President Bush: Is He a Liar?

of course not. We all realize facts have absolutely no impact on your mind.

What facts are you referring to?

The ones we've cited in the previous pages of this thread, and have not in general been addressed.

My post was, I admit, snide. Did you edit yours? When I first read it, and responded, I don't recall reading your last sentence. Which somewhat changes the thrust of my post. When I went back after my post, your last sentence was there.

In any case, the point I was attempting to make with that survey report, bears out something I said quite a while ago now: politics is not a court of law--it is a court of public opinion, and in that court Bush is increasingly being perceived as dishonest, whether that be lying, intentionally misleading the public, or promising the moon and then falling short on the promise or never actually doing anything at all to fulfill that promise (Katrina being an example that doesn't go away), or some combination of all of those. If one attempts to insist on Bernard's definition of "lie", people will simply ignore you and use the broader definition of Webster, which is close to the way the term is actually used in people's everyday analysis of the actions of others.

My interpretation of the Clinton-Bush comparison, which I think is borne out by the comments recorded by pollsters over the last ten years, is that most people thought Starr et al basically got very far afield when they started investigating Clinton's personal life and that it was not really relevant to his performance in office--while they didn't condone his behavior, they largely felt his reaction was not exactly an unexpected one under the circumstances. And that where it came to his presidential duties, he was generally a straight shooter.

Bush on the other hand is more and more being perceived as someone whose statements often have little correlation with reality--sometimes that's clear at the time. Sometimes it becomes glaringly clear later. When it occurs repeatedly (and it has) (and just a few examples of the disjunct, as above: Kyoto and climate change, WMDs, Saddam and Osama and 9/11, Katrina, "the NSA only examines overseas communications"(not a direct Bush quote, but close)), people perceive it as dishonesty. You have to maintain a certain closeness to reality to be perceived as honest. Close to 60% of the country now according to polls perceives the administration as dishonest or lying to us.

Once someone loses the people's trust, I'm not sure it's ever regained regained, and the poll numbers just keep sinking. The poll questions asked do more than just deal with approval of the president's actions, they deal with trust in him. And they seem to say that trust in Bush is well below majority, and falling. Approval you can regain--if rarely. Trust I don't think you can. Trust and honesty aren't the same as lying, but they're close.

Well, Username, you have made some good points but I am very much afraid that you have missed some vital ones.

I hope that I can shed some light on them for you.

l. I can say without fear of contradiction that George W. Bush will not be re-elected. Therefore, politically, and with regard to his own future, any so called "loss of trust" is meaningless.

2. The forces on the left are obviously trying to denigrate the president at every turn. The experienced politicians are looking at the effect on the Novermber elections. Most of them don't care whether President Bush has lost the trust of the American people, as you say. They are only concerned with what they hope is the fallout of the alleged loss of trust.
But, I do hope that you realize that the election is in November. That, in political terms, is eons away.

3. The President, despite the numbers in the polls apparently is still able to shepard very important bills through the Congress. You may be aware that one of the linch pins of his first term, tax reform was just passed( His standing in the polls was around 32 at the time) The report said--

"The bill would hand President Bush ONE OF HIS TOP TAX PRIORITIES,A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE REDUCED 15 PERCENT TAX RATE FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS"

I do hope that you realize, username, that there are about 44 Million people in the USA who hold 401-K's at present. This may not appear important to you, but I assure you that it is vitally important to the people who watch the progress of their 401K's at the end of each quarter.

And, finally, you may not be aware that the number of seats at risk in the House are nowhere near the numbers that were at risk in the past elections. When the 2000 census was taken, legislators all over the country rushed to revise boundaries for BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN SEATS IN THE HOUSE on the basis of that Census. As a result, both parties created more safe seats for its members.

We shall see what happens in November. But, if the Democrats cannot retake the House and the Senate with a President whose ratings are at around 31% Approval ratings, it means that the populace does not wish to replace something, perhaps limping slightly, with nothing.

We shall see.

You claim that 60% of the public perceives the administration as dishonest or lying to us.

I am very much afraid that you will find no major poll which gives a finding that EXACTLY AS YOU HAVE WRITTEN IT---"60% of the public perceives the administration as dishonest or lying to us" I have never read such a thing and, I hope you realize that you are redundant. Lying and being dishonest are essentially the same thing.

What the polls say is that the only about 32% of the American People APPROVE OF HIS JOB PERFORMANCE. That does not equate with "dishonesty or lying to us"

I notice the new talking points publication has come out...

Yes, I did make some good points, didn't I? And, no, I have not missed your "vital" ones, particularly since you repeat several of them time and again and again (tho many of the agains were under your previous nom, to be sure). That you think they are "vital" has no bearing on how they actually play out.

