0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:40 am
JustanObserver wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
The only thing I could think was "..and YOUR posts add what exactly?"


You have got to be kidding me. Yeah, I can get nasty, but only when appropriate. I've gone out of my way to try to explain mistakes and misdirection to the guy, only to be met with incredibly idiotic behavior.

We shouldn't try to take him seriously for the same reason why you don't try to start your car with a carrot, or explain mathmatics to a pile of woodchips... it's just pointless.


Then stop posting in threads he starts. There are MANY people on A2K I choose not to interact with. I find them to be juvenile irritants and nothing more. I see their "contributions" to A2K to be equal to the "contributions" I make to the septic tank.

If you do not like what Brandon has to say, ignore him. But making statements like the one above does nothing but make yourself appear foolish.

Others do not need to hear your cries for attention or your blatant attempts to obfuscate, annoy, misdirect or harass.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:42 am
The obfuscation, annoyance, misdirection and harrassment comes from America-haters like McWhitey, who can't see that Mr. Bush's clear vision will lead us to victory in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:43 am
Setanta wrote:
The obfuscation, annoyance, misdirectino and harrassment comes from America-haters like McWhitey, who can't see that Mr. Bush's clear vision will lead us to victory in Iraq.


*yawn*
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:44 am
Speaking of harassment reminds me of the harassment our troops have had to endure in Iraq. But thanks to our wise President's plan freedom, like our troops, is on the march to inevitable victory in Iraq!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:50 am
McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The obfuscation, annoyance, misdirectino and harrassment comes from America-haters like McWhitey, who can't see that Mr. Bush's clear vision will lead us to victory in Iraq.


*yawn*


I too yawn, - but at the America-haters and appeasers who in their never ending nagging naysaying overlook that our president has assured us glorious freedom and victory in Iraq, with his brilliant strategy!
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:52 am
You know, our troops in Iraq never have time to yawn. They're too busy implementing our President's steely resolve to achieve victory in Iraq!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:54 am
Re: President Bush: Is He a Liar?
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.


Brandon9000, you assumed too much when you started this thread. That is that the Bush haters know what a lie is, and that they actually care. Don't get me wrong, I think you are an honest person trying to have a logical debate, but I think your hopes are too noble and sensible for some. The opposition to Bush is not based on whether or not he is honest. It is based on their philosophical and moral differences with the man and the Republican Party, and with conservatives more specificly, and therefore no logical debate will take place. The mantra "Bush lied" is a political tactic concocted out of their dislike of conservatism, and when conservatives hounded Clinton for his 8 years in office, they decided to give the Republicans a dose of their own medicine. The truth is, honesty meant nothing to them when Clinton was in office, and it really means nothing now. It is the political agenda that matters to them.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 09:55 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I will re-print the post with which I opened the thread. Please try to adhere to the stated topic.

Quote:
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.


I thank the members who have adhered to the intended thread format.


Brandon, this is your thread. If you support Bush, you should address the posts that set forth an accusation that the President lied. You should use your own criteria and demonstrate (with evidence) how the accusation that Bush lied is false. Inasmuch as you have identified members who have adhered to the format you established, please start with their accusations that Bush lied.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 10:07 am
Re: President Bush: Is He a Liar?
okie wrote:
The opposition to Bush is not based on whether or not he is honest. It is based on their philosophical and moral differences with the man and the Republican Party, and with conservatives more specificly, and therefore no logical debate will take place. The mantra "Bush lied" is a political tactic concocted out of their dislike of conservatism...



True in part, false in others. Granted, people have some serious problems with aspects of conservatism (or neo-conservatism, or whatever you want to call it), but there can be no question that Bush "lies."

The only problem with this is that Bush and his handlers have a very firm grasp on how to manipulate the public with statements that put across untruths, without them necessarily being a "flat out lie." And that's were everyone gets their panties in a twist.

There can be no doubt that Bush has used "truth" in a "false" manner. As stated before, his continual use of "Saddam" and "Osama" in the same sentences during the build up to war clearly was intended to get people to associate the two.

