President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

But, grandma would have expected some integrity if what was totally believed was proven wrong. Especially when it affected the lives of so many. C'mon Brandon, get a life.

In what way does integrity answer the picture. If I say something that I totally believe and am later proven wrong, I am simply not a liar. As for Iraq, Bush was correct that they might well have had WMD, since they had at one time had them and lied about them.

Oh, so Iraq lied but Bush never did. Did you mean to say why does integrity enter the picture or did you mean what you wrote that why does integrity answer the picture. Actually, I think you are missing not only the big picture but the thumbnail as well.

Answering a lie with a lie does not a truth make.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

and, even if some are true, does not prove that Bush did not believe whatever misinformation he may have believed at the time.

If repeating something you bleieve to be true, but later turns out to be incorrect, or ....

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.

It's the original definition, not a redefinition.

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

and, even if some are true, does not prove that Bush did not believe whatever misinformation he may have believed at the time.

If repeating something you bleieve to be true, but later turns out to be incorrect, or ....

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.

It's the original definition, not a redefinition.

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

I see that you are trying very hard not to understand. Let me ask you a question: How would you, based on that definition, prove that somebody is lying? You couldn't.

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

and, even if some are true, does not prove that Bush did not believe whatever misinformation he may have believed at the time.

If repeating something you bleieve to be true, but later turns out to be incorrect, or ....

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.

It's the original definition, not a redefinition.

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

I see that you are trying very hard not to understand. Let me ask you a question: How would you, based on that definition, prove that somebody is lying? You couldn't.

Example:

<snip>

When President Clinton looked seriously into the camera and wagged his finger and said: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" that was proved to be a lie according to the testimony of Miss Lewinksy, contempt of court, impeachment, loss of credentials with the Supreme Court, and a five year suspension from the Arkansas State Bar

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

In my definition of lie, being mistaken, wrong, or misinformed is not the same thing as a lie.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

and, even if some are true, does not prove that Bush did not believe whatever misinformation he may have believed at the time.

If repeating something you bleieve to be true, but later turns out to be incorrect, or ....

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.

It's the original definition, not a redefinition.

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

I see that you are trying very hard not to understand. Let me ask you a question: How would you, based on that definition, prove that somebody is lying? You couldn't.

Example:

<snip>

When President Clinton looked seriously into the camera and wagged his finger and said: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" that was proved to be a lie according to the testimony of Miss Lewinksy, contempt of court, impeachment, loss of credentials with the Supreme Court, and a five year suspension from the Arkansas State Bar

Nope, Foxy, you didn't get it. What I was talking about was this: show me that Bill Clinton did not honestly believe that he didn't have a sexual relationship! Prove it to me! Maybe he honestly believed that a bj isn't a sexual relationship. Possible, right? So, if he honestly believed that, and testified accordingly, then he didn't lie - according to Brandon and you.

See, it doesn't matter if you or the rest of the world would call it a sexual relationship. Not important. The important thing is: as long as somebody is honestly believing what he is saying, he can never be lying. Here, Brandon's question:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

Do you, Foxy? Do you believe that constitutes a lie? Or don't you? Because you seem to be saying you can prove that Clinton didn't honestly believe that he didn't have a sexual relationship? Can you? No, you can't!

Here, your words:

Foxfyre wrote:

In my definition of lie, being mistaken, wrong, or misinformed is not the same thing as a lie.

Okay, so Clinton was mistaken. But as long as he honestly believed what he said, it wasn't a lie. He was mistaken. Misinformed. But not lying.


Those are the standards you guys are setting.

When John Kerry emphatically stated that sitting on his boat deep into Cambodia on Christmas Eve was seared, seared, SEARED into his memory, and his campaign had to later admit that he was not then nor had ever been in Cambodia, that was proved to be a lie.

Oh, and the same goes for Kerry, or anybody.

Foxfyre wrote:

When John Kerry emphatically stated that sitting on his boat deep into Cambodia on Christmas Eve was seared, seared, SEARED into his memory, and his campaign had to later admit that he was not then nor had ever been in Cambodia, that was proved to be a lie.

But, uh, no. According to you, that was not proved to be a lie. He was proved to have been mistaken, wrong, or misinformed. Or proved to have a really bad memory. That's sad. Pathetic. But if he honestly believed that he had been sitting on his boat deep into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, then he wasn't lying.

