President Bush: Is He a Liar?

There is a difference between citing information that anyone can look up versus making claims that are unsearchable.

If you make a claim and others ask for a citation to back it up then provide it as a courtesy.

BD, I only have one simple question for you; do you know how to do a search on the web with the basic information available?

Such as, "bush is a failure," or "bush's ratings hits a new low," or "bush is a dummy?"

Give it a "test drive." You might learn something valuable; and you won't have to continue demanding "links" that you never read or understand.

I typed "bush is a liar" and got over 6 million hits. It's really easy.

How many hits does Imposter get? 1.340,000. So what?

Look! BD is finally catching on how to do a search. But we all know that won't make him read what he finds. Ofcoarse, BD still can't get it right; it's "cicerone imposter." ;(

Even BernardR got over 3,000 hits. Isn't this fun!

Now, back to "bush is a liar."[/color]

Ticomaya wrote:

I see lots of citations to primary sources equivalent to those in c.i.'s posts in BernardR's post #2039774.

He cites to "the British government," "Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times," "Valerie Plame Wilson" writing in a memo to her boss at the CIA, "Walter Pincus of the Washington Post," a op-ed piece written by Joseph C. Wilson, "the White House," "Britain's independent Butler commission," the "Senate Intelligence Committee report," the "State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research," "the Washington Post," the "the Senate Intelligence Committee" ... lots of citations to primary sources of the caliber included by c.i. in his posts. You should not condemn BernardR and praise c.i. for doing the same thing.



Thank You,Ticomaya!!!!

With the medical grade stuff I got, THREE hits is enough fror me.

There's no cure for stupid.

Most days, it seems like 2 too many.

Gee Willikers, I am still amazed that there is an argument about this.

Ginger212, WELCOME to A2K. It is amazing, but what is it that is amazing to you?

The man hasn't told the truth in years, dry drunks are like that :wink:

RNDP, WELCOME to A2K. I'm not so sure that dry drunks are liars, but what is fascinating is simply just how so many people in the US still believes Bush tells the truth.

There are so many evidence to prove otherwise, how do people continue to ignore his lies? That's the mystery of our times.

Example of bush lies:

Friday, February 04, 2005

05:41:51 PM
State Of the Union Analysis
From Address was full of lies, contradictions by Andrew Meyer
Sickening. Watching George W. Bush take the podium Wednesday night can be described as nothing else. Nevertheless, I stomached the entire State of the Union address and observed something I already knew: W can't go five seconds without contradicting himself or just plain lying. Here are a few excerpts from his speech:

"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing."

Reality: England, France and Germany are negotiating with Iran over these issues. Yet, despite the European Union's urgings, the administration is steering clear of these discussions altogether. If the United States does not step in as Bush claims we have, Iran will become a nuclear power.

"We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Again, this is false. The six-party talks involving the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea are in suspension. Bush has rejected diplomacy in this instance, saying it would "reward bad behavior." North Korea resumed reprocessing two years ago and most likely has built a couple nukes since.

"There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction - but no longer without attention and without consequence."

That's a strange thing to say when we apparently are ignoring both Iran and North Korea. It's funny Bush was so concerned about WMDs a couple of years ago, but now most of our military is committed to the one "Axis of Evil" country without any.
[The Independent Florida Alligator, 2/4/05]

Here's what Bush said:


Bush's Claim

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003



Reality:
Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

April 23, 2006
Tyler Drumheller (CBS)

Quote

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
Tyler Drumheller


(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller ?- a 26-year veteran of the agency ?- has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.


"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. It's an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley.

Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn't:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

Drumheller says he doesn't think it mattered very much to the administration what the intelligence community had to say. "I think it mattered it if verified. This basic belief that had taken hold in the U.S. government that now is the time, we had the means, all we needed was the will," he says.

The road to war in Iraq took some strange turns ?- none stranger than a detour to the West African country of Niger. In late 2001, a month after 9/11, the United States got a report from the Italian intelligence service that Saddam Hussein had bought 500 tons of so-called yellowcake uranium in order to build a nuclear bomb.

But Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."

Drumheller says that was the "general feeling" in the agency at that time.

However, Vice President Dick Cheney thought the story was worth investigating, and asked the CIA not to discount the story without first taking a closer look. So, in February 2002, the agency sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate.

We all are now aware of what happened to Wilson and Valerie Plame for discounting the administration's 'yellow cake from Niger' story.