0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:49 am
Speaking of God, I thank him daily that he sent us such a visionary leader and gifted him with his brilliant, bold and innovative plan to achieve imminent victory in Iraq!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:50 am
Setanta wrote:
"I am a uniter, not a divider"

quod erat demonstrandum



"[W]hen the President says something, he better mean it."--President G.W. Bush, April 20, 2004, Buffalo, NY

Source: White House, News Releases
Office of the President's Press Secretary
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:59 am
Tico, I appreciate your response.

Even though you know I don't agree with your 'bad intelligence' defense, at least you have the balls to respond, unlike Brandon.

How about this one?

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

or this one?

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

This one about Social Security is clearly a lie, do you deny it?

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

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:11 pm
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



"The first thing we do is we find killers before they kill us. We rally the world, which have done and will continue to do, to cut off money, to share intelligence, to put brave troops and security personnel after these people, to find them, to rout them out. The message should be clear to them [the killers], there is no cave or hole deep enough to hide from the justice of the United States of America and our coalition partners. It's essential -- 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."--President G.W. Bush, April 20, 2004, Buffalo, NY

Source: White House Press Release
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

The message should be clear to Osama Bin Laden--when the President says that our first priority is to find him and that there is no cave or hole deep enough for him to hide, Bin Laden ought to be shaking in his boots because the President means what he says--unless, of course, the President doesn't really mean what he says and he doesn't really care about finding him, it's not really important to Bush to find him, and finding him really isn't Bush's priority.

Although the Bush says it is ESSENTIAL for him, as our president, to speak clearly and mean what he says--when has Bush ever complied with that essential part of his job as our chief executive officer? He hasn't. He has squandered the people's trust by repeatedly proving himself to be a two-faced liar.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:13 pm
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.

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


The 9/11 commission issued a report. It can be found here.

Quote:
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


That's silly. If dem's don't wish to follow the programs started by the Bush administration, that's hardly the fault of the Bush administration. Dem's have tried to put up roadblocks at every turn and made themselves useless to getting the daily job of government done. The war in Iraq has been the great divider. I suspect any war will do that though.

Quote:
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


Protecting a top secret by lying about it. Bad call on his part and he has been nailed on it.

Who gives a crap about the second statement. He said it as a joke.

Quote:
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.


Far more likely? Why do we still have troops dying in the hunt for Osama then? The most important thing on 9/13/01 was indeed finding Osama Bin Laden. That's why we attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power. You remeber that right?

I believe the second statement to be a lie because I beleive Bush DOES care where Osama is. I also believe that he dropped in the priority list to the effort in Iraq. Doesn't mean he fell off the list though as we still have troops looking and hunting for the bastard.

Quote:
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.


According to an article written by Tom Cooper on the Air Combat Information Group website on 9/25/2003, between 30 and 40 Iraqi jets were found hidden in the sand in July, 2003.
They were located at the al-Taqaddum air base about 250km west of Baghdad.
The planes were a part of the Iraqi air force, ordered from Russia in 1977 and delivered in 1980.
NewsMax.com claims to have published the photos first and says the fighters were found by the U.S. military acting on a top from an informant.
Although the MiG-25 is an older Cold War era jet, published reports say this particular plane was an advanced version with technology and capabilities not before seen by Western observers.


Quote:
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.


Bad speech writers. They should have done better research. Do you believe Bush surfed the internet and made notes about what he found? I would hope he has more important things to do. Poor research by speech writers does not make the president liable. Blame the folks properly at least.

Quote:
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.


Under the current circumstances, what Bush stated remains true. Whether something is done to prevent it or not is irrelevent. Not a lie.

Quote:
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.


What was the exact quote the president used? Did he say he saw the plane hit, or did he say he saw coverage of the plane hitting? Assuredly he meant to say the latter. Again, hardly a lie.

Quote:
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.


I beleive the British, even today, remain assured that the report that Bush based that statement on remains true. The issue remains in dispute.

Quote:
----

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


I spent too much time on this and others have responded since...
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Tico, I appreciate your response.

Even though you know I don't agree with your 'bad intelligence' defense, at least you have the balls to respond, unlike Brandon.

