Fox News Washington editor caught on tape gloating about lying on air

[Lonestar_logic]

I know, because nothing is a lie.

he said, he knew where they were. If he didnt know where they were why didnt he say that? Answer: because it was a lie.

In other words, he was asked a question where were they, He said he KNEW where they were, he did not. What is that called?

Now, when Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployement down under 8% righties went crazy screaming liar.

it's ok, I see from this thread repubs only believe that dems lie and Repubs never lie. Like kids believe in Santa Clause

He said "we know where WMD's are" and at the the time he believed that to be a true statement based on the intel that he had. In order for you to prove he lied you must prove that he knew the statement was untrue at the time he made it. Good luck!

Your strawman has no place in this discussion. Obama did say that about the unemployment and he was wrong, as he was and is on many things.

"The former US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admits in his memoirs that he made a mistake in claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction sites round Baghdad and Tikrit, one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq invasion.

Rumsfeld says now: "I made a misstatement." What he meant to say is there were 'suspect sites'."

There it is! Rummy said so himself...

Obama couldnt have lied according to you because you have to prove he knew that unemployment would go above 8%. Nice try

I never said Obama lied about the unemployment. As I said before your strawman has no place in this discussion.

So Rumsfeld admits he made a mistake. Did he admit to lying? No, I didn't think so.

If everyone was deemed a liar for misstatements they made then Obama would be at the very top of the liars list.

Here's some of Obama's lies... er uh I mean misstatements.

Claims that his uncle had helped liberate Auschwitz or JFK helped to bring his father to the US, Sioux City instead of Sioux Falls, Sunshine, FL instead of Sunrise, FL, 57 states....etc

Oh and let me include this little gem where Obama stated:

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed."

The actual death toll: 12.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i figured you would go this route. Slander? I am just speculating that since you live in texas you **** chickens. I'm not saying you **** chickens, I am speculating.

See just like Sammons i am thinking out loud and letting other people decide for themselves if its true or not. Some may. and some may not.

So you can sue all you like, but we already have it as precedent that Fox news cant be in trouble for speculation. So good luck....


chicken ******

Speculation or not it's still slander and/or libel.

prove it....

Sure!

LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or entity communicates false information that damages the reputation of another person or entity. Slander occurs when the false and defamatory communication is spoken and heard. Libel occurs when the false and defamatory communication is written and seen. The laws governing libel and slander, which are collectively known as DEFAMATION, are identical.

Defenses to Libel and Slander

If the defendant can show that the substance of a defamatory statement is essentially true, then the plaintiff's claim for slander or libel will fail. For example, assume that the defendant publicly ACCUSED his boss of cheating on taxes. The boss could sue for slander or libel, depending on whether the accusation was written or spoken. If the defendant could prove that the boss actually did cheat on taxes, the defendant would prevail. If the defendant had no proof of such tax cheating, the plaintiff would prevail.

If the plaintiff consents to the publication of the defamatory information, the plaintiff may not prevail in a lawsuit for slander or libel. This defense most typically arises when the plaintiff has signed a valid document releasing the defendant from liability for statements made regarding the plaintiff. For example, an employee may ask a former employer to write a letter of recommendation regarding the employee's professional and career skills to assist the employee in obtaining a new job. The former employer may, as a precaution, insist that the employee sign a release of liability to ensure that the letter of recommendation does not result in a libel lawsuit. If the former employer then reveals unflattering descriptions of the employee's work habits in the letter, the employee may be precluded from suing for libel even if the unflattering remarks are untrue.

Defamatory statements made during court proceedings or written in legal documents for purposes of LITIGATION generally are privileged, or protected, from slander or libel lawsuits. This privilege exists for reasons of public policy. A witness at a criminal trial, for example, would have difficulty testifying completely and truthfully about witnessing a crime if she feared that her statements could result in a slander lawsuit against her. Similarly, a lawyer who prepares a lawsuit must describe in writing the nature of the accusation against the defendant, and such court pleadings are almost always defamatory in nature. Justice would not be served if the judicial process were hampered by the constant threat of slander or libel lawsuits.


