President Bush: Is He a Liar?

The DOJ AG Alberto Gonzales has testified in front of Congress that what Bush said was untrue. It isn't a matter of what I believe; it's a matter of what the DoJ has said.

There has to be a trial for someone to have lied, now?

Cycloptichorn

Well I seem to remember Bush telling us a few weeks ago that his program of surveillance was ONLY concerned with overseas contacts between people in America and people in other countries who could have possible connections to terrorism. And today the news is full of the NSA program that is trying to database EVERY call made in the US, to other numbers in the US. Including every call whoever of you reads this makes. With no oversight. Outraging a bunch of Republicans in Congress. Leaving the kneejerk apologists scrambling. Again. That boy sure tells some whoppers.

This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Why didn't the NSA get a warrant?

Debra_Law wrote:

...The people who have posted several of Bush's LIES have made their case that Bush is a LIAR.

A legal question for you. Under the law, can a statement be a lie which the speaker believes to be true when he says it? Can a statement be a lie if there is absolutely no intent to deceive?

No, but there has to be proof that a person knew an untruth was an untruth before it classifies as a lie.

Amigo wrote:

Why didn't the NSA get a warrant?

I don't know, but I'm sure that's a subject for a different thread.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

...The people who have posted several of Bush's LIES have made their case that Bush is a LIAR.

A legal question for you. Under the law, can a statement be a lie which the speaker believes to be true when he says it? Can a statement be a lie if there is absolutely no intent to deceive?

Brandon, the topic of this thread is:

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

The topic of this thread does not embrace a legal question. Most of us are intelligent enough to determine for ourselves whether Bush lied in accordance with the common understanding and usage of the word "lie." That common understanding of the word includes ANYTHING which misleads or deceives. A lie can be intentional; a lie can be unintentional. The word "Lie" is not a legal term of art; the act of lying, in and of itself, is not a legal wrong.

If you want to discuss the LEGAL questions, i.e. the essential elements (mens rea, actus reus, attendat circumstances) of criminal offenses that include lying or the essential elements of civil claims that include lying, then you will have to start another thread--perhaps in the legal forum.

Being consistently wrong about such an important subject, when one is the President of the United States and can certainly put great resources toward finding the truth, and presenting this "inaccuracy" as if it could stand up in a court of law, is lying.

Or psychosis.

I can't believe it to be incompetence.

I am very much afraid, Debra LAW, that you missed Ticomaya's post.

As a lawyer, I am sure that you know the meaning of the words in the definition Ticomaya gave--"uttered for the purpose of deceiving"

I am sure that you also know that there must be proof that the statement was "uttered for the purposes of deceiving".

When President Bush is brought up in a court of law, let me know, Debra LAW, so that I can discover whether he is found to be a liar or whether all of the allegations are based on partisan politics.

Most of us are intelligent enough to determine for ourselves whether Bush lied in accordance with the common understanding and usage of the word "lie."

That common understanding of the word includes ANYTHING which misleads or deceives. A lie can be intentional; a lie can be unintentional.

Ticomaya wrote:

username wrote:

Well I seem to remember Bush telling us a few weeks ago that his program of surveillance was ONLY concerned with overseas contacts between people in America and people in other countries who could have possible connections to terrorism. And today the news is full of the NSA program that is trying to database EVERY call made in the US, to other numbers in the US. Including every call whoever of you reads this makes. With no oversight. Outraging a bunch of Republicans in Congress. Leaving the kneejerk apologists scrambling. Again. That boy sure tells some whoppers.

Unless I misunderstood the thrust of the news account by USA Today -- which reveals yet again another tool in the fight against terrorism -- this does not involve surveillance conducted by the Bush Administration. This does not involve "listening in" on phone conversations. As Foxy said, no identifiable lie. Just a feeling of outrage by the leftists, who demonstrate more and more as time passes why they cannot be trusted with the security interests of the US. Where's the sense of outrage that yet another tool in the fight against terrorism has been compromised?

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm]USA Today[/url] wrote:

This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

<Gasp> How DARE the NSA consolidate and analyze phone call patterns and data already collected by the phone companies in an effort to try to stop terrorist attacks before they happen!

Not a lie.

Tico claims the NSA surveillance is not a part of the Bush administration. I may be wrong here, it's virtually impossible to keep up with the mushrooming federal bureaucracy the Bush administration has created, but it is my impression that the NSA has always been part of the executive branch. Guess that indeed makes it part of the Bush administration.

Do you remember John Poindexter's TIA program, Tico--his plan to monitor ALL electronic communication, foreign AND domestic, and data mine it for possible patterns indicating "terrorist" activity? Do you remember it was shot down in Sept. 2003 by BOTH parties as an unconstitutional infringement on the liberties of Americans> Do you remember the House vote of 407-15 for the shutdown? Do you remember the provision that the technology envisioned not be used in any other program? Do you remember the blogs shortly thereafter that said it was black-bagged into other black programs? Guess where it went, against the explicit vote of both parties in Congress? The NSA surveillance is TIA, unnamed, but the same program, and explicitly halted by Congress.

Do you remember Bush's assurances that his surveillance programs only involved overseas contacts and operated strictly within the law? What law? Not Congress's. Where's the law? From the recent news about Bush's 750 signing statements which say he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do, it seems that he thinks he is the one and only law.
Maybe his statements aren't lies. Maybe he honestly believes he is the law. That's what every king throughout history has thought. I thought democracy proved them wrong.

I think he lies.

During the 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

...

The actual words President Bush spoke: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.[2] However, the Administration has admitted that the claim was "a mistake."

...

The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" in Bush's address to the nation, attributing the error to the CIA.[8]

...

...in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department. At roughly the same time, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself... He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong"....

...

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asking Hadley to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

...

If we're going for legal angles, then let me introduce reasonable inference... something brough up by Deborah LAW :wink: on another thread.

Obviously one cannot absolutely know another's mind, but one can observe their actions and draw inferences.

So I will repeat what I said earlier:

DrewDad wrote:

Being consistently wrong about such an important subject, when one is the President of the United States and can certainly put great resources toward finding the truth, and presenting this "inaccuracy" as if it could stand up in a court of law, is lying.

Or psychosis.

I can't believe it to be incompetence.

Although I should have said "...and repeatedly presenting this 'inaccuracy....'"