SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram


Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!

"Oelewapper" wrote in
:

Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC
radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram

Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!

Actually, quite credible since all of the US has now backed out of the
WMD scenario and as much as admits it was a hoax (except for The and
Pan).

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

Myc

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...
Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram


Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!

In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth, they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

wrote in message ...
In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:

wrote in message ...
In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
control required.

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:

..

He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under
control required.



I'm not sure many economists would concur withh your views about the
necessity of a recession to control inflation. Certainly in other times
inflation has been controlled without recession. In any case, that was only
one reason he lost the election. You are overlooking his foreign policy
failures, the Iran hostage crisis and Afghanistan for example. Nice enough
man but he exuded impotence.

Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...
In rec.food.cooking Mycroft wrote:
Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
for a
living but are not supposed to get caught!

It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
they get
voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest
to
what
happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg


History looks at Jimmy Carter very kindly. As for his presidency, I don't
think that history will give it much thought, as it wasn't noted for
war-mongering and personal scandals. Certainly he had his problems to
overcome, like the hostage crisis, but he had his successes, like Camp
David.

In article , Jarg
wrote:

You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective
nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He
lost because he was a terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not
judge his presidency kindly.

Jarg

Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

Stark Raven wrote:
Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on.
We were terrible, petulant followers during Carter's Presidency,
unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace
agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement
considering that none of the other presidents were able to get anything real done.

A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it,
but he can't steer it. It is possible that Carter may not have steered it
sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps helped steer it in wrong
direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong
direction over his whole stay at the white house)

As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980
elections, it would have happened to any USA president at the helm during that
time period.