President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Any wagers on how long Brandon will whistle in the dark regarding this one?

Finally, at least a decent, objective allegation. I admit to knowing very little about this.

It's the last refuge of someone who cannot win on the facts.

A 100% lie, provable. Other Conservatives have agreed on this one, do you deny it is a lie, Brandon?

Cycloptichorn

Honestly, although I've read a bit about it, I don't know enough to judge. At least it's a properly formed allegation. I'd like to know more.

You cannot hide behind the 'I don't know enough about it' defense and then claim that we have not shown that Bush is a liar.

We have done exactly that. It is not our responsibility to educate you on the facts of the cases in question.

Do you admit this, or deny that these are lies? 'I don't know' isn't a valid answer; if you cannot refute it, the lie stands.

Cycloptichorn

Here's the Bush lies on social security. However, I doubt Brandon will read or understand its content:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/social_security_lies.htm

Here's another lie, unless, of course it was just that he didn't read what he was signing:

Despite Pledge, Taxes Increase for Teenagers

Damnation, Brandon. Can't you come up with anything better than "I don't know the facts about that one"?

Bush is not only a liar, but he's bungled almost everything he's done so far. People like Brandon who can't see the damage this president has done to our country and the world are very blind and ignorant. Yes, Brandon, that's an ad hominem, and well deserved.


Homeland Security Turnover Hurts Morale, Officials Testify

By Stephen Barr
Friday, May 19, 2006; D04

It's no secret that morale is a problem at the Homeland Security Department, created three years ago in a mega-merger that pulled together 185,000 employees working in more than 220 occupations.

Bush administration officials have tried to play down turf battles and culture clashes as transitional woes that would fade after the rank and file had worked together for five to seven years, but complaints by employees continue and are starting to get to the ears of members of Congress.

Yesterday, two senior department officials acknowledged that turnover in top management jobs there appears to be adversely affecting employee morale.

Answering questions at a House hearing, K. Gregg Prillaman , the department's chief human capital officer, and Dwight M. Williams , the department's chief security officer, suggested that the turnover rate at the top of the department spills downward into the ranks and influences morale.

Williams said senior leaders -- many are political appointees -- burn out because of long hours and then leave, creating gaps in the top management team. He said the department is more stable than it was 18 months ago but added, "We are not there yet."

The creation of the department, to some extent, was a "hostile takeover" and not something employees would have voted for, Prillaman said. Efforts are underway to train line managers how to better deal with employee issues, he said.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on management and oversight, raised the issue of vacant leadership posts at the outset of the hearing. His list included the undersecretary for science and technology, the commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, the chief financial officer, the assistant secretary for cyber security and the chief privacy officer.

The first three positions require Senate confirmation, and the department has nominees in various stages of the appointment process. But some jobs have been vacant for several months, and Rogers said "other key vacancies are expected soon.

"I am concerned this high turnover undermines the department's effectiveness," he said. "It could also very well weaken our efforts to integrate the department's many agencies and further erode employee morale."

Rogers held the hearing at the urging of Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who held up a sheaf of letters that he said had been sent him from Homeland Security employees. The employees, he said, think the department is driving away talent and that managers are struggling to motivate employees.

Meek pointed to MaxHR, the department's new performance-based pay system, as a source of anxiety for the employees. He questioned the fairness of new rules for how employees will appeal major disciplinary actions and for how unions negotiate on behalf of employees. Unions have successfully blocked the new rules in federal court, and the issues are before an appeals court.

Prillaman, who joined the department eight months ago, said the agency thinks the new pay and personnel system will improve morale, in part because managers and supervisors must undergo training to improve their skills in communication.

He noted that 8,000 managers have undergone training on MaxHR and that 6,000 more will be trained by the end of this year.

"We are doing what Fortune 500 companies have been doing over the last 15 years," Prillaman said.

But two union presidents, John Gage of the American Federation of Government Employees and Colleen M. Kelley of the National Treasury Employees Union, testified that some department bureaus have created unnecessary friction, such as adopting new rules for shift assignments regardless of an employee's seniority or family considerations.

In addition, Gage said, inconsistent treatment of employees regarding overtime pay and foreign-language proficiency pay "need to be cured right away."
Talk Shows

Robyn Kehoe , Washington representative for the Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund, will be the guest on "FEDtalk" at 11 a.m. today on Federalnewsradio.com and WFED radio (1050 AM).

Gary M. Bald , executive assistant director for counterterrorism and counterintelligence at the FBI, will be the guest on "The IBM Business of Government Hour" at 9 a.m. Saturday on WJFK radio (106.7 FM).

Stephen Barr's e-mail address [email protected].


Please, Brandon, show us anything Bushco has done right in the past six years.

Yes. the left wing knows how to argue
**********************************************************
kickycan wrote:
I'll answer your questions, Bernard.

BernardR wrote:
Was Clinton correct?


Who gives a f*ck?

BernardR wrote:
Was Clinton lying?


Who gives a f*ck?