The one I hated the most was his comments about Saddam supporting "terrorists." What he conveniently left out was that Saddam supported Palestinian terrorists, not Osama. But he would be careful not to say this. Instead, he would segue from that comment right into something about Osama (naturally, encouraging a link between the two).

Then there was the comments that he actually "served" during Vietnam, when it turned out he was in the "champaign" unit reserved for children of the rich and powerful to protect them from actual harm (I won't even go into the whole AWOL thing).

So, it becomes an exercise in misdirection and wordplay when it comes to catching Bush in his "lies." On occassion, he can be caught in a flat out, black and white lie, but most of the time, his are lies of omission, or lies of misdirection. Know what I mean?

But of course, nothing can protect him against his own idiocy, which is why his verbal gaffes are so much more fun to laugh at. All I know is I feel much safer knowing "human beings and fish can coexist peacefully." Laughing
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 10:13 am
I dare anyone to show that the President has lied about having a brilliant strategy. Or that we've turned the corner in Iraq. Or that victory isn't around just such a corner that we recently turned.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 10:18 am
Speaking of lying-- There are plenty of America haters in Iraq who lie in wait, lurking to ambush our troops on the march to victory. Thanks to the clear path to victory blazed by President Bush, however, they can be avoided. We can all thank our lucky stars for such a bold visionary to show us the way to victory in Iraq!
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 10:47 am
Quote:
Black's Law Dictionary--Sixth Edition


Excellent choice and a book, which I used often in my travels through law school.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:09 am
Brandon,

You aren't going to get off the hook by claiming that posters haven't followed the format, because I am going to spend the next hour of my life helping them out by explaining why each and every example posted by my fellow A2K'ers was, in fact, a lie.

To begin,

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026533#2026533

Zippo wrote:
"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings'including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"'were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush's awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information'an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy'which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."


Zippo has done a fine job not only providing a lie, but a large amount of reasoning why it was a lie. No further explanation is neccessary, yet neither you nor any other Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that this wasn't a lie.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026545#2026545

Setanta wrote:
"I am a uniter, not a divider"

quod erat demonstrandum


Setanta correctly points out that events have shown that the country is far, far more divided now than when Bush took office. If Bush intended to be a uniter, he certainly has put forth the most divisive policies possible, and has done nothing to work with the Dems on, say, judicial choices. In fact, the commonly repeated Republican mantra is that 'since we control both houses of Congress, why compromise?' This is not indicative of someone whose purpose is to unite. Neither you nor any other Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that this wasn't a lie.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026552#2026552

JustanObserver wrote:
This one is one of my personal favorites:

He said this at a presentation months after approving the bypassing of the special courts.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7789/bushquote7dw.jpg



Here's another:
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." --CNN, 01.27.02

He's never been to war.


Bush was specifically lying when he made the statement in the picture. Leaks have shown that what he said was a 100% falsehood. Bush easily could have avoid talking about the subject, but instead chose to mislead people completely about their being spied upon. Ergo, a lie.

In the second case, Justan easily showed that Bush lied about going to war. He has never been to war. A bald-faced lie, indeed. Neither you, Brandon, nor any other Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that neither of these statements are lies.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026622#2026622

boomerang wrote:
One of these statements is a lie:

Quote:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01



Quote:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


Boomerang quite correctly points out that Bush lied in one of those instances; it is self-evident that the number one priority for the country cannot shift to being 'unimportant' in just a few months, with no resolution, no action, no nothing prompting this shift. Why was Bin Laden no longer a priority? It is far more likely, as Boomerang points out, that he never was the number one priority, and Bush was simply lying two days after 9/11. Neither you, Brandon, nor any other Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that neither of these statements are lies.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026819#2026819

Roxxxanne wrote:
Yep! This is going to be a long thread:

Quote:
"We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003
Claim:
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

Not True

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq


No proof has ever been brought forward that intelligence actually indicated that there was any sort of program at all in Iraq for the aerial dispersion of chemical weapons. In this, his most famous state of the union speech, Bush hides behind the intelligence agencies in order to lie. He made statements that the Administration knew weren't true (such as this one) and then later on blames it on 'poor intelligence.' This is a canard, as the one with poor intelligence was Bush himself; he should either be held responsible for lying, or for not doing his job as CIC in any sort of responsible manner.

