President Bush: Is He a Liar?

There never was a point.

These people would not concede the bastard lied if he crawled on his knees from London to Canterbury Cathedral flagellating himself, screaming for forgiveness, and wearing the label: "I am the Father of Lies."

OR if he was convicted...since they do not regard acquittals in court as having any significance, how can they regard findings of guilt as having any?

Gosh, these denialistas are something. You are not aware that a Rove indictment has been rumored for months. To simply act like you know nothing about it is just plain idiotic, to be frank. If the scoop is wrong, it will be disproven soon enough. With every passing day, the Bush aplogists become more unhinged, now to the point of insanity.

Didn't Bernard say the case against Libby was "falling apart"? Wonder what alternate universe he get his information from, since it looks like Fitzgerald has connected the steps up the ladder from Libbey to Cheney.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/

Gonna be a hot time in the old town tonight.

Perhaps, Fitzgerald is going to wait and get it all out at once, meaning Cheney and Rove. Just speculation before the usual know nothing moron chimes in.

I believe you already have.

Ohio losing faith with President

President George W Bush's reshuffling of his White House team is part of an attempt to salvage a reputation which seems to be sinking fast. But Justin Webb in Washington says it is too late to be tinkering with the staff: most Americans have already consigned President Bush to history.

bbc

------------

... and the sooner, the better.

The CIA is showing the Bush administation that two can play their game. They are telling Bush and Rove "You burn us we burn you". Revenge for Roves treachery. Time to pay the Piper.

The CIA is probably helping Fitzgerald. -amigo
--------------------------------------------------------
White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks
Sources, Reporters Could Be Prosecuted

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 5, 2006; A01

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.

Numerous employees at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department and other agencies also have received letters from Justice prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified issues related to the NSA program, according to sources familiar with the notices. Some GOP lawmakers are also considering whether to approve tougher penalties for leaking.

In a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper.

Some media watchers, lawyers and editors say that, taken together, the incidents represent perhaps the most extensive and overt campaign against leaks in a generation, and that they have worsened the already-tense relationship between mainstream news organizations and the White House.

cont:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400867_pf.html

Wow! Almost on cue. Actaully I was thinking of another moron.

In regard to Cheney and notes, no law broken there if I understand it correctly. Cheney, as vice president, is not only free to know such information, but should have the information. And if the White House wanted information on Niger, it seems wholly reasonable to know who is obtaining it and why such person is on the mission, plus what they found out. Who sent them there is pertinent. After all, the CIA should be working for the administration, not the other way around as some might think in the bureaucracy these days. Given Cheney had notes, and given Plame was clearly covert, and given her supposedly covert status was clearly known to the leaker, then the leaker broke a law. Fitzgerald has many things to prove.

I for one cannot wait for Fitzgerald to get it on. I am tired of tax money being spent on this matter. I want Rove, Libby, and the subject reporters, plus Joe Wilson and the CIA and Valerie Plame to answer some questions. I think it will be fun.

William Faulker noted "the past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past." That's never been truer than under Bush.

Bush ran for president promising to restore the country after what was widely seen as the Clinton debacle. But it turns out the former Texas governor has been the same - only worse, according to a new CNN poll.

It found Americans think that Clinton - who could parse a two letter verb into a noun - was the more honest of the two, provided more moral leadership and did more to unite the country. The survey found that Americans think Clinton, who was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate, outperformed Bush in every positive measure of presidential job performance:

The economy - 63 percent to 26 percent.

Solving the problems of ordinary Americans - 62 percent to 25 percent
Foreign policy - 56 percent to 32 percent
Taxes - 51 percent to 35 percent
Handling natural disasters - 51 percent to 30 percent
Honesty - 46 percent to 41 percent
National security - 46 percent to 42 percent

Bush won the head-to-head contest only when CNN asked about leadership failures. So 59 percent said Bush had done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.
CNN noted Bush performs so badly in comparison to his predecessor that Clinton nostalgia is flowering like daffodils in the spring.

http://proudliberalbitch.blogspot.com/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/806547876

I guess for okie $50 million spent by Ken Starr was taxpayer money well spent.

Proof of Chemical, Biological and nuclear Weapons programs in Iraq.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.html

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraqGA.html#DISEASE

____________________________________

U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS LABORATORIES:

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE (University of California, Livermore, California)

LOS ALAMOS (University of California, Los Alamos, California)

SANDIA (Sandia National Laboratories are government-owned but operated under contract by Lockheed Martin, which is based in Fort Worth, Texas)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Washington, D.C.)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Washington, D.C.)