BernardR wrote:
Was Clinton mistaken?


Who gives a f*ck?

There, now your questions are answered.

Satisfied?
Ahh, A rare and often bitting appearance by a notorious resident political analysist.

The timing! The delivery!

_________________
"All national institutions of churches appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine



cicerone imposter
Guru in Training



Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 35355
Location: Silicon Valley in California
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 4:12 pm Post: 2048471 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But mostly the appropriate answers!
********************************************************

And so does Mr.Imposter

Nope. Thats about as close we'll get to a "Ok, he lied there."

I'd just chalk that one up as a lie and move onto the next one.

snood, Brandon plays the ignorance card every time a point is made; like he can't find theanswer himself through Google. By playing the ignorancd card, he is absolutely ignorant!

Continue to demand links that he ignores. He can't handle the truth!

The people who are ignorant about Social Security and its huge problems are invited to comment on the information below. Of course, they won't since their typical intelligent response is.

F*ck Clinton's lies

1. The annual cash flow deficits. According to the 2004 Trustees Report, Social Security is projected to run annual deficits of 4.5 percent of taxable payroll in 2042. Over the subsequent four decades, those deficits are projected to widen to 6.0 percent of taxable payroll. So if Max waits, this is the problem he faces in 2042. (To put these in perspective, note that in 2004, taxable payroll is $4.522 trillion, these deficits would be $203 and $271 billion, respectively, if we were running them today.)

2. The unfunded obligations. The 2004 Trustees Report also tells us that the present value of unfunded obligations is $10.4 trillion, using a long-term real interest rate of 3 percent (based on a nominal interest rate of 5.8 percent and a CPI inflation rate of 2.8 percent). If Max waits to reform the system, then the unfunded obligations compound at about 3 percent for 38 years, leading to unfunded obligations of roughly 10.4 x (1.03^38) = $32.0 trillion in 2042.

I am sure that the post regarding "Homeland Personnel Turnover Hurts Morale" will be handled by the Congress of the United States when they censure the President for causing the "Homland Personnel Turnover".

I have seen or heard of no Presidential executive order which addressed Personnel Turnover.

In the absence of such a document linking "Homeland Personnel Turnover directly to President Bush, I must regrettably conclude that there is no real evidence that the Personnel Turnover was directed by the President himself.
Does anyone have a link on this.

Please, no f*ck answers. They are not helpful.

Mr. Just An Observer: I am very sorry but I must conclude that you are mistaken about the historical and political connotations of the tenure of the chief excutives that precede any president.

You cannot say that the statements and the findings of a former president do not influence a new president.

Are you suffering from the delusion that the files in the CIA are emptied out and thrown away every time a new president is elected?

Are you aware that the DIRECTOR OF THE CIA. under Clinton was the same person who directed the CIA under Bush for the first three years?

Clinton's statements on Iraq and WMD's did. of course, come from the findings of the CIA. As brilliant as Clinton is, he did not do the research himself.

I hope you would not be suprised if you discovered that the President of the United States has reports supplied to him and engages in meetings with his staff.

Clinton did and he warned that Saddam had WMD's and would threaten the peace of the world. So did Bush.

These findings about WMD's and the threat of Saddam were echoed by intelligence agencies ALL OVER THE WORLD--- Including Germany and, yes, France.

I read with interest your claims about three British findings. I could not locate them on the web.

Would you be so good as to give a link for those so I can examine them( Yes, I will read your link) so that I can evaluate them?

Thank you, sir.

Advocate--Your quote is interesting but it does not give the speed at which the other states were signing up children. You did not rebut the comment concerning speed. Can you do so?:

Please provide a link so that the "Speed" at which the various states can be judged so that the comment of President Bush( when, of course, he was in an entirely different jop than he is now) can be evaluated.

Cyclopitchorn-- I will give you a post from a left wing site. Of course, it leaves out a great deal. It speaks of wire taps. Please be so good as to note the last two lines of the post carefully( remember, this is a left wing post) and then go to the Patriot Act.

For years, Bush said court orders required for spying

AFP | December 21 2005

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush, caught up in a domestic spying controversy, for the past two years has assured Americans worried about expanded government anti-terrorism powers that court orders were needed to tap telephones.

Bush has drawn fire over a 2002 order enabling the National Security Agency to monitor, without a judge's go-ahead, the telephone and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of Al-Qaeda ties when they are in touch with someone abroad.

Critics have charged that the unprecedented move is an abuse of power and a violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires court approval of wiretaps and electronic surveillance.

The White House has fired back that Bush's move is legal under the US Constitution and a congressional resolution, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that authorized the use of force in Afghanistan.

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.


"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," he added.
On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

But under Bush's super-secret order, first revealed Friday by the New York Times and details of which have been confirmed by Bush and other top US officials, the National Security Agency does not need that court's approval.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property," he said in June.

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

"And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional," he said in Kansas City, Missouri.

Asked whether Bush had misled the US public, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Bush "was talking about (the issue) in the context of the Patriot Act."