President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Respectfully McG, he was speaking to me and I responded to his direct insults.
I'm certainly in no position to police this board in that manner, nor is it my responsibility to speak up for those under personal attack from other members.

What does it matter? If the President says there are no war plans on his desk, and that is exactly what he literally means, then there is no lie.

I remain firm in my convictions because neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything other than claims of this amazing ability to read minds and discern intentions to counter my convictions. My convictions are in no way based on any such claim to such abilities but are based on what I watch or read what people actually say and do.

Why would anyone put anything of consequence on bush's desk?

Who could trust him to read or understand anything?

Quote:

I remain firm in my convictions because neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything other than claims of this amazing ability to read minds and discern intentions to counter my convictions. My convictions are in no way based on any such claim to such abilities but are based on what I watch or read what people actually say and do.

You are walking along when a snowball hits you in the kisser. Only one person is anywhere near. What do you know about the thrower's intent? You go two more steps and another one hits you. What do you know now about intent? Another few steps and another snowball. Any mind-reading going on?

A man standing in the dock at trial says, "I'm innocent, your honor. Those witnesses are mistaken." The judge finds the fellow guilty. The judge doesn't believe he has spoken truthfully. Mind-readidng going on there?

Bill clinton says "I never had sexual relations with that woman." Just not possible to infer or conclude anything about intent? That would be mind-reading?

When George Bush says (on television) "There are no war plans on my desk" it is reasonably safe to assume two things:

1) He said it.
2) he most likely wanted his hearers to believe it.

We can't assume his intent was to deceive or obfusicate or how he was feeling or what he was thinking when we said it or that his motive was any different than to make that statement. If he had a history of going to war against rogue countries or telling lies about such things, we could speculate that he was lying, but an honest person would acknowledge that, without proof, assumptions of veracity are purely speculative. (And inappropriate.)

When Bill Clinton says (on television) "I never had sexual relations with that woman" it is reasonably safe to assume two things:

1) He said it
2) He most likely wanted his hearers to believe it.

Your arrogance is showing again, Bernie; that arrogance that presumes you to be able to state my motives or what I'm feeling inside. There must be something in the water that liberals drink that causes them to do that.

In addition to Woodward's book I would challenge you to also read Tommy Franks' "A Soldiers Story" and Sammons "Misunderestimated" for starters.

I remain firm in my convictions because neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything other than claims of this amazing ability to read minds and discern intentions to counter my convictions. My convictions are in no way based on any such claim to such abilities but are based on what I watch or read what people actually say and do.

I prefer my way better.

You have to add that proof factor in there. That's what judges and juries are supposed go by and not by assumptions of what people are feeling.

And of course I know politicans lie. I have politicians in my own family who have lied like rugs. You can find any number of cases in which a politician says one thing to one group and something entirely different to another group. One of those two things is a lie.

But we are speaking of a specific incident for which there has been no proof that a statement was a lie or intended as a lie when it was said. And that one statement is what we have been defending here.

Here's why you used "proof" above. There IS evidence, credible and multiple, which contradicts the president's statement regarding the existence of war plans (where they were stored is irrelevant).

But you won't acknowledge this. Nor will you acknowledge any deceits elsewhere because as soon as you acknowledge one, you risk acknowledging the beginnings of or the appearance of a pattern of deceit. And that has consequences for his credibility particularly where there are other conflicting accounts.

So, what you are up here to is fairly simple to understand. Why you do it is the intriguing psychological question. The consequences to a community (a democratic community) where very many people get up to what you are doing is the really relevant political matter.

First, consider the ignorance about the genre of the "docudrama," which is simply the video version of what journalism has been doing for decades--and even centuries. To read Bob Woodward's "meta-histories" is to intrude into the inner thoughts, mental musings, and private conversations of those few Washington insiders who are willing to talk with him, and thereby ensure that their own whitewashed take on events is privileged and becomes the dominant narrative.

Very few of Woodward's characters' cobbled-together reflections can possibly be verbatim transcripts of recorded interviews. Rather in the purest Thucydidean sense, Woodward apparently attempts to "make the speakers say what was in [his] opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said."

Whether the result is factual goes back to the age-old Greek debate over subjective and objective truth. Always controversial is establishing the murky point at which an artist's attempts to portray what "actually happened" so drifts from, or contradicts, what is known from other evidence that it leaves the realm of history and enters that of propaganda or fiction.

Again I recommend Tommy Frank's book that includes a great mini history of the discussions and processes that went into the decision to go to war with Iraq. I found it convincing. It is possible you might too.

Foxfyre wrote:

Your arrogance is showing again, Bernie; that arrogance that presumes you to be able to state my motives or what I'm feeling inside. There must be something in the water that liberals drink that causes them to do that.

In addition to Woodward's book I would challenge you to also read Tommy Franks' "A Soldiers Story" and Sammons "Misunderestimated" for starters.

I remain firm in my convictions because neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything other than claims of this amazing ability to read minds and discern intentions to counter my convictions. My convictions are in no way based on any such claim to such abilities but are based on what I watch or read what people actually say and do.

I prefer my way better.

Blatham hit the nail on the head. You aren't capable of rational thought. Your every post screams this. It is obvious to anyone with the ability to think critically, a trait common to liberals and rarely seen in the Bush apologistic conservative. It has nothing to do with what's in the water, it has to do with what is in our hearts as well as what is our minds.