1989, California -- These three labs in conjunction with the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense organized a quadrennial international detonation conference in Portland, Oregon. There, representatives from these nuclear labs presented information on nuclear-weapons-detonation technology and flyer-plate technology used to control the force and shape of implosive shock waves. Three Iraqi nuclear scientists attended this conference from the Al Qaqaa State Establishment. Al Qaqaa supplied bomb parts for Iraq's nuclear-weapons testing.

Your post started out fairly accurate, as shown in the above, but obviously went south after that.

Okie- I am sure that you notice that almost every post which asserts that Bush is a liar relies on "opinion". No proof is given. Proof means that an "allegation" is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since this kind of process can be completed only in a court of law, the allegations are useless.

I am confident that you are aware that any "talking head" or "newcaster" when speaking of a person who OBVIOUSLY APPEARS TO HAVE COMMITTED A SERIOUS CRIME, always uses the word, "Alleged". It is only in partisan politics that people can make ridiculous unproven charges( for political purposes, of course).Even Bill Clinton, who was brought up on charges of "Obstruction of Justice" before the House and then was adjudged by the Senate as Not Guilty" ADMITTED that he was a liar when he gave a statement to the Special Prosecutor just before he left office which said- "certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false" That is the only admission I can find in which it is clear that Clinton was a liar. I can find no admission from President Bush that he lied.

Of course, partisans will say that Bush lied but they cannot prove it. If and when Bush makes a statement like Clinton made above, then it can be said that it is clear he is a liar. Before that, it is all allegation.


If you have ever been involved in a deposition, Okie, or have studied them, you will realize that there must be question after question given until closure is reached.

If a lawyer were to ask President Bush whether he said that the Iraqis had "WMD's the President would answer Yes. The President's lawyer would then ask the President why he gave that answer. The President might answer that he had received information from the CIA director that Iraq did indeed have WMD's

President Bush might even have read the speech given by President Clinton on December 18th 1998 in which Clinton said--quite clearly--

quote:

"First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical,biological and nuclear program in months not years"


You can only RETAIN something you already have!!!!!

BernardR, I agree with you, and in regard to WMD in Iraq, this has to be one of the weirdest and strangest, and I think one of the worst and most underhanded political tricks by an opposing party, in conjunction with a willing press, to turn public opinion against a president for their own political advantage - that I have ever observed in my lifetime. There are a number of things going on that only history will possibly, I say possibly, find out. I am talking about the undercurrents in the CIA and other agencies in conjunction with the politicians in terms of how this is all playing out.

And two things here. The Democrats have selective amnesia about what they have said, believed, and supported, and continue to try to isolate Bush out on a limb and to saw the limb off. Perhaps this is simply symptomatic of a generation that does not wish to take personal responsibility for anything, kind of like the lady that sued McDonalds for serving hot coffee. And the question of WMD in Iraq is still an open question in my opinion as to whether they existed or not, but even assuming they did not exist, we know the programs did exist or had been active, and Hussein had no intention of abandoning them for good, yet we are expected to think that all of this is now written in stone that Hussein had no WMD, had totally abandoned his programs, and was no threat whatsoever.

And, Okie, you must never forget( I am sure you will not) that the esteemed WIlliam Jefferson Clinton, in order to rationalize his pre-emptive, unauthorized air strike at Iraq mentioned Iraq's WMD's quite a few times in his speech.

The beautiful thing about this redefinition of "lying" is that you could never, ever, show that somebody is lying. You'd have to prove that somebody did not believe in this or that. In other words, prove what was going on in his head. Unlikely to ever achieve that.

For example, Bill Clinton might very well have honestly believed that a blowjob is not a sexual relationship. Nobody can prove anything else. Therefore, he didn't lie.

Nice.

I am very much afraid, Old Europe, that you do not understand the legal definition of LIE.

Quote:Black's Law Dictionary--"A falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception"

That must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If President Bush were in a court on trial and the opposition lawyer asked him whether he said that the Iraqis possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and the President answered Yes, it would seem that the President might have "lied" since all of the evidence brought forward since that time shows that it was unlikely that Iraq had WMD's when we invaded.

However, if Bush's lawyer then asked the President why he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the President might answer--"I was given a briefing by the head of the CIA which indicated that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction at that time"--"Here is the briefing book I was given"

It is obvious to anyone who has ever been in a courtroom that "deception" on the part of the President could have played no part in his answer since there is evidence that he relied on a member of his staff for the information.

And, your comment about Clinton is far off.

Clinton was asked by Paula Jones' lawyers whether he had sexual relations with Monica. They defined sexual relations but did a poor job since they did not include oral sex in the definition. Therefore, when Clinton answered that question he was not lying FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DEFINITION OFFERED BY THE PAULA JONES LAWYERS.

I'm sorry that you are afraid. I feel with you. And I see that you didn't understand my post. Here's the relevant question for you: How do you prove somebody's beliefs?