Neither you, Brandon, nor any other Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that this statement was not a lie.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2026842#2026842

Green Witch wrote:
There are whole websites devoted to charting Bush's lies. Here's one of my favorites. plus a sample: The Many Lies of George Dubya Bush

Today's Bush Lie

"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"

"...And this isn't the first time the Internet has baffled Bush. Back in 2003, the President cited another student's thesis when making a case to go to war. The student's [plagiarized and "sexed up"] work ended up in a government document describing Iraq's weapons capability. Not exactly the kind of hard intelligence needed to justify an attack on another country." The Register, 07.28.04


Green Witch has presented not only the lie, but the explanation for why it was a lie. No further explanation is neccessary. Neither you, Brandon, nor any Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that this statement is not a lie.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2027036#2027036

DrewDad wrote:
Bush Lies In State Of The Union Speech

Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05



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


DrewDad has presented yet another lie in a State of the Union speech. He also has presented the reasoning behind why this statement was a lie. No further explanation is neccessary; yet, neither you, nor any Bush supporter, has countered with an argument showing why this statement is not a lie.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2027054#2027054

DrewDad wrote:
Bush repeatedly has claimed to have watched the first airplane striking the World Trade Center on TV just before entering a classroom at a Florida elementary school and thought "'there's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off there - I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, `A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack"


This is impossible since there was no live coverage of the first plane crash and no video emerged until the following day. (3)


DD provides another example of Bush lying, and why it was a lie. No further explanation is neccessary; once again, neither you, nor any Bush supporter, has countered with an argument showing why this statement is not a lie.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2027968#2027968

snood wrote:
Our president surely didn't lie when he said that Sadaam was buying yellowcake in Africa, because that was the night of his State of the Union Address, in which he clearly laid out his strategy for freedom in Iraq!


Snarkiness aside, Snood brings up an excellent point: that Bush did in fact lie when he claimed that Saddam was seeking Yellowcake from Africa during his infamous SoTU speech. In fact, his administration took the rare step of apologizing for including it several days later. No further explanation is neccessary; yet, neither you nor any other Bush supporter has countered with an argument showing that this is not, in fact, a lie.

----

In summation, I count nine clear examples of Bush lying being provided by the posters here on A2K. There is no doubt in my mind that more could be found with a dilligent search. Not one of those examples has been argued against, at all, let alone successfully.

Therefore, in the complete and total absence of anybody willing to argue the Con position - that Bush is not a liar, and that things he has said are not lies - and given the weight of evidence presented by those who chose the Pro position, that Bush is a liar, it can be safely said that Bush is a liar. Neither you, nor any other Bush supporter has taken the time to challenge a single point raised by the opposition. When asked to do so, Brandon, you state that it isn't your responsibility to do so, even though you stated in the first post of the thread:

Quote:
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.


Well? You are a long-time Bush supporter here on A2K. Let's see you get hopping on showing that it is false to say that Bush is a liar. Becuase right now, you and other Bush supporters have failed completely to do so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:13 am
While we're waiting for Brandon't undoubtedly thorough and well-supported rebuttal, let's all contemplate what a privilege it is to live in the time of such a visionary and exemplary strategist - George W. Bush. How wonderful, to bask in the glow of the same freedom he has ensured will spread to Iraq - soon - just around the corner!!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:25 am
JustanObserver wrote:
This one is one of my personal favorites:

He said this at a presentation months after approving the bypassing of the special courts.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7789/bushquote7dw.jpg




JustanObserver wrote:
The only problem with this is that Bush and his handlers have a very firm grasp on how to manipulate the public with statements that put across untruths, without them necessarily being a "flat out lie." And that's were everyone gets their panties in a twist.

There can be no doubt that Bush has used "truth" in a "false" manner. As stated before, his continual use of "Saddam" and "Osama" in the same sentences during the build up to war clearly was intended to get people to associate the two.

