President Bush: Is He a Liar?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advoate, I remember as most people what Bush claimed when the Plame leak first came to light. Bush said anybody in his administration responsible will not be working in his administration, then changed it to "if anybody is charged with a crime" (not exact wording). Why people can't remember these lies are mind-boggling. What more proof do they want that Bush lies?

Wrong.

When he was first asked about the Plame case on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

LINK

I've reminded you of this several times now (LINK #1 ... LINK #2), the last as recently as a month ago. Why you won't remember the truth about this is mind-boggling.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Advoate, I remember as most people what Bush claimed when the Plame leak first came to light. Bush said anybody in his administration responsible will not be working in his administration, then changed it to "if anybody is charged with a crime" (not exact wording). Why people can't remember these lies are mind-boggling. What more proof do they want that Bush lies?

Wrong.

When he was first asked about the Plame case on September 30, 2003, Bush said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

LINK

I've reminded you of this several times now (LINK #1 ... LINK #2), the last as recently as a month ago. Why you won't remember the truth about this is mind-boggling.

So as long as I don't violate the law treason and endangering national security is legal. Thanks Mr. Bush. Thanks for the helping me understand the rules of the new America.

0 Replies

Tico, I believe you are wrong. Bush's first statement did not talk about breaking the law. He added that later, for very good reason.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
Is it a lie if I say...

"okie told me that Bush isn't a liar" in an discussion of Bush is a liar if I am using okie's statement to bolster my case when I KNOW that okie's statement is not well supported?

Of course not.

So is it telling the entire truth? Or am I being misleading by leaving out relevent information?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Tico, I believe you are wrong. Bush's first statement did not talk about breaking the law. He added that later, for very good reason.

Prove me wrong at your convenience.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Is it a lie if I say...

"okie told me that Bush isn't a liar" in an discussion of Bush is a liar if I am using okie's statement to bolster my case when I KNOW that okie's statement is not well supported?

Of course not.

So is it telling the entire truth? Or am I being misleading by leaving out relevent information?

If you KNOW okie's statement is not well-supported, then there is a very good argument to be made that you are being misleading.

0 Replies

Bush made the following statement at a cabinet meeting. There is a lot of lying here.

"Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible...
Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out."

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

So as long as I don't violate the law treason and endangering national security is legal. Thanks Mr. Bush. Thanks for the helping me understand the rules of the new America.

There is a thread devoted to this topic ...

Can you explain to me how exactly you theorize one can commit treason if one doesn't violate the law?

And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered.

0 Replies

Here's the chronology:

# 29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." McClellan went on to say ""The president believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent by the appropriate agency and the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice." [36]

February 2004

* 11 February 2004 George W. Bush insists, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is...If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth...Leaks of classified information are bad things."

Bush: CIA leaker would be fired if crime committed (Reuters)
Mon Jul 18th 2005 at 2:41 pm ET
bush cia leaker would be fired if crime committedWASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Monday anyone in his administration who was found to have committed a crime in a federal investigation of the leak of a covert CIA agent's name would be fired.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered.

She was an undercover operative, and it endangered her other contacts and connections she made while undercover.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered.

She was an undercover operative, and it endangered her other contacts and connections she made while undercover.

I bolded the part of Tico's post you seem to have missed.

0 Replies

McG and Tico, Whatever you may claim regarding national security, please read the following:

# 29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." McClellan went on to say ""The president believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent by the appropriate agency and the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice." [36]

0 Replies

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's the chronology:

# 29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." McClellan went on to say ""The president believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent by the appropriate agency and the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice." [36]

Okay, you cherry-picked the little bit you want to focus on, but earlier in the questioning McClellan stated:

Quote:

Q The implication you're leaving us with, I'm afraid, is that nothing is being done here at the White House to even look into this matter --

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second, I made it very clear that if something like this happened, the President believes the Department of Justice should look into it and pursue it to the fullest extent. Leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter.

...

Q Can I follow up on that? Does that mean that you would say to the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to determine whether a special or outside counsel is necessary, that you believe it is not necessary at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of career professionals at the Department of Justice that address matters like this. I have made it clear that they're the ones, that if something like this happened, should look into it. You need to direct that question to the Department of Justice. It would be a Justice Department matter; it wouldn't be our place to get involved in that.

The Justice Department investigates criminal matters. McClellan made it very clear that the White House felt the Justice Department was the appropriate entity to investigate