President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Foxfyre wrote:

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

You don't have to believe it, but it has been shown that he was.

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.")

The intent with Clinton's "I had no sexual relationship" statement was to deceive or mislead those listening to him.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

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

You don't have to believe it, but it has been shown that he was.

I know many, including Tico, believe that it has been shown that he was...

Keep the faith, Foxfyre. Keep the faith.

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

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

You don't have to believe it, but it has been shown that he was.

I know many, including Tico, believe that it has been shown that he was. And I am not saying that he wasn't. But I have been watching this guy for awhile now and have been dismayed at his inefficiency, ineptness, and sometimes downright incompetence on some fronts. But I don't hate him with the passion that many on the left do and I don't take every chance I can to put him down. I believe his track record is quite good on the personal honesty and I do not believe he intentionally lied over the wiretapping thing. I think he just garbled his words/intent as he often does and, if he had taken the time to script it, he would not have said that in the way he did. I do not believe his intent has ever been to deceive or mislead the American people.

I also defended Clinton when I thought he was unfairly represented and/or unfairly accused on something. I am an equal-opportunity basher and defender.

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.

If John Kerry said that he never met person A, but person A testified that he had met and bribed Kerry, and there was an additional witness to the bribing, that would constitute reasonable proof. Regardless of the difficuly in proving lying, an honest mistake is simply not a lie.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

This is Brandon's initial post. No reference is made to intent or belief. OE has been addressing the definition of a lie insisted upon by Fox and Brandon--after the fact of Brandon's initial post. Tico's "translation" of Brandon's post suffers from exactly what OE was criticizing in Fox's definition of a lie--which is to say, he is assuming intent without evidence. Now it is true that Brandon could come back to this thread, and insist that he meant all along that "lie" would entail intent to deceive, or a belief that one was simply mistaken in stating a falsehood in which said person believed. In that case, however, he would be guilty of "suckering" the respondents, as such a definition is not implicit in his original post.

If Brandon were losing an argument, and abandoned the thread in order to avoid conceding defeat, that would be intellectually dishonest.

But of course, we're just talking hypotheticals here....

DrewDad wrote:

If Brandon were losing an argument, and abandoned the thread in order to avoid conceding defeat, that would be intellectually dishonest.

But of course, we're just talking hypotheticals here....

Are you trying to attack a member? Are you unable to deal with the content of his post? What are you?

The nature of a lie can certainly be part of this discussion. However, when I started this thread, I simply assumed that no one would define "lie" to include honest mistakes.

old europe wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

If Brandon were losing an argument, and abandoned the thread in order to avoid conceding defeat, that would be intellectually dishonest.

But of course, we're just talking hypotheticals here....

Are you trying to attack a member? Are you unable to deal with the content of his post? What are you?

How thin-skinned are you? I was lampooning Brandon's deliberate use of Kerry in a negative hypothetical situation.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If John Kerry said that he never met person A, but person A testified that he had met and bribed Kerry, and there was an additional witness to the bribing, that would constitute reasonable proof. Regardless of the difficuly in proving lying, an honest mistake is simply not a lie.

You don't even notice the contradiction, do you? If John Kerry honestly forgot meeting person A (an honest mistake), then he wouldn't be lying.

You're saying.

- An honest mistake is never a lie.
- However, if there is an additional witness, then even an honest mistake is a lie.
- Nevertheless, an honest mistake is never a lie.

Ticomaya wrote:

The intent with Clinton's "I had no sexual relationship" statement was to deceive or mislead those listening to him.

Prove it.

Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don't recall (BS), but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A. Yes, that's correct. (BS) It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.

. . .

Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?

A. I certainly don't think so.

Q. Have you ever met -

A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all - we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just - but I don't remember it. (BS)

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it. (BS)

. . .

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No. (BS)

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth. (BS)

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

. . .

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.

Q: The news of this day is that Kenneth Starr, independent counsel, is investigating allegations that you suborn perjury by encouraging a 24-year-old woman, former White House intern, to lie under oath in a civil deposition about her having had an affair with you. Mr. President, is that true?

A: That is not true. That is not true. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship. And I intend to cooperate with this inquiry. But that is not true.

Q: "No improper relationship" - define what you mean by that.

A: Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship.

Q: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?

A: There is not a sexual relationship - that is accurate.

We are doing our best to cooperate here, but we don't know much yet. And that's all I can say now. What I'm trying to do is to contain my natural impulses and get back to work. I think it's important that we cooperate; I will cooperate. But I want to focus on the work at hand.

Q: You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?

A: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out - what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll try to answer what is. But let me answer - it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. So let's just -

Q: Was it in any way sexual?

A: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.

Q: Many Americans woke up to the news today that the Whitewater independent counsel is investigating an allegation that you, or you and Vernon Jordan, encouraged a young woman to lie to lawyers in the Paula Jones civil suit. Is there any truth to that allegation?

A: No, sir, there's not. It's just not true.

Q: Is there any truth to the allegation of an affair between you and the young woman?

A: No, that's not true, either. And I have told people that I would cooperate in the investigation and I expect to cooperate with it. I don't know any more about it than I've told you, and any more about it really than you do, but I will cooperate. The charges are not true, and I haven't asked anybody to lie.

Q: Mr. President, where do you think this comes from? Did you have any kind of relationship with her that could have been misconstrued?

A: Mara, I'm going to do my best to cooperate with the investigation. I want to know what they want to know from me. I think it's more important for me to tell the American people that there wasn't improper relations, I didn't ask anybody to lie, and I intend to cooperate. And I think that's all I should say right now, so I can get back to the work of the country.

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.