Re: Was Iraq proof faked???

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:40 pm

That he cannot prove his accusations does not mean that he has lied.

As you said, Richer and Maguire may have been lying to him when they
"confirmed the letter".

by Aaron Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:48 pm

ziggy wrote:That he cannot prove his accusations does not mean that he has lied.

As you said, Richer and Maguire may have been lying to him when they
"confirmed the letter".

By law Frank, if he is going to make an accusation then he must be able to prove it or he is guilty of defamaition/slander/liable.

We're the subject anyone other then GWB and the topic anything other then Iraq, you would agree with me. Your bias is crystal.

Rolling Eyes

Defamation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Slander)
"Libel" and "Slander" redirect here. For other uses, see Libel (disambiguation) and Slander (disambiguation).
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:12 pm

By law Frank, if he is going to make an accusation then he must be able to prove it or he is guilty of defamaition/slander/liable.

No, not unless it was done with malice and deliberate intent or reckless disregard for the truth.

by Aaron Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:16 pm

You're wrong Frank.

But ever if you weren't (which you are by the way-does it ever get old?), Suskind wrote a book and made 'false and malicious' statements, the intent was deliberate and there was certainly a reckless disregard for the truth.

So should he be held responsible for his deliberate false and malicious statements and his reckless disregard for the truth?

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:32 pm

Truth is an absolute defence in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:41 pm

Aaron wrote:You're wrong Frank.

But ever if you weren't (which you are by the way-does it ever get old?), Suskind wrote a book and made 'false and malicious' statements, the intent was deliberate and there was certainly a reckless disregard for the truth.

So should he be held responsible for his deliberate false and malicious statements and his reckless disregard for the truth?

To show that Suskind had made "deliberate false and malicious statements", Richer and Maguire would need to show convincingly that they had not indeed previosuly confirmed the letter. It would be their word against his. And were they the plaintiffs in a civil action, the burden of proof would be on them to prove that Suskind had published deliberately false and malicious statements.

by Aaron Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:59 pm

Your full of crap Frank and you know it. You're biased because you've been spouting the same lie that Suskind printed for as long as I've known you.

It was just last week that you edited/deleted one of Sam's post and the reason you cited for editing/deleting the post of a person of whom you've shown a great amount of disdain for and you clearly do not like was liable!!!

On another thread, consistency was discussed. Perhaps you should give it a try. Maybe then you wouldn’t be thought of as the fraudulent hypocrite some think you are.

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:48 pm

If you want to disucuss lack of "consistency", then 'bring it on'. But so far all you've done is huff and puff about it.

As to Suskind, I never heard of the guy until a few days ago. But parts of his book are consistent with what former Bush press aide Scott McClellan told us not very long ago.

As to Bush, I have said and I will say again that I believe that he lied to us about Iraq and the excuses he gave for invading and occupying Iraq. And apparently you do to- as you repeatedly side-stepped my question about if you believe that Bush was being truthful about Iraq back then, in 2002-2003.

But maybe that was just another Ziggy "trick"- a "loaded" question- that was beneath the dignity of the Almighty Aaron.

by Aaron Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:30 pm

Just more of your biased partisan tripe Frank, that's all it is. You don't want to see the truth come out, you want to see Bush persecuted because you've got you're mind made up.

If he did what Suskind did, then he should be buried under the jail. But if he didn't, the Suskind should suffer the consequences for his false and malicious statements which by law are defamation and slanderous and can be punishable in either civil or criminal court.

But you're too blinded by your intense hatred for GWB to see that, or even allow that Suskind is wrong. But then we all know how you feel and why.

You citing Sam's liable as a reason to edit his post and then denying liable is present in the Suskind case shows you can be a inconsistent hypocrite in addition to a partisian, blinded person as well.

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:39 pm

If he did what Suskind did, then he should be buried under the jail. But if he didn't, the Suskind should suffer the consequences for his false and malicious statements which by law are defamation and slanderous and can be punishable in either civil or criminal court

.

OK then. As the little bush says, bring it on.

But no one will.

'Cause "no one" wants it to be anything other than pushed back under a rug.

by Aaron Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:00 pm

IF it were true, GWB would have already been impeached. It's more partisan tripe and in the grand scheme of things, it's really not worth the adminstration's time. And to pursue the matter would take a ton of time and taxpayers money and would only enhance the idiot author and his band of followers.

The money is motive and the audiance is those that already believe. Suskinds singing to his own band of idiot choir members and your refusal to admit that he could be wrong, that he could be slanderous and that the story could be based in lies and fabrications shows you're right there, singing loud and proud.

That's the plain and simple truth.

by ziggy Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:53 pm

Suskinds singing to his own band of idiot choir members and your refusal to admit that he could be wrong,.............

Sure he could be wrong.

But I don't think he is.

Do you?

by Aaron Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:21 pm

Yes I do.

by Sponsored content