The one I hated the most was his comments about Saddam supporting "terrorists." What he conveniently left out was that Saddam supported Palestinian terrorists, not Osama. But he would be careful not to say this. Instead, he would segue from that comment right into something about Osama (naturally, encouraging a link between the two).

Then there was the comments that he actually "served" during Vietnam, when it turned out he was in the "champaign" unit reserved for children of the rich and powerful to protect them from actual harm (I won't even go into the whole AWOL thing).

So, it becomes an exercise in misdirection and wordplay when it comes to catching Bush in his "lies." On occassion, he can be caught in a flat out, black and white lie, but most of the time, his are lies of omission, or lies of misdirection. Know what I mean?



Yes, I know what you mean. Your point is even more clear if we look at the entire speech that Bush made on April 20, 2004, from which your first quote is taken:


Quote:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004

. . . It's essential -- (applause.)

September the 11th -- when the President says something, he better mean it. See, in order to make the world more peaceful, it's essential that those of us in positions of high responsibility speak clearly and mean what we say. . . .

. . . When the President speaks, he better mean it. . . .


. . . I went in front of the United Nations Security Council, having looked at intelligence that said Saddam Hussein was a threat. The Congress looked at the same intelligence, by the way, and concluded Saddam was a threat. . . .

. . . And so we saw a threat. September the 11th changed the equation. So I was given a choice: Either trust the word of a madman, hope for the best with somebody who was a tyrant, or take action to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time.

It's hard work to go from a system where there was torture and rape rooms and mass graves to freedom. That's hard work. But it is necessary work. That's why I want to herald the work and sacrifice of your husband. It's important work for our future. Free societies are peaceful societies. The way to defeat terror in the long run is to provide hope, to provide hope for families, to provide hope for children, to say that there's a bright future for you. That won't happen, so long as there's tyranny in a part of the world that tends to breed hatred. It will happen when societies become democratic and free. . . .

. . . Part of the problem we face was that there was laws and bureaucratic mind-sets that prevented the sharing of information. . . .

. . . And right after September the 11th, the Congress wisely acted, said, this doesn't make any sense. If we can't get people talking, how can we act? . . . So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. . . .

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. . . .



Oh yeah, when the president speaks, he better mean what he says. But Bush doesn't abide by his own words. He doesn't mean what he says. Based on what we know now, we CAN'T TRUST Bush to mean what he says.

He manipulated the intelligence that he fed to Congress in order to get authorization to use military force.

The only madman that Bush has truly identified is HIMSELF. As Bush pointed out, are we supposed to "trust the words of a madman?" Are we supposed to trust the words of a proven liar and hope for the best?

Who is the real tyrant of the world? Who is threatening war and violence against other nations under the guise of giving hope for democracy and freedom? It's BUSH. And BUSH is breeding hatred. We won't defeat terrorism because our own president has become the tyrant--he has become the very evil that he gives speeches about. In Bush's own words, we won't defeat terrorism "so long as there's tyranny in a part of the world that tends to breed hatred."

We can't force democracy upon Iraq or Iran or any other country in this world. If democracy and freedom are going to prevail, the people of those countries have to want it for themselves and fight for it themselves. It's not a "gift" that we can force upon them. They hate us for trying to force our hypocritical values down their throats. Bush is breeding hatred in the world for our country.

It doesn't appear that we have "democracy and freedom" in our homeland. While Bush talks about how evil Saddam was because he tortured, Bush refuses to allow our own anti-torture laws to constrain him. Bush reserves the right to torture our captives in the secret prisons that he has established overseas in spite of the legislation Congress enacted that forbids him from engaging in torture.

While Bush talks about how VITAL it is to share information, BUSH operates under a veil of secrecy. BUSH won't comply with the laws he insisted Congress pass with respect to information sharing and refuses to report vital information to Congress as required by law. Congress is being kept in the dark and is being stripped of its oversight powers to monitor executive branch conduct and to prevent executive branch abuses of power.

And Bush was telling the truth when he said "a wiretap requires a court order." But, he was lying when he declared that his administration honored that requirement because his administration values the Constitution. We now know that Bush violated the constitutional and statutory warrant requirment back in 2001 when he ordered warrantless domestic spying on United States persons and reauthorized his spying program approximately every 45 days thereafter.