Can you prove, prove to me, that he did not honestly believe what he said? Hm? Can you? No, you can't. Nobody can.

This goes for Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Mao, Putin, Pinochet, and for the little guy who's working 'cross the street at the coffee place. I'll never be able to prove that he, or anybody else, is lying. Never. Ever.


You're setting these standards.

So let's use the Clinton line about remembering his mother taking him around showing him the black churches that had burned in Arkansas. Later dedicated historians determined that no black churches had burned during that time. Can we call that one a lie?

And your Kerry analogy, Fox, sounds pretty similar to Bush's wire taps lie.

Kerry hadn't been to Cambodia, but said he had.

Bush allowed wire taps without a court order, and said he hadn't.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

and, even if some are true, does not prove that Bush did not believe whatever misinformation he may have believed at the time.

If repeating something you bleieve to be true, but later turns out to be incorrect, or ....

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.

It's the original definition, not a redefinition.

Do you believe that saying something you absolutely believe to be true, but later proves to be false is a lie?

I see that you are trying very hard not to understand. Let me ask you a question: How would you, based on that definition, prove that somebody is lying? You couldn't.

Foxfyre thinks Kerry is a liar anf the swiftboaters tell the truth apparently. Perception becomes reality. These diehard Bush apologits are becoming more delusional each day as new revelations occur.

Perception, even when delusional, becomes reality for them. They want proof of something that can't really be proved without getting other testimony. Most rational sentient human beings easily understand that on many levels, we are being deceived by this administration. It goes far beyond "Bush told a lie because he said x, y or z." It is much more complex, too complex for Bush apologist who lack even the most basic skills to think critiically to understand the width, depth and breadth of an ongoing campaign of deception, which includes lies, half-truth,, innuendos and propaganda. Brandon and Foxfyre and the dwindling number of non-reality based denialistas want everything simplified on a level they can undrstand. but it is far more complex than someone lying about whether or not he or she had sex with someone. And beyond their comprehension.

The difference is that in one case a person is shown to have KNOWN first hand that the facts were different and intentionally mistated them. In my standard, that is a lie.

The President has often been accused of lying by his political opponents. I am starting this thread so that his opponents can try to demonstrate that the accusation is true, and his supporters can try to show that it's false.

What I ask is that anyone who wishes to show that he does lie state in each post:

1. A single quotation of the President's which is a lie
2. A bit of evidence, or an argument to demonstrate that it's a lie.

I request, though, that no one simply post a huge list of vague accusations of lying without evidence, or a link to such. Use your own words, not someone else's, and please limit yourself to one lie per post, so that the matter can be discussed in an orderly way.

Actually, the Kerry analogy is much tamer than the wiretap claim. Kerry could have had a faulty memory -- I believe it was shown that they had been in Cambodia, just not on Christmas eve. In Bush's case, he was reauthorizing the wiretaps every 90 days or so, and he clearly knew that what he was saying was not true.

I really wish that Fox and/or Brandon would either acknowledge the wiretap lie or provide some argument as to why it isn't a lie.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre thinks Kerry is a liar anf the swiftboaters tell the truth apparently. Perception becomes reality. These diehard Bush apologits are becoming more delusional each day as new revelations occur.

Perception, even when delusional, becomes reality for them. They want proof of something that can't really be proved without getting other testimony. Most rational sentient human beings easily understand that on many levels, we are being deceived by this administration. It goes far beyond "Bush told a lie because he said x, y or z." It is much more complex, too complex for Bush apologist who lack even the most basic skills to think critiically to understand the width, depth and breadth of an ongoing campaign of deception, which includes lies, half-truth,, innuendos and propaganda. Brandon and Foxfyre and the dwindling number of non-reality based denialistas want everything simplified on a level they can undrstand. but it is far more complex than someone lying about whether or not he or she had sex with someone. And beyond their comprehension.

If find it amusing you are on this thread lecturing anybody about lying.

Foxfyre wrote:

The difference is that in one case a person is shown to have KNOWN first hand that the facts were different and intentionally mistated them. In my standard, that is a lie.

Fair enough. Better then the stuff about "If somebody believes blahblahblah..."

So. It was shown that Bush KNEW first hand that the facts were different when he was talking about the wiretaps. He intentionally mistated them. In your standard, that is a lie.

Agree?