Response

2004-7-14 05:12:00

synthesehalevi asks:
When you look into Bush's eyes and behold his face, do you see anything noteworthy?

JJ:
If we can't look in the eyes of someone who is attempting to do his best to follow his soul impressions and be of service and see something noteworthy what does that say about us???

Of course, I see something noteworthy in him as I am sure I would in you if I had the same chance to look in your eyes.

Lance writes:
JJ You ask "If anyone could find an actual quote from Bush that has been proven to be a deliberate deception, I would like to hear it."

OK the main reason I have been reluctant to take you up on this challenge is because of the way you worded your challenge.

It is not enough to provide a quote that is deceptive, your criteria insists that we must show that the deception was in fact deliberate. In other words we must try to prove that the intent was to deceive.

JJ:
No. You don't have to go so far as to read the person's mind. If a person can show a pattern of proven lies then he can make a case for probable deception in the gray areas. One must at least give some good circumstantial evidence that leads to the logical conclusion that there was some type of intentional deception. Without this it is mean spirited and judgmental to make accusations.

Lance:
Proving intent is always difficult.

JJ:
I am not asking to prove intent but merely show that a definite lie has been told. Definite lies are easy to spot. For instance, when Bill Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" and then the blue dress showed up with his DNA on it this was pretty convincing evidence a lie had been told. No one had to read minds or show intent.

The same with Bush. If he is truly a liar as many say then some definite lies should be able to be presented as evidence.

Lance:
Lets look in more detail at one of the examples I provided.

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need,"

OK there are two statements here The first is a `reminder' that the inspectors were denied access in 1998.

JJ:
You inserted the 1998. Bush did not say this. He is obviously talking about the first inspections. The inspectors were periodically denied access from the beginning. Even if he was talking about the 1998 denial he was obviously talking about that older report when referring to the six months.. The "six months away thing" was very common knowledge and something where the meaning was this obvious could not be called deceptive.

You note:
Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan's response to the rebuttal of any such report existing was:

"He's referring to 1991 there. In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

JJ:
This was the way I interpreted it when I read it. I thought it was pretty clear. It is illogical to think that Bush was applying the six months to 1998 when we all know different. It appears you are judging Bush to be a liar by reading his mind. He was asked for clarification and it was given? Why not accept it?

I admit that Bush could have worded the statement with greater clarity, but none of us are able to be absolutely clear all the time. If a statement appears wrong or deceptive a person ought to be allowed to clarify.

I have this same problem with arguments I have with emotional people. Sometimes in an argument I may make a statement which is misunderstood or worded in a way that sounds different than I intended.

When this happens the dialog will often go something like this:

Emotional Person: "But you said (ABC)!"

JJ:
Unfortunately we don't have a tape recorded so there is no way to prove what I did say so I may respond something like this: "I do not recall saying it in that way and if I did that is not what I meant. This is what I really think upon the subject." ( then I state what I meant with as much clarity as possible) Emotional Person: "But you said (ABC)!" JJ: "I told you that if I said that or if I gave you that impression it is not the way I think. Here is what I meant (I then repeat what I meant). Emotional Person: But that is not what you said. You said...

Notice that the guy is not interested in the truth but only interested in accusing me. This is what the scriptures mean when they condemn those who "Make a man an offender by a word."

I'm sure that Bush has told a number of lies in his life as most of us have, but I have not found any in relation to the war. I found one that I considered to be a possible lie on a social issue once but even this was subject top interpretation.

Now let us move on to Robert.
He makes the amazing assertion that Saddam should have been allowed to stay in power and has a right to have nuclear weapons. This is an amazing statement.

Then he writes:
What if Saddam obtained a nuclear bomb and attacked America - tens of thousands of lives would be lost, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even maybe the number would be in the millions. But then what? America would likely retaliate and Iraq would get attacked with nuclear bombs a hundred times worse. That is not intelligent - and even though Saddam Hussein was a nutcase, he would not risk the existence of his country. Anyone who has studied Saddam realizes that he would never aggressively attack America because the vengeance towards Iraq would be horror - and Saddam would not do that to his country. The nation would be in ruins, many millions would die and the land would be uninhabitable from an American retaliation, thus, attacking the Unites States would result in absolute dishonor and it would be a disgrace to the Iraqi people and to Allah because it would mean the demise of the country of Iraq.

JJ:
Saddam and the world was told that if he set the oil fields on fire after the first Gulf war that it would probably cause a nuclear winter that would not only destroy Iraq, but much of the world through the destruction of crops and environment. Did this stop him? No. He decided to inflict all the possible damage he could and set the oil fields on fire. The world owes a debt to Halliburton for figuring out a way to out them out so the predictions made by scientists did not come true.

The man was insane and you do not even put a small caliber weapon in the hands on one who is mentally ill, let alone a nuclear weapon.

Robert:
What would change your opinion about the attack on Iraq? Is there anything? Would anything change your mind about what you believe about the unilateral invasion on Iraq? Perhaps only Maitreya, the Christ, could help you understand the injustice of America's attack on Iraq.

JJ:
Your own mind seems pretty fixed for being concerned about mine.

This was not a unilateral invasion. Have you heard of your mother country - something called Great Britain? The last I heard there were sixty nations who supported the war - as well as several UN resolutions passed with unanimity. That's not quite unilateral.

To change my mind I would have to receive a spiritual communication that would differ from the last one I received, which thing is not likely to happen for since when does spirit disagree with spirit?

In addition I would also have to see the logic in it, but of course, the logic is automatic with spiritual communion. I would need to know why we should not attempt to free 30,000,000 people from tyranny in this age when freeing the slaves in the Civil War was counted just. And keep in mind that the North fighting the South was unilateral and condemned by most of the world.

Now, let me ask you a question. What would it take to change your mind? The Christ? Perhaps if you listened without being influenced by a guru it would help.

Speaking of gurus, does Creme still believe that the Saddam on trial is a double? Do you?

The truth shall make you free. Jesus