Is this person a liar?

It depends on when they said it and what intelligence they were privy to at the time they said it.

The only part that is debatable in that statement just on it's face is the part about state sponsored terrorism. And of course evil is a subjective term. No one can say as a fact that Saddam is evil.

Bush baiting?

And of course evil is a subjective term. No one can say as a fact that Saddam is evil.

And you would be wrong to assume this. Here are 3 different definitions of the word "evil". I think without qualification that you'll find that Saddam fits all 3.

Main Entry: evil Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often and US also 'E-(")vil Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil 1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED

Main Entry: evil Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often and US also 'E-(")vil Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil 1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct 2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE 3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY - evil adverb, archaic - evil·ly /-(l)E/ adverb - evil·ness /-n&s/ noun

Yes, according to those definitions you and I would say he's evil. But not everyone finds the same things morally reprehensible.

If you apply those definitions to every person, then we're all evil.

"Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator," he answers, "who presents a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."

It appears this statement is from Harry Reid. We know that he was privy to intelligence that supported all these claims when he made it. He would be a liar if he was also privy to information that refutes these staements. We know the Bush administration were aware that this intelligence was unreliable when they made these statements. Do you know that Harry Reid had the same information (about it being false) when he made this statement?

And you would be wrong to assume this.

Where did I "assume" something?

But not everyone finds the same things morally reprehensible.

Again I think you'll find your incorrect on this. Everyone that I know and have spoken to consider the killing of women and children and the rape of women to be morally reprehensible.
We may well all be evil. But you and I did not kill or rape thousands of women and children.

Again I think you'll find your incorrect on this. Everyone that I know and have spoken to consider the killing of women and children and the rape of women to be morally reprehensible.

You're the one that wanted to get so precise as to break out a dictionary, so here we go. Just because everyone you know and have spoken to thinks these acts are morally reprehensible, doesn't mean everyone does.

I find them reprehensible, and I would hope everyone I know does too, but whether killing/raping people is reprehensible doesn't usually come up in conversation.

You're the one that wanted to get so precise as to break out a dictionary, so here we go. Just because everyone you know and have spoken to thinks these acts are morally reprehensible, doesn't mean everyone does. I find them reprehensible, and I would hope everyone I know does too, but whether killing/raping people is reprehensible doesn't usually come up in conversation.

"Now" who's splitting hairs?

if someone with the capacity to know facts provides you what appears to be validated documentation in support of his or her claims, you may still be foolish to believe that person. nevertheless, if you've been convinced by such a scammer, you are not consciously or intentionally lying by repeating what you've been told.

on the other hand, if you are making incorrect assumptions based on questionable evidence--and you have reason to doubt both the evidence and the conclusions but represent them as truth, you are lying.

here's a perfect example of: a. intentional distortion of the facts or b.) idiocy presented as intelligence.

I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Splitting hairs, being precise...whatever you want to call it. I know it's something new to you, but you started in with the dictionary, so I'm just playing along.

Yes, according to those definitions you and I would say he's evil. But not everyone finds the same things morally reprehensible.

If you are unwilling to stake a stand and say anything is evil, then you have lost all claims on morality.  WHile intollerance of other customs is usually bad, when those customs defy human decency, much less any religious decency, then it is time to call it evil, no matter how understanding you want to be.

By your definition, you could not consider Jeffrey Dahmer Evil, because he did not violate any of his own precepts.

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

And you are, Kingbee, I take it, of the opinion that Iraq's vast majority which does indeed appreciate the liberation, that Kurds who name their children George and Tony, and that Iraqi voters who again and again prove that their love their newly-won freedom do not see the coalition as liberators?

I think it is quite racist to assume that just because many Sunnis do not appreciate the liberation (from a regime in which they ruled, no less) there is no such feeling in Iraq per se. Shi'ites and Kurds do count, you know.

Got it.

Republicans say this they are liars, warmongers, and "neocons".

Democrats say it and they are "victims" who didn't realize what they were saying.

If you are unwilling to stake a stand and say anything is evil, then you have lost all claims on morality. WHile intollerance of other customs is usually bad, when those customs defy human decency, much less any religious decency, then it is time to call it evil, no matter how understanding you want to be. By your definition, you could not consider Jeffrey Dahmer Evil, because he did not violate any of his own precepts.

You're not talking about me specifically are you? I very clearly said that I think he's evil. My point was evil is a subjective term. What may be evil to one is not evil to another. This thread was about whether someone lied. I said he may be lying, but the part about Saddam being evil cannot be proved or disproved because it depends on the values/beliefs of the person reading it.

Shi'ites and Kurds do count, you know.

Only if they are Americans - to some apparently.

There were people who made these claims that are liars, including Bush & Cheney. They knew when they said this crap that it wasn't true. There's evidence of that.

If Harry Reid had information that these claims were false when he made the above statement, then he's a liar too. Do you have knowledge that Reid knew these claims were false when he made them? If so, kindly point me in that direction.

You provided the quote, what's the date that it was made?

My point was evil is a subjective term.

Moral Relativism.  Everything is ok, since somone somewhere believes in it.

Everything is ok, since somone somewhere believes in it.

Wow! I'm astounded that you believe that. In my view, that's a pretting disgusting view of things.

Wow! I'm astounded that you believe that. In my view, that's a pretting disgusting view of things.

I dont believe I said the words "I believe". I do believe I was just restating the highlighted quote.

No one can say as a fact that Saddam is evil.

Actually yes they can. The 3 terms from the dictionary posted by drmiller actually make it a fact. Now that would make everyone else evil as well, but we are talking about Saddam, not everyone else so that is irrelevant. More preciseness for you.

The truth is, I can't imagen anyone not thinking of him as evil. Even those who agree with what he has done. After all you can't really say that killing innocent people for the hell of it is OK and just because someone is OK with it doesn't make it right. So in the end evil is evil no matter who agrees with it or not. Some are just more than others.

Restating or reinterpreting?

Saddam may have been evil and a dictator. He may have wanted WMD. That makes him like many other dictators in this world. As for supporting state sponsored terrorism I do not see that. he wanted and was in control of Iraq and would not share control with others. There why no terrorists operated in Iraq like the people that planned 9/11 in under Saddam He was not a danger to the US and that is why we sould not have invaded Iraq.

Restating or reinterpreting?

I do believe I said restating.

As for supporting state sponsored terrorism I do not see that.

Gee, wonder where all those $25k checks came from.

I know!  The Ether Bunny!