In order, 1. Of course W won't be re-elected. Duh. However loss of trust is far from meaningless. He's still the pres for three2+ years. Lame duck pres.s lose influence. Bush appears to be losing it even more rapidly. Conservatives are souring on him. Sour voters sit on their hands come election day (see below). Legislators read the polls. When their pres. is more and more widely considered to be incompetent and/or venal, they start to consider their own options for re-election. And the more scorned a politician is, the less he can influence others to his side. This administration has relied on the big stick rather than the coalition. He's been a divider, not a uniter. . That's going to throw more roadblocks in his way in terms of getting his bills passed. And may I repeat, the tours of speeches he made to shore up support for the war and for his social security plans found less support when he was done than when he began. Which is why social security change (not at all, under the Bush plan, "reform") is pretty much a dead letter. Loss of trust is very meaningful.

2. The elections are months away. The groundwork is right now--recruiting candidates, candidates retiring rather than risking losing (e.g. Tom DeLay), squeezing money out of the fatcats for the campaign chest.
All of those aren't breaking the Reps. way. And if you look at your graph of Bush's approval (and the concomitant graphs of Rep. approval), they're just going down down down. The only thing that saved Bush was 9/11, and the magic has worn off him for that as far as the public is concerned (cf. approval for the War on Iraq). Which means there is no reason for you to think they'll get better. Nothing Bush has done to date has helped. And we've stilol got Scooter going to trial and maybe rolling over, and what seem to be credible rumors that there's going to be further NSA whistleblowing, further Abramoff scandals (and this isn't rumor--the FBI has searched the house of the guy who's something like #3 at the CIA in connection with it), and maybe Karl Rove indictments. Not to mention the continuing carnage in Iraq. You may think W. can pull out a miracle there by Nov. There seems to be no evidence he can. Looks like a bleak summer for him and his party. Bush does such a good job of denigrtating himself that it's almost possible to just sit by and watch him blow off more of his body parts every day.

3. He got his tax cut thru, and again it mostly benefits the very rich, and don't think that hasn't sunk in with Dems and Inds (and the Inds have deserted him virtually totally). 401Ks aren't going to overcome the other absurdities. I commend to your attention the Rep. $100 gas rebate check, which was ridiculed out of the water before it ever got beyound the splashy photo op announcement--ridiculed by EVERYBODY in remarkably similar terms (100 bucks, a tank and a half, whoopeesh*t)
That resonates far more than a tax cut no one's gonna see (and of course the analysis by most rational economists is that a major factor in the gas price runup is instability in the Middle East due to the war--guess what instability is highly unlikely to abate between now and Nov., and will be brought to mind every time people fill their tanks, or more likely dribble a couple gallons in because of the price).

I suppose this would be #4, but you didn't number it. Yes I am aware of the redistricting. How many times have you posted it? Not to mention the repeated talk about it in news coverage. And yes in 2004 it seemed that there was probably a near lock on it by the Reps. But bothparties have been running the math and by all accounts the Reps are looking a lot more shaken in the last couple months. And the Dems are looking a lot more confident. Because the country doesn't trust Bush anymore or apporove of him. Or the Republicans. As you say, we shall see. But I suspect, since the Reps. have set the precedent, there's likely to be some gerrymandering back the other way, come 2007.

I see you've learned your lesson from the Bush tactic of ignoring qualifiers, modifiers, or caveats, and cherrypicking data and distorting your opponent's position. Congratulations. Always learn from the master, in dishonesty if that's your particular bent. What I said was "CLOSE TO 60% of the country"--emphasis added of the part you omitted. Why? Close to 60% is less than 60%, as I suspect you would admit if your are honest about it. Dare I assume you will be? And in that poll cited, 41 % think Bush was more honest than Clinton, which would leave 59% who don't. OK, I'm gonna post this now, because I'm juggling multiple windows and every time I do that I hit the wrong button and los my entire reply. More to come

Username- You may be right. On the other hand, you may be wrong. November will clear that up for us, won't it?

Yes, it will. Hard to wait, isn't it?

No, it is not hard to wait---not for me, anyway. You may be aware that the smoke will not be cleared after November when the 2008 campaign will begin in earnest.

It well may be that Hillary Rodham Clinton will lead our country beginning in January 2009. Although I am not fond of Mrs.Clinton's principles and politics and am certain that her election would lead to the complete ruin of our economic and military systems, I am almost willing to let her have the job if only I can view WIlliam Jefferson Clinton acting as "first lady."

Right, after the horrible job the Clintons did with the economy before. I mean, a government running with a balanced budget--shocking! Surpluses--awful! How can the Clinton years possibly be compared positively against a probable trillion dollar war debt? Or ever-increasing deficits into the foreseeable future (starting in 2001)? or selling the country's assets abroad to pay for the binge? Boy, those Clintons are gonna ruin us, just like they did before. When we could have the responsible balanced economic policies of a third Bush? Their terms just don't compare to the Bush I recession, the Bush II recession, the Bush II huge budget increase, or any of the other megalo-costs he's run up our great grandchildren will still be trying to pay off.

Do you have a link for your assertion concerning a "trillion dollar war debt"?

