President Bush: Is He a Liar?

All of that is known to me. It does not change the fact that three independent US inquiries determined the British finding to be false, and that all three inquiries informed the administration.

The administration chose to continue citing the British report, despite having newer and presumably more trustworthy intelligence (else why have US sources at all?).

A deliberate deception.

I remember when Bush first took office and he strode to the podium, looked the people square in the eye, and said, "I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I do not eat corn! Never will I indulge in corn."

Then he strode from the podium, his chest puffed out, beady little eyes darting back and forth, and he shook hands with the crowd as he left the building.

Later that week...



So, yes, I would say Bush is a liar. What more proof do you need?

You misquoted, Gus. It was "I do not seat corn. I will not indulge in corn-holing."

Clearly a lie, as one can determine from what he's done to the American people....

What three separate US inquiries? Do you know anything about debating?

I gave you chapter and verse and you assure me about "three separate US inquiries"?

Well, I'll tell you that I don't believe the three separate inquiries invalidated the material I gave you but there is no way to find out unless you give a link or some quotes, as I have.

I am persuadable but not by unsourced claims!!

links or quotes please, or my documented post stands!!!

I am very much afraid that this is a blatant lie.

And your evidence for that comment is what Old Europe? Opinion?

I await Drew Dad's links to the "Alleged" three separate inquiries.Until then, my post stands.

An interesting post, Amigo. Do you have a link? When will Rove be tried?
Do you know which court has jurisdiction?

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

(I'm not sure were the photo came from)


"When Karl Rove was little known outside Texas political circles, he was fired from George H.W. Bush's 1992 reelection campaign for leaking information to syndicated columnist Robert Novak. According to newspaper reports at the time, Rove was terminated for passing information to Novak from a meeting of the president's chief advisors. Rove denied he was the leaker.
Today, with another Bush in office, a journalist is being jailed to protect a source that led Novak to name a CIA operative, Valerie Plame. There is fevered speculation that Novak's source was, once again, Karl Rove."

http://www.bluebus.org/archives/20050708_karl_rove_was_f.php

Yes, and?

I hope that you know enough about the law, Amigo, to realize that an indicment( which, as far as I am able to discern, has not reached the main media, only partisan trash sites like Truth out) does not equal a finding of guilt.

If and when Rove is found guilty, then someone may be able to make a tie to George W. Bush.

I am sure that you know that the Fitzgerald case against Libby is falling apart.

Do you know how long ago he was indicted?

I'm only concerned with the truth no matter the source. Main steam media has proven very poor as usual. Which is why I am always ahead of the rest. The status quo in America has no choice but to maintain a coordinated deception of it's own citizenry. Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to a dictator. But if you have been on a steady diet of American mainstream media the truth will look unbelievable to you. Intill six months too six years later. That is the average time for it takes Americans to except the truth. I'm never wrong.


Heres a post of mine from a year ago.

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:34 am Post: 1456704 -

"Rove "burned"(Revealed the identity of) a C.I.A oprerative during a time of war no less endangering national security.Plame is now in the database of every foreign intelligence agency on the planet learning everything they can about her and us.This is treachery.We should be careful to defend rove."

What kind of response do you think I got for saying this? And what response do you think I will get for saying it six months from know?

When I said the intelligence was forged to make a case for war In 2002 I was called a traitor. Was it on the mainstream news that the intelligence was fake? Do you watch the same networks today you did then? So how did I know? Because I go were the truth is but more important I allow myself to know the truth. It makes me a better person.

If you don't have all the facts only the ones that are agreeable to you then your opinions & ideals have no foundation or credit in reality.

Whats happening in the News or in the courts is not the truth. It's just what is happening in the News and in the courts.

If the News and the courts are no longer serving truth and justice then there is a new more disturbing and unexceptable truth.

Rove was indicted? For anything? Ever? I would have to see some evidence of that before I would be persuaded on that score.

Repeating the same allegations and assertions that have been repeated again and again re everything from yellowcake in Niger to WMD to any other 'sins' the left would very much like to hang on the Bush administration still does not make these things true and, even if some are true, does not prove that Bush did not believe whatever misinformation he may have believed at the time.

I notice that the left is dredging up all their old stuff here that they hope to be damning. And none of it proves in any way that the President lied about any of it, IF a lie is a deliberate intent to mislead.

If repeating something you bleieve to be true, but later turns out to be incorrect, or telling your kids about Santa Claus makes one a liar, then I will agree with Mysteryman that Bush (and every human bein gon earth) is a liar.

If that is the case, then all you guys who make a point of calling the President a liar every chance you get are actually paying him a compliment and including him with everybody you love.

Oh give me strength!

I posted it all in this thread previously. Search my posts for "yellow cake."

And the exclamation points do not improve your case; they simply make you sound silly, or rather, sillier.

That was my dad's favorite expression, dlowan.

If you'd read my previous posts you wouldn't be so flippant. The proof that he knew what he was saying about warrants wasn't true is in his signature on the presidential order making it not so. The only more conclusive proof possible is if he admitted that he lied, which it isn't likely that he will do. So, given the fact that there is no plausible explanation as to how he could have been mistaken, I think it's safe to say that he lied. If you have a better explanation for that, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're left to repeating "you can't prove it" long after it has been proven, and your credibility approaches that of the president.

Are you saying he's managed to get off dead bottom and has climbed to the Prez's level?

C'mon, Fox, are you seriously saying now that we've not proven one single lie? Really? Are you not conceding the remark about wiretaps requiring warrants was a lie?

If you can't concede the obvious lies then I'm afraid there's really no point in any of this. And remember, it was your boy Brandon who started this thread, not "The Left", so your crying about how we keep picking on your poor defenseless president would be better directed to him.

DrewDad

Dead cat bounce?