You know perfectly well that I have discussed this issue on A2K many, many times over the years with a lot of people. Are you asserting that setting up a forum to focus discussion on one topic obligates me to personally respond to every post, and that not doing so shows cowardice? Not likely, since I have debated this and related subjects in hundreds of posts on A2K for years. Out of curiosity, though, do you in fact assert that it is improper for an A2K member to simply set up a forum to focus discussion on a subject? Can you not show the dignity to simply discuss the topic or leave it alone without trying to win by making everything personal?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:20 pm
There is no 'win or lose' on A2K. This is a misconception that you have shown before. There is only discussion.

I merely pointed out that before I wrote my post, none of the Bush supporters had even attempted to respond. At that point, there was no argument about any of the examples offered, no discussion pertaining to the thread. After I wrote my piece, several did respond. As an avowed Bush supporter, you should be willing to respond, according to the terms of your original post. In fact, you should be thanking me for re-tracking your thread, which had gone seriously off-kilter by your unwillingness to actually respond to people's accusations of lying.

Noone ever said that you were under obligation to do so; just under obligation if your purpose is to show that Bush isn't a liar. Am I misreading your position here? Do you agree that Bush is a liar, and were just looking for more evidence?

Or did you ask for examples, and fail to respond to them? McG and Tico both took up your slack, you should send them a PM thanking them for it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Tico, I appreciate your response.

Even though you know I don't agree with your 'bad intelligence' defense, at least you have the balls to respond, unlike Brandon.

How about this one?

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

or this one?

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

This one about Social Security is clearly a lie, do you deny it?

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

Cycloptichorn


"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

I think that's a true statement. I think the US ought to learn every lesson of 9/11. It was a true statement at the time it was uttered by Bush, and it remains a true statement now.

Your complaint appears to be with Bush's actions since he uttered those words, not the truth of the statement itself.

Not a lie.

-----

"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
."


Based on intelligence. Same analysis and explanation as with the claims of WMD.

Not a lie.

-----

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

Appears he was relying on a Social Security Administration projection that the Trust Fund would be depleted by that year. From FactCheck.org:

Quote:
But how severe would those benefit cuts be? In fact there are two official projections -- one by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and a somewhat less pessimistic projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system's trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits -- and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075.


LINK
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:29 pm
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


Priorities change, and it's reasonable to conclude that the number one priority changed in the intervening 6 months, particularly with Iraq taking the number one spot.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:39 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
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


Priorities change, and it's reasonable to conclude that the number one priority changed in the intervening 6 months, particularly with Iraq taking the number one spot.


The invasion or Iraq did not take place for more than a year after the second quote. Do you assert that the number one priority to get bin Laden was abandoned within six months of the attack on the World Trade Center? Do you assert that within that space of time, this administration had already made an invasion of Iraq the first priority? I assert that your flailing around, clutching at straws. As Boom points out, one of those statements is a lie.

Care to tackle the "I am a uniter, not a divider." statement?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:53 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
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


Priorities change, and it's reasonable to conclude that the number one priority changed in the intervening 6 months, particularly with Iraq taking the number one spot.


Tooooooooooo funny, when Kerry did it, it was flip-flopping, when Bush does it, it is because priorities have changed!

How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:55 pm
Setanta wrote:
...Care to tackle the "I am a uniter, not a divider." statement?

It's only a lie if Mr. Bush believed it to be untrue when he said it. In order to demonstrate that this statement is a lie, you would have to find a way to distinguish between the following two scenarios:

1. The president made this statement with the thought in his mind that he was speaking an untruth.
2. He believed it when he said it, and failed to anticipate the degree to which the country would be polarized during his administration.

Furthermore, completely apart from the question of whether the statement is a lie, I don't think it has been shown that he is a divider. When someone takes a very strong stand, which results in a division arising among other people, it may just mean that he is living in difficult times, and not particularly that he has personal qualities that make him a divider.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 12:59 pm
Nonsense, Brandon--in the first place because the statement, made in a campaign, was in effect a promise; in the second place you rationale falls down because he has lost the support of those who once supported him, and his support continues to slip. But i know that in your little fantasy world, he is A-OK. I also rather suspected that you'd be doing these sorts of gymnastics in such a thread. I note that so far, you've not tackled any of the tough examples.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:00 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
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.


