President Bush: Is He a Liar?

This whole thing about "proving" that Bsuh lied is nothing but a Red Herring. In order to prove he lied, whether the burden is the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be necessary to have subpoena power in order to gather evidence and sworn testimony. Whether he lied, misled, was mistaken or whatever is merely a matter of opinion. What almost evreyone agrees on is that he has, on several occasions, made utterances that were not factual. It is almost as damning that his misstatements could be attributed to incompetence rather than deceit.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Nonsense--you've done nothing but attempt to derail the thread.

You've claimed that the Shrub is more honest than Clinton was. What evidence to you provide that this is so?

And ever since I made what was essentially a throw-away comment, you've refused to let the subject drop ... neither have you presented any of the "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty you claim exists. You have done much more to derail the thread than I.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
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....'"

Yes, DL attempted to claim "reasonable inferences" show Bush was a liar, yet she was unable to make that assertion stand on the "Amarica ... Spying on Americans" thread, and you're unable to do it now.

On that thread, DL claimed Bush lied, but stated that his "lies" could not be proven, but she believed a court could find he's lied with no proof, because she would employ the "elementary law" of "reasonable inferences." As I said on that thread, faced with ZERO evidence that Bush lied, a court is much more likely to the evidence and arguments concerning the justiciable issues before them, and then make the appropriate findings, based upon the evidence, than to leap to follow DL's "reasonable inferences" argument. And, as I said on that thread, applying the "reasonable inferences" approach to the the argument you are presenting, when you claim that Bush lied, but cannot prove that Bush lied, the reasonable inference is that it is you who is lying, not Bush.

On what page of the "America Spying on Americans" thread are you relying on to substantiate your allegations of my statements and beliefs?

Run a search, Debra. I'll not do your research for you.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Clintons Lie; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Bushes Lie; " He has weapons of mass destruction-the world's deadliest weapons-which pose a direct threat to the United states, our citizens and our allies."...

Have you any evidence at all that the President didn't believe this to be likely when he said it?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Clintons Lie; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Bushes Lie; " He has weapons of mass destruction-the world's deadliest weapons-which pose a direct threat to the United states, our citizens and our allies."...

Have you any evidence at all that the President didn't believe this to be likely when he said it?

Ok he's not a liar - he's just the biggest misinformed dumb ass to ever sit in the oval office. You win Brandon.

( I owe Snood some jellybeans)

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Clintons Lie; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Bushes Lie; " He has weapons of mass destruction-the world's deadliest weapons-which pose a direct threat to the United states, our citizens and our allies."...

Have you any evidence at all that the President didn't believe this to be likely when he said it?

Ok he's not a liar - he's just the biggest misinformed dumb ass to ever sit in the oval office. You win Brandon.

( I owe Snood some jellybeans)

We should be asking Brandon to prove he 's not a liar since most people think he is.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

We should be asking Brandon to prove he 's not a liar since most people think he is.

According to who? Without good solid evidence to back up your statement, you just told a whopper. If so, you are a liar, plain and simple.

Even with a poll, I would take it with a grain of salt, as according to one poll, 80% believed the government is hiding knowledge of extra-terrestrial life forms. So I guess possibly 80% of the people think the government is lying about that. So it looks like Bush is probably much more trusted than the government in general.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Clintons Lie; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Bushes Lie; " He has weapons of mass destruction-the world's deadliest weapons-which pose a direct threat to the United states, our citizens and our allies."...

Have you any evidence at all that the President didn't believe this to be likely when he said it?

Joseph Wilson, the 20 year senior diplomat holding positions in Africa and Iraq, was sent to Niger in 2002 on a CIA-directed mission to investigate the british claims that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake uranium" from niger. He concluded that the allegations were false, wilson said:

"Based on my experience with the administr5ation in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exagerate the threat.....[The CIA] asked if I would travel to niger to check out the story.... in early March, Iarived [back] in Washington and submitted a detailed driefing to the CIA...There should be at least four documents in the United states government archives confirming my mission."

In July 2003 Wilson adds: "It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs to question, what else are they lying about"

Later Wilsons wife a succesful and current CIA opratives identity would be reveiled (burned) by the Bush administration endangering her life and all agents surrounding her. The future of her intelligence gathering lost. Her work? WMDs in Iran.

0 Replies

Cartoon Lies!.....this is fun. Very Happy

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf-21.jpg

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence analysts have determined that two suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories found in Iraq were "certainly designed and constructed for that purpose," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.

