President Bush: Is He a Liar?

I would agree if I believed bush knew first hand that the facts were different than what he stated about the wiretaps. I believe that he believes the wiretaps were legal and were targeted at communications between this country and al Qaida. I believe he still believes that and I have no reason to think the wiretaps were not just that.

So on the wiretap thing, until it is shown that he intentionally deceived the American public, I will believe he did not lie. Again, I think it was hugely irresponsible for the media to air this stuff in the first place--it should have been investigated behind closed doors in Congress--and I do not fault the President for not telling all that he knows in a classified matter related to national security.

Do you believe that if you say something you absolutely believe in good faith to be true and with no intent to deceive, but which later turns out to be untrue, what you said was a lie and you are a liar?

Note I added the requirement that there be a good faith belief in the truth of the matter asserted, and no intent to deceive.

And I'm pretty sure that there were quite a few faulty memories from Bush about the same general point in time, but no need to get into those. Playing gotcha with people's faulty memories is not really fair. We're trying to stick to verifiable, he should've known better, lies. I do think that the intent to deceive is needed, but it can also be inferred when there is clear evidence that a person knew what they were saying was not true before they said it. What other intent is there when a person intentionally states an untruth?

I will forgive any national leader for lying to protect the national security.

Foxfyre wrote:

I will forgive any national leader for lying to protect the national security.

Any national leader? Or just Republican US Presidents?

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

That Bush explained it badly--it often explains things badly--does not translate into a lie at least in the way I look at it.

Oh, and on the executive order re the wiretaps, Clinton, Bush 41, Carter, and Reagan also signed such executive orders--we have posted the signed orders by Clinton and Carter. That Bush explained it badly--it often explains things badly--does not translate into a lie at least in the way I look at it.

Any national leader. Now will you answer my question?

Oh, and on the executive order re the wiretaps, Clinton, Bush 41, Carter, and Reagan also signed such executive orders--we have posted the signed orders by Clinton and Carter. That Bush explained it badly--it often explains things badly--does not translate into a lie at least in the way I look at it.

In general, I'd be willing to give him a pass too for protecting classified information -- if he was being interrogated. But he wasn't. He didn't have to say anything. His comments were preceded by the words "by the way".

Quote:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Foxfyre wrote:

That Bush explained it badly--it often explains things badly--does not translate into a lie at least in the way I look at it.

"It?" Rather an odd way to describe your hero, n'est-ce pas?

He may have been, but I simply do not believe he was lying.

That he explained it wrong or incorrectly is just Bush. I do not believe he was lying. He may have been, but I simply do not believe he was lying.

Ticomaya wrote:

Do you believe that if you say something you absolutely believe in good faith to be true and with no intent to deceive, but which later turns out to be untrue, what you said was a lie and you are a liar?

Note I added the requirement that there be a good faith belief in the truth of the matter asserted, and no intent to deceive.

That doesn't really seem to be too different from what Brandon was asking. Because how would you prove that somebody was not acting based on his honest, good-faithed belief?

You could show that stating something in one way ("I had no sexual relationship"/"We found the WMD") gives somebody an advantage over stating something in another way ("I had sex with her"/"We haven't found anything"). You could, from that, infer that there was an intent to deceive and then deduce that that was a lie.

Is that what you're trying to get at?

Foxfyre wrote:

That he explained it wrong or incorrectly is just Bush. I do not believe he was lying. He may have been, but I simply do not believe he was lying.

Are we allowed to apply the same standard to Democrat presidents as well?

("Oh, it's just Clinton. He explained it wrong, ya know, but I simply do not believe he was lying.")

In general, I'd be willing to give him a pass too for protecting classified information -- if he was being interrogated. But he wasn't. He didn't have to say anything. His comments were preceded by the words "by the way".

Ticomaya wrote:

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

You must have a very boring life to be so easily amused. Have you been disbarred yet?