When money is spent on the military, a good deal of it is not buried in the Saudi-Arabian sand. Most of it goes to military personnel( all American Citizens,) factories and plants that produce tanks, planes,etc and, the stock portfolios of American men and women. Yes, 44 Million people share in the profits of companies involved in our war effort.

You obviously have not studied Economics. I will endeavor to fill in the gaps for you.

The size of the yearly deficit and, more important, the total debt, must be placed in contrast to the GNP. Some basic facts:

l. The USA has been in debt for most of its existence. Even in the Revolutionary War.

2. The ratio between the total debt and the GNP fluctuates. After the end of World War II, the ratio between the total debt and the GNP was quite close. By 1972, the ratio had lessened substantially. Although the total debt continued to grow from 1945 to 1972, the GNP grew faster.

3.The GNP at this time, is close to Thirteen Trillion and growing.

4.The passage of the tax cut will make it possible for the GNP to grow even faster since much of the money retained by corporations from the tax cut goes to the establishment of new jobs.

5.Since President Bush's tax cut was passed initially, the TAX REVENUES HAVE INCREASED. That is counter-intuitive but true.

6. I do hope that you realize that when you speak of "surpluses" during the last year of Clinton's tenure, you are speaking of a surplus for the year so that there is not a deficit for that year. You are not speaking of a surplus in the total national debt since total national debt is different from yearly deficits.

May I respectfully suggest that you do more reading in Economics.


Dr. Thomas Sowell has written a fine Basic Economics Book!

Yeah, and when the numbers don't match up you'll blame it on a "mechanical error" like your 35% that became 24%...

YOu may be correct, Astromouse. Would you be so good as to point out where my numbers do not match up in my last post?

I can wait but please try to be specific. If you cannot do so, I am very much afraid that my post will have to stand!!

Yes, as a matter of fact I do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/20/opinion/20bilmes.html?ex=1282190400&en=e6842bf28ce308c3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I suggest you do a little more reading in economics. War is a hideous consumer of resources, a huge percentage of which do not survive and do not in fact lead to more productivity. They're just blown up, smashed, destroyed, worn out. And that includes the people involved. Same thing happens to them--a hideous waste of human resources.

I suggest you also look at the aftermath of WWII--deep recession and shortages in the US till about '48, and in Europe and Britain, where the destruction was heavier, until about '50 or even a bit later. Same thing happened after the War in Vietnam, tho less severe--LBJ and Nixon tried to run the war without funding it in taxes and it screwed the economy and led to huge inflation well into the Reagan years.

Bush is financing his war by borrowing from other countries, among others China. Since Reagan we are the world's largest debtor country. So far they haven't called in the check (tho you notice he has absolutely no impact when he tries to change Chinese monetary policy--why should they change? They own so much here if they want to they can seriously f*ck us over if their impression of the soundness of our economy changes).

You should probably read a bit more closely. Not only did I not get my ass handed to me, but the same drivel was repeated and the actual issue was not addressed. But I do make some allowances for the focus-on-the-pertinent-issue challenged as I understand that some are unable to focus on the real issue and rather attempt to deflect with a lot of other stuff that does not address the real issue.

You got your ass handed to you when Deb quite correctly pointed out that you didn't even read the article, because it is quite long, and for you to read the article and write your post in just seven minutes - given that you read it the very second that Deb posted it - is beyond belief. Also, at no point have you shown that you had legitimate complaints with the article, as you don't actually address any of them; you merely condemn the writer. When Deb pointed this out, you had no response, because there was no response to be given that wouldn't have made you look even worse.

So yes, you did get your ass handed to you, as Deb called you out on your lie. I can't tell if you act this dumb on purpose, if it is some game to rile up the liberals, or if this is how you live your life.

Cycloptichorn

I was unaware that reading an article had anything to do with whether something is a lie or not. I chose not to read an article of just another leftwing statement that something was a lie when it is obvious that if it is perceived that if a rightwinger says something incomplete or incorrect it is a LIE while a leftwinger can say the same thing and it was just 'misunderstood' or an 'inadvertent error'. At the same time, it took only a couple of paragraphs in that article to see that it was the same old ground that has been debated ad nauseum and the rabid leftwingers still believe the allegations to be true while thinking people know there is little or no substance to them.

Now please go back to all the other threads on that subject and read the very good rebuttals to those very same allegations, and get back to me.

Meanwhile, I shall focus on the thesis of this thread which is: Is President Bush a liar? So far, the only person who has even come up with a possibility of that has been Tico, and nobody else has shown me any proof or even any credible suspicion that he intended to deceive or mislead.

Saying that somebody lied requires more evidence than just saying somebody lied and I don't care who is saying it.

Translation of Fox's last post:

<fingers in ears>I can't hear you, la la la la la la la</fingers in ears>

You mean like this?




or this?

Are you guys still trying to figure out what a lie is?

Just try asking your grandma if you had made the same statements as Bush (and his administration) has made, if she'd be grabbing you up by your ear and taking you behind the shed.