Bush doesn't value our Constitution. Bush doesn't value our democracy--he thwarts our democracy and unilaterally nullifies the laws enacted by our representatives in Congress. Bush doesn't value freedom because he retaliates against his political opponents who question his anti-democratic, anti-freedom conduct. The only thing Bush values is aggrandizing his own lawless authoritative power at the expense of our own people's democracy and freedom. He lies to our faces and PRETENDS to honor our fundamental constitutional values while he does whatever he wants to do in secret in violation of our fundamental constitutional values.

He's a madman--a tyrant--a lawbreaker--and we can't trust him to mean what he says.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:28 am
Quote:
He's a madman--a tyrant--a lawbreaker--and we can't trust him to mean what he says.


Sounds like an average American to me.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:38 am
snood wrote:
While we're waiting for Brandon't undoubtedly thorough and well-supported rebuttal, let's all contemplate what a privilege it is to live in the time of such a visionary and exemplary strategist - George W. Bush. How wonderful, to bask in the glow of the same freedom he has ensured will spread to Iraq - soon - just around the corner!!

I know it's complicated, but, as I stated in the opening post and subsequently, I set this thread up as a forum for debating this question on A2K. I had and have no intention of making this a private thread for myself. If you want to know what I've had to say on this issue over the past few years, look at any of hundreds of my posts here. In this thread, I'm just providing a place for orderly discussion of this one question, and a few ground rules. Anyone who wishes to support the idea that the president is a liar may post here. So may anyone who wishes to support the opposite point of view. I would ask that posters comply with the intention of the thread as expressed in the first post.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:41 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon,

You aren't going to get off the hook by claiming that posters haven't followed the format, because I am going to spend the next hour of my life helping them out by explaining why each and every example posted by my fellow A2K'ers was, in fact, a lie.

[SNIP]

Cycloptichorn


I'm not going to spend nearly that much time on this topic.

The comment Bush made about wiretaps requiring a court order strikes me as a lie. I won't comment about the justification for the lie (national security, classified super-secret program, and all that). I agree with you .. Bush shouldn't have said it. But that appears to be the singular proveable lie in your entire post.

Everything else is clearly not a lie, or clearly not proven to be a lie by you or anyone else. As you ought to know, but continue to ignore, good faith reliance on faulty information does not a lie make.

Regarding the "I've been to war" comment, I had to look that one up, and what I found was this article from SourceWatch, which makes it clear the quote was uttered by Bob Kiss, Democratic speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates, as quoted by CNN:

CNN, on January 27, 2002 wrote:
CHARLESTON, West Virginia (AP) -- President Bush says between going to war and raising twins, he'd choose war.

Bush's visit to West Virginia last week included a chat with Bob Kiss, Democratic speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates.

While they hail from different parties, they found plenty to talk about -- although while both have twins, Kiss' 5-week-old twin boys aren't quite old enough to cause much trouble.

Kiss told Bush that if he wasn't doing anything the next morning, he could come by for their 3 a.m. feeding. Kiss said Bush joked, "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

...


Link to SourceWatch article: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=I've_been_to_war
(You have to paste it in your browser, b/c it won't show as a URL for some reason.)

To access the original CNN article,
* 1. Go to http://www.waybackmachine.org
* 2. Enter http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/bush.twins.ap/index.html .

I've no idea who Bob Kiss is, other than he's a Democrat. I certainly don't know if his recitation of his recollection of the conversation he had with Bush was accurate, nor do I know if the quote of Kiss is accurate. In any case, it's certainly a throw-away comment, a joke, and you are grasping for straws if you try and point to this as a lie told by Bush.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:41 am
Debra_Law wrote:
He's a madman--a tyrant--a lawbreaker--and we can't trust him to mean what he says.


And when you continue to make hysterical exclamations such as the above, it's clear you can't be trusted either.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:47 am
I am shocked to see anyone even mention bush and hate in the same post... this brilliant strategist and Christ led military genius will soon lead us to a glorious 51st State!!! Iraq!!!! The man is practically a God.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 02:46:04