Now show me where in the link it states that speculative statements cannot be slanderous or libelous.


Oh that's right, you can't!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i figured you would go this route. Slander? I am just speculating that since you live in texas you **** chickens. I'm not saying you **** chickens, I am speculating.

See just like Sammons i am thinking out loud and letting other people decide for themselves if its true or not. Some may. and some may not.

So you can sue all you like, but we already have it as precedent that Fox news cant be in trouble for speculation. So good luck....


chicken ******

Speculation or not it's still slander and/or libel.

It's not slander or libel if it's true.

And the burden of proof would fall one the one accused of slander. He'd have to prove his statements are true. Good luck with that one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And if you believe that I have a bridge to Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

The burden of proof is on Sada, until he proves his claims he is merely a whacko trying to sell his book. His claims contradict the Dulfer Report.

Duelfer Report

On 30 September 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's purported WMD programs. Among its conclusions were:

• Saddam Hussein controlled all of the regime’s strategic decision making.
• Hussein's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime.
• The introduction of the Oil-for-food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the regime.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.
• Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.
• Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
• Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.
• Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
• Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

His statements have been supported by others, including a top General and two pilots.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

 

[bodecea]

Speculation or not it's still slander and/or libel.

It's not slander or libel if it's true.

And the burden of proof would fall one the one accused of slander. He'd have to prove his statements are true. Good luck with that one.

Uh...what happened to your "disprove it" mantra?

 

[bodecea]

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

And if you believe that I have a bridge to Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

And the burden of proof would fall one the one who said there were WMDs. He'd have to prove his statements are true. Good luck with that one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And if you believe that I have a bridge to Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

And the burden of proof would fall one the one who said there were WMDs. He'd have to prove his statements are true. Good luck with that one.

No, he only has to prove that his opinion was based on facts as he knew them. He's admitted that in hindsight he used the wrong terminology. He admitted he made a misstatement, but he never admitted to lying.

Fact is many of our politicians believed there were WMD's in Iraq at this time. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I find it funny how you liberal pukes change the subject when your called on to provide proof.

So back to the original subject.

Prove that Sammon lied.

 

[kiwiman127]

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

The burden of proof is on Sada, until he proves his claims he is merely a whacko trying to sell his book. His claims contradict the Dulfer Report.

Duelfer Report

On 30 September 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's purported WMD programs. Among its conclusions were:

• Saddam Hussein controlled all of the regime’s strategic decision making.
• Hussein's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime.
• The introduction of the Oil-for-food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the regime.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.
• Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.
• Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
• Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.
• Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
• Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

His statements have been supported by others, including a top General and two pilots.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

From your link:
" Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

In other words, decade old WMD's.
And as it's a fact that because the invasion didn't have enough manpower to take complete control of Iraq, weapons depots went unguarded. Thus the insurgents access to explosives and chemical weapons from the pre-Gulf War days.

 

[bodecea]

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

And the burden of proof would fall one the one who said there were WMDs. He'd have to prove his statements are true. Good luck with that one.

No, he only has to prove that his opinion was based on facts as he knew them. He's admitted that in hindsight he used the wrong terminology. He admitted he made a misstatement, but he never admitted to lying.

Fact is many of our politicians believed there were WMD's in Iraq at this time. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I find it funny how you liberal pukes change the subject when your called on to provide proof.

So back to the original subject.

Prove that Sammon lied.

Interesting that you reject your own words.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The burden of proof is on Sada, until he proves his claims he is merely a whacko trying to sell his book. His claims contradict the Dulfer Report.

His statements have been supported by others, including a top General and two pilots.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

From your link:
" Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

In other words, decade old WMD's.
And as it's a fact that because the invasion didn't have enough manpower to take complete control of Iraq, weapons depots went unguarded. Thus the insurgents access to explosives and chemical weapons from the pre-Gulf War days.

No one claimed the WMD's were new. The point is that WMD's were reported to be in Iraq as late as 2008.

"In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And the burden of proof would fall one the one who said there were WMDs. He'd have to prove his statements are true. Good luck with that one.