I'm entitled to my opinion. As always, I support my opinions with reference to the facts. I understand that you, as a Bush supporter, find it embarrassing that I have used the president's own words to discredit him and to prove him to be a madman--a tyrant--and a lawbreaker. The truth is that BUSH himself has stated that it is ESSENTIAL for the president to speak clearly and to mean what he says. But, it has been proven repeatedly that we the people of the United States cannot trust Bush to mean what he says. He lies to our faces, violates duly-enacted laws, and he says things in attempt for us to believe things that are not true. Bush appeals to emotion and disregards the facts.

As Colbert has amply demonstrated through his insightful satires as a pretend political pundit, you and other Bush supporters are not interested in the truth (verifiable by facts). Your only concern is "truthiness."

Colbert:

Quote:
"I will speak to you in plain, simple English. And that brings us to tonight's word: 'truthiness.' Now I'm sure some of the 'word police,' the 'wordanistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'Hey, that's not a word.' Well, anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books....

"I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart...

"Consider Harriet Miers. If you 'think' about Harriet Miers, of course her nomination's absurd. But the president didn't say he 'thought' about his selection. He said this:

(video clip of President Bush:) 'I know her heart.'

"Notice he didn't say anything about her brain? He didn't have to. He 'feels' the truth about Harriet Miers.

"And what about Iraq? If you 'think' about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out 'feel' like the right thing?..."


Quote:
"Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word...

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

"Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."


You attack me because I don't believe Bush's lies, manipulations, and deceptions and I call the self-absorbed, lunatic, lawbreaking tyrant exactly what he is: a madman--a tyrant--a lawbreaker. The facts matter to me and the facts substantiate my opinion of Bush as a two-faced liar who refuses to be constrained by the law in violation of our fundamental principles. But, the facts don't matter to you. You only care about your selfish, fact-deprived, "truthiness," and you don't care that Bush is, in fact, destroying the very foundation upon which this nation was built.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:09 pm
McG, thanks for your response. I've edited out all but your responses for the sake of clarity; observors, please see the proceeding posts in order to avoid confusion.

The 9/11 commission issued a report. It can be found here.

This does not adequately address the accusation, namely, that Bush tried as hard as he could to keep the 9/11 commission from reaching a complete picture of what happened. The fact that they still put out a report does not change this, and therefore, I would have to say that the lie still stands.

That's silly. If dem's don't wish to follow the programs started by the Bush administration, that's hardly the fault of the Bush administration. Dem's have tried to put up roadblocks at every turn and made themselves useless to getting the daily job of government done. The war in Iraq has been the great divider. I suspect any war will do that though.

I suppose you have made a strong argument here. I accept that the Iraq war is the real divider amongst our political parties.


Protecting a top secret by lying about it. Bad call on his part and he has been nailed on it.

Who gives a crap about the second statement. He said it as a joke.

I agree with this, thank you.

Far more likely? Why do we still have troops dying in the hunt for Osama then?

For the sake of appearances, nothing more. We have clearly shifted our focus elsewhere. Do we in fact still have troops doing this? You haven't heard much about it in a long time, if we do.

The most important thing on 9/13/01 was indeed finding Osama Bin Laden. That's why we attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power. You remeber that right?

I believe the second statement to be a lie because I beleive Bush DOES care where Osama is. I also believe that he dropped in the priority list to the effort in Iraq. Doesn't mean he fell off the list though as we still have troops looking and hunting for the bastard.

Okay, I accept this. This is the second time you've agreed that Bush specifically lied.


According to an article written by Tom Cooper on the Air Combat Information Group website on 9/25/2003, between 30 and 40 Iraqi jets were found hidden in the sand in July, 2003.
They were located at the al-Taqaddum air base about 250km west of Baghdad.
The planes were a part of the Iraqi air force, ordered from Russia in 1977 and delivered in 1980.
NewsMax.com claims to have published the photos first and says the fighters were found by the U.S. military acting on a top from an informant.
Although the MiG-25 is an older Cold War era jet, published reports say this particular plane was an advanced version with technology and capabilities not before seen by Western observers.