"The intelligence community has really looked hard at these vans, and we can find no other purpose for them," Powell told reporters in Washington.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Green Witch wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Clintons Lie; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Bushes Lie; " He has weapons of mass destruction-the world's deadliest weapons-which pose a direct threat to the United states, our citizens and our allies."...

Have you any evidence at all that the President didn't believe this to be likely when he said it?

Ok he's not a liar - he's just the biggest misinformed dumb ass to ever sit in the oval office. You win Brandon.

( I owe Snood some jellybeans)

We should be asking Brandon to prove he 's not a liar since most people think he is.

That's your idea of fairness? You can accuse someone of lying without giving any example or evidence, and the person and his supporters have to prove he's innocent? Great, just great. There's a generally accepted standard of fairness when accusing someone of something serious, and that's not it.

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Clintons Lie; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Bushes Lie; " He has weapons of mass destruction-the world's deadliest weapons-which pose a direct threat to the United states, our citizens and our allies."...

Have you any evidence at all that the President didn't believe this to be likely when he said it?

Ok he's not a liar - he's just the biggest misinformed dumb ass to ever sit in the oval office. You win Brandon.

( I owe Snood some jellybeans)

I'm right, if that's what you mean. I am correct when I state that throwing around accusations of wrongdoing without much caring if they're true, or feeling any obligation to back them up is unethical.

0 Replies

We post them. We back them up. You don't listen. That's why Bush's numbers keep falling. The hardcore doesn't hear when everyone else tells them Bush is wrong, and everyone else doesn't believe the hardcore anymore.

0 Replies

Someone did an analysis of Bush speeches and the poll numbers. He did two big tours of speeches promoting support for the War on Iraq and one in support of his plans for "reform" of Social Security. In each of those cases, support for his policies was lower after his series of highly-publicized speeches than it was before he began. The more he talks, the less people believe him. Guess people just watch his nose grow and decide he's not credible.

0 Replies

username wrote:

We post them. We back them up. You don't listen. That's why Bush's numbers keep falling. The hardcore doesn't hear when everyone else tells them Bush is wrong, and everyone else doesn't believe the hardcore anymore.

Not the truth. Look at the posts on A2K. For every case in which the President is accused of a specific lie, and there is some attempt to give evidence or supporting logic, there are many, many, many posts in which the accusation is made without either.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

username wrote:
We post them. We back them up. You don't listen. That's why Bush's numbers keep falling. The hardcore doesn't hear when everyone else tells them Bush is wrong, and everyone else doesn't believe the hardcore anymore.

Not the truth. Look at the posts on A2K. For every case in which the President is accused of a specific lie, and there is some attempt to give evidence or supporting logic, there are many, many, many posts in which the accusation is made without either.

It's just like the harcore Right's answer to why Bush and the Republicans poll rock-bottom low among Blacks - the Blacks just don't see the real truth about wo the Republicans are, and what party really is best.

It's exactly like the hardcore rightwing answer to why Bush is polling at about 30% popularity these days - people just don't understand the real truth about what Bush is doing that's good for them.

You f*ckers just don't get it, Brandon - you will buy and then try to resell anything - AN"YTHING that Bush and Co sell you. You will defend ANYTHING they do. You are pathetic.

0 Replies

Is anyone going to address the President's 2003 State of the Union statement? Pretty clearly a lie, since the administration was repeatedly told that the information was incorrect.

My post on it is here.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

username wrote:
We post them. We back them up. You don't listen. That's why Bush's numbers keep falling. The hardcore doesn't hear when everyone else tells them Bush is wrong, and everyone else doesn't believe the hardcore anymore.

Not the truth. Look at the posts on A2K. For every case in which the President is accused of a specific lie, and there is some attempt to give evidence or supporting logic, there are many, many, many posts in which the accusation is made without either.

Now you're lying, Brandon. She did not say that every post is substantiated; that is a condition you are adding.

0 Replies

I think there is little question that Bush has made statements that are factually untrue.

Everyone seems to agree with that. Can we see a show of hands that think he has never made a statement that has proven false?

0 Replies

That is precisely why the Bush supporters here have harped upon a definition of "lie," and have been ranting about honesty. They know that they cannot deny that so many of his statements have been proven to be untrue, so they want to portray him as an ultimately honest man who simply erred.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

You f*ckers just don't get it, Brandon - you will buy and then try to resell anything - AN"YTHING that Bush and Co sell you. You will defend ANYTHING they do. You are pathetic.

No, snood ... you're pathetic because you don't see things the same way we do.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know