President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Ok Bush is just a *****k head.

0 Replies

He's a liar too!

0 Replies

Mr. Kuvasz- Your comment about one's ability to find evidence for an argument on either side is, of course, correct.

Then, we must face the political facts.

l. President George W. Bush will not be re-elected to the office of President. He cannot run again.

2. The arguments of the left wing are as meant, as were the arguments against Clinton, to denigrate the President's standing with the populace. It is a common ploy.

3. I am of the opinion that the left wing is indeed aware that President Bush cannot run again but that it is hoped that a falling Job Approval Rating will inflict damage on the Republican Senators and Republican House Members running in November.

4. If the Democrats regain the power in the Senate and the House in November 2006, a power they have not had since the disasterous defeat of the Democrats in 1994 during President Clinton's first term, then, under the leadership of that most illustrious House Member,Mr.Conyers, who is in line to become Head of the Judiciary Committee, President Bush, if the House agrees with most of the posters on this thread with regard to the alleged lies that President Bush has told that are most deleterious to the future of the USA, the House will impeach the President.

If the Senate is in the hands of the Democrats, they will then convict the President and he will be replaced by Vice President Cheney until Jan. 2009.

That, of course, would lend a great deal of credence to those on this thread who claim that President Bush has allegedly lied, and because of those lies, has seriously damaged the USA.

But, if that does not happen, I am very much afraid that all of the bluster about alleged lies is just a waste of breath.

Thank you sir, Mr. Kuvasz.

0 Replies

No ploy is needed; the majority of Americans, or 71 percent by polls, says Bush is an incompetent imbecile. Denigration is in the eye of the beholder; Id rather believe in the majority while the minority who continues to defend Bush gets smaller every month. Only fools remain steadfast when all evidence is to the contrary.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

No ploy is needed; the majority of Americans, or 71 percent by polls, says Bush is an incompetent imbecile. Denigration is in the eye of the beholder; Id rather believe in the majority while the minority who continues to defend Bush gets smaller every month. Only fools remain steadfast when all evidence is to the contrary.

The majority of the country once believed slavery was ok.
There are many things that the majority once believed turned out to be wrong.

But why is it that when the majority of the country supported the war in Iraq,you and others claimed the majority was wrong and that the polls didnt matter.
Now,when the majority agrees with you,all of a sudden the polls matter?

0 Replies

I am very much afraid, Mr. Imposter, that you cannot equate the finding that 29% disapprove of President Bush's performance in office with him being "an incompetent imbecile"

The proof concerning President Bush's Job Approval Rating and how it REALLY affects the political landscape will only be shown in November 2006.

I will be watching carefully and hope you will be watching also.

0 Replies

It would seem that Bernard denies that he posted under other names in the past, and denies that he was banned. I'm waiting for Tico to come along and condemn this action.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mm brings up "slavery" to defend the majority of Americans that disapprove of Bush's current performance. This guy is an arse (a famous saying by McT that I borrowed).

0 Replies

http://www.web-laun.ch/p/bush-deletewindow.jpg

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm brings up "slavery" to defend the majority of Americans that disapprove of Bush's current performance. This guy is an arse (a famous saying by McT that I borrowed).

Just trying to show that often,the majority is wrong about what they think is the truth.

I'm sure you can find other examples from previous administrations.

0 Replies

DrewDad, on page 26, wrote:

And there was this.

The Wikipedia article on the Yellowcake forgery wrote:
During the 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

...

The actual words President Bush spoke: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.[2] However, the Administration has admitted that the claim was "a mistake."

...

The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" in Bush's address to the nation, attributing the error to the CIA.[8]

...

...in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department. At roughly the same time, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself... He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong"....

...

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asking Hadley to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

...

Still no reply from Brandon...

Three separate US inquiries determined that the British had it wrong, and Bush still chose to quote the British report.

I call that a deliberate attempt to mislead, which makes it a lie.

0 Replies

DrewDad,
One question...
What did the British inquiries come up with?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I have a question...
While I agree that Clinton is not the President,and therefore not relevant to the current discussions,will the left make the promise that the second the next President is sworn in,they will NEVER mention Bush's name?
They cannot use him for comparison to the next President,they cannot blame him for ANYTHING that happens once the next President is sworn in,and that anything that happens once the next President is sworn in has nothing to do with anything Bush did or did not do?