I'm sorry to say, I need more confirmation than Newsmax in order to believe that Iraq had a secret airforce with secret capabilities not seen before by Western observors. It seems to me that such a discovery would have been trumpeted by our Military, yet I can find no evidence that this is so.

Officially, have any such planes been found?


Bad speech writers. They should have done better research. Do you believe Bush surfed the internet and made notes about what he found? I would hope he has more important things to do. Poor research by speech writers does not make the president liable. Blame the folks properly at least.

It doesn't matter if the speechwriters are at fault or not. Bush has a responsibility to ensure that his speechwriters are accurate, and he is responsible for every word that comes out of his mouth.

Yaknow, the president isn't required to have speechwriters. He only chooses to do so, and this choice does not remove the responsibility from him in the slightest to not lie to the American people. Did Bush fire the speechwriters? Does anyone check to see if they are telling the truth or not? Apparently not.



Under the current circumstances, what Bush stated remains true. Whether something is done to prevent it or not is irrelevent. Not a lie.

No, you are 100% wrong here. In no way will SS be 'bankrupt' when Bush said it would. This is a bold-faced lie and I challenge you to go into greater detail to show that it isn't.

What was the exact quote the president used? Did he say he saw the plane hit, or did he say he saw coverage of the plane hitting? Assuredly he meant to say the latter. Again, hardly a lie.

Oh, yes, assuredly. I haven't taken the time to track down this quote, but I will do so immediately to see if we can't clear it up.

I beleive the British, even today, remain assured that the report that Bush based that statement on remains true. The issue remains in dispute.

Not by anyone who has actually researched the case. The British report is false. The fact that their government won't declare it false is immaterial, because we knew it was false at the time; as I said, the Bush admin never would have apologized publicly if they thought any different.

Thanks again for your responses, McG. It would seem that you do agree that Bush has lied from time to time. The question is, does that make him a liar?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:13 pm
Brandon is a brilliant man, with a firm grasp of reality.

He knows that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, and that President Bush's clear vision will lead us there.









Which of these statements is a lie?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thanks again for your responses, McG. It would seem that you do agree that Bush has lied from time to time. The question is, does that make him a liar?

Cycloptichorn


No, it makes him a politician.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:14 pm
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2992/applause3gh.gif


I've been reading these posts and just wanted to say that this is the type of debate I look for when I come to A2K.

(With few exceptions)There are strong arguments on both sides. Thanks, people.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:18 pm
All of the above . . .

As for Afghanistan, we are handing that over to the Canadians (who have been dying there for months) and to the Brits. It should be obvious to anyone who is not eager to deny the facts that bin Laden was never a priority of this administration, and that Iraq was the target, well before they cobbled together the lies to justify it--such as Rumsfeld's lies about an al Qaeda connection and knowing where the WoMD were to be found. Tico shows that himself by using a quote from March, 2002 as a justification for the claim that priorities change--that the priority to get bin Laden was abandoned six months after the attack on the World Trade Center, and more than a year before the invasion of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 01:33 pm
Setanta wrote:
Nonsense, Brandon--in the first place because the statement, made in a campaign, was in effect a promise; in the second place you rationale falls down because he has lost the support of those who once supported him, and his support continues to slip. But i know that in your little fantasy world, he is A-OK. I also rather suspected that you'd be doing these sorts of gymnastics in such a thread. I note that so far, you've not tackled any of the tough examples.

Actually, it's a description of himself. A person is capable of being honestly right or wrong when describing himself. In order to show that such a characterization of one's own personality is a lie, one would have to prove that the speaker believed himself to be saying something untrue when he uttered it, which seems to me a nearly impossible task for a statement like this one.

The status of his current support among his original supporters has nothing to do with whether he was lying when he made that statement.

No one has demonstrated that this statement is a lie. Not all statements which eventually turn out to be untrue were lies.
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 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 11:37:19