq did not possess WMD. Until you do so, you've got no case.