No you can't, and do you know why? and straight from George Bush's own mouth were the remarks that the Iraq situation and troop deployment there would go on long after he left office. so accordingly whoever takes over in 2009 will have that skunkery to deal with as an unwelcome present from your Fearless Leader. Just like that idiot's father did with the US marine peacekeeping forces in Somolia. the only difference is that Clinton didn't blame George HW Bush for what happened in the Mog and admitted that they were his own problems unlike what Bush (the lesser) tried to do with 911 and blame Clinton.

how about the budget deficit? Clinton left a surlus budget, recall Bush said he wantd to cut taxes, precisely because we had a budge surplus, guess what the 2009 president gets? another stink bomb.

those who are aware of history recognize that the treasury dept of George HW Bush was not telling the truth about the fiscal deficit in the fall of 1992, and when clinton took office the government's money his team thought was there, wasn't. the Bush(I) treasury dept was off the mark on the deficit by 60-90$ Billion, and it was the reason Clinton abandoned his liberal campaign agenda from 1992, disaffecting liberals in congress and across the county and helped precipate the GOP take-over of the US House in 1994.

your logic is faulty and ignores both past and present facts, but that's apt for supporters of the GOP, where a faith based perspective of reality reigns.

But I do understand your truculence, you don't want to believe you were snookered by Bush and the GOP, and it would hurt all the more because you have defended what actully is indefensible, and in reflection you would think upon how stupid you were to believe in what you did, so you appear to dig in your heels and hold ever stronger. but you are wrong.

those of us in the reality based community, those of us who were on the right side of history when we were in the minority still will welcome you with open arms to what has now with the fullness of time become the majority once you admit that on your trip to Damascus, you fell off the GOP elephant and saw the light of the truth. we won't rub it in, because we will be so happy to see someone no longer blind.

confess your sins brother, come into the bright light of the truth. it shall set you free.

hallelujah!

0 Replies

Who is Daniel McGivergan, you ask? Why, here's the answer; everything we expected:

Daniel McKivergan

Daniel McKivergan is deputy director of the Project for the New American Century. Prior to joining the Project, Dan was legislative director for the Office of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

From 1989 to 1992, he worked at the Republican National Committee. In 1993, McKivergan joined the staff of the Project for the Republican Future, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and in 1995 became research director for the Weekly Standard magazine. Two years later, he was appointed legislative director for Congressman Dan Miller (R-FL) before taking the position of policy director for the Philanthropy Roundtable and associate editor of its magazine, Philanthropy. McKivergan also served in the United States Coast Guard Reserve from 1985 to 1989 and holds degrees from Holy Cross and Johns Hopkins.

0 Replies

I don't know if this one has been thrown into the mix yet, but remember this Bush lie?

Bush: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
Clicky clicky for linky linky

from the article:

Quote:

Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility, and Bush was worried too.

Are his pants on fire yet?

0 Replies

Some on this thread have complained that I reference President Clinton and that the thread is supposed to mention only President Bush.

I guess then I am in the same boat as the Washington Post, whose comments were gathered by Walter Kagan in a piece in that august and very influential newspaper on Oct. 25, 2005.

the editorial ( written in Jan 2001 BEFORE 9/11) said:

"Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous--or more urgent than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly qvoided dealing with , or calling attention to , the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction, That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf where INTELLIGENCE PHOTOS SHOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF FACTORIES LONG SUSPECTED OF PRODUCING CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS."

end of quote

How interesting--an influential newspaper referencing President Clinton and his last year in office EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT BUSH HAD BEEN ELECTED.

The august Washington Post may yet teach people bad research habits--Imagine commenting on a past president's behavior as if it had ANYTHING to do with the present Administration.

Shocking!!!!

0 Replies

He'd have to burn all of them all by himself! The guys brain is already fried.

0 Replies

Mr Just an Observer. sir-
Perhaps this will aid you-

The Associated Press initially reported on March 1 that federal disaster officials warned Bush and his homeland security chief at the Aug. 28 session that the storm could breach levees. On March 3, The AP moved a clarification that the story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees rather than the levees breaking.

Thank You sir, I hope I have been helpful!!!

0 Replies

Oops, forgot to link the article I mentioned:

Click here for article

And BernardR/Mossino, whatever name you go by, the problem isn't with you bringing up Clinton. It's that you bring him up for no reason at all, or when there is absolutely no point for doing so.

There's nothing wrong with your Clinton love. We can understand your wanting to stroke his face, kiss his lips, and spoon with him after a night of rough love. But try to control it, and only mention him when he has something to do with the subject at hand.

Here's a hint: Just because he was a former president is not enough to link him to every goddamn thing that we talk about here.

BernardR wrote:

Mr Just an Observer. sir-
Perhaps this will aid you

Read the article I linked above.

Bush (and others) were warned about the levees. He later stated that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

A flat out lie.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know