No, he only has to prove that his opinion was based on facts as he knew them. He's admitted that in hindsight he used the wrong terminology. He admitted he made a misstatement, but he never admitted to lying.

Fact is many of our politicians believed there were WMD's in Iraq at this time. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I find it funny how you liberal pukes change the subject when your called on to provide proof.

So back to the original subject.

Prove that Sammon lied.

Interesting that you reject your own words.

Your concession is duly noted. Again.

 

[ClosedCaption]

gee, it's kinda tough to prove someone lied when there is no such thing as lying. Now I know that if I say I'm a 105 year old gymnastics teacher that isnt a lie as long as I believe it. This is amazing...now I know how the criminally insane feel

 

[Lonestar_logic]

gee, it's kinda tough to prove someone lied when there is no such thing as lying. Now I know that if I say I'm a 105 year old gymnastics teacher that isnt a lie as long as I believe it. This is amazing...now I know how the criminally insane feel

The only one that I've seen making that claim, is you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

gee, it's kinda tough to prove someone lied when there is no such thing as lying. Now I know that if I say I'm a 105 year old gymnastics teacher that isnt a lie as long as I believe it. This is amazing...now I know how the criminally insane feel

The only one that I've seen making that claim, is you.

and you..No one lies but Obama.

Rummy said he knew where the WMD's were and he didnt. That to you is not a lie because he believed it

Sammon asserted something as fact and you say it's speculation... that to you is not a lie even tho he did not believe it

I say I'm a flying typing unicorn...Whether I believe it or not, it's no way to prove that I'm lying. Therefore, using your logic, I'm not lying either.

So, again, according to your own logic of "prove its a lie", "prove that he/she knew it was a lie" nothing could be catorgized as a lie.

 

[bodecea]

Interesting that you reject your own words.

Your concession is duly noted. Again.

Where did you get that pic of L_L's girlfriend?

 

[bodecea]

No, he only has to prove that his opinion was based on facts as he knew them. He's admitted that in hindsight he used the wrong terminology. He admitted he made a misstatement, but he never admitted to lying.

Fact is many of our politicians believed there were WMD's in Iraq at this time. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I find it funny how you liberal pukes change the subject when your called on to provide proof.

So back to the original subject.

Prove that Sammon lied.

Interesting that you reject your own words.

Your concession is duly noted. Again.

No, after you. I accept YOUR concession first.

 

[edthecynic]

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

The burden of proof is on Sada, until he proves his claims he is merely a whacko trying to sell his book. His claims contradict the Dulfer Report.

Duelfer Report

On 30 September 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's purported WMD programs. Among its conclusions were:

• Saddam Hussein controlled all of the regime’s strategic decision making.
• Hussein's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime.
• The introduction of the Oil-for-food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the regime.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.
• Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.
• Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
• Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.
• Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
• Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

His statements have been supported by others, including a top General and two pilots.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

CON$ always lie in packs.

And the WikiLeaks only confirmed that the only things that were found were a very few old and degraded weapons that once had chemical agents that were now too degraded to cause any serious harm, but greatly exaggerated by CON$.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The burden of proof is on Sada, until he proves his claims he is merely a whacko trying to sell his book. His claims contradict the Dulfer Report.

His statements have been supported by others, including a top General and two pilots.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

CON$ always lie in packs.

And the WikiLeaks only confirmed that the only things that were found were a very few old and degraded weapons that once had chemical agents that were now too degraded to cause any serious harm, but greatly exaggerated by CON$.

Old, degraded, doesn't matter they were in fact evidence of wmd's.

 

[bodecea]

His statements have been supported by others, including a top General and two pilots.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

CON$ always lie in packs.

And the WikiLeaks only confirmed that the only things that were found were a very few old and degraded weapons that once had chemical agents that were now too degraded to cause any serious harm, but greatly exaggerated by CON$.

Old, degraded, doesn't matter they were in fact evidence of wmd's.

Were these the WMDs that ended up going to Syria in trucks? in planes? on camels?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Interesting that you reject your own words.

Your concession is duly noted. Again.

No, after you. I accept YOUR concession first.

Too late, I already noted your concession. Both times. And I'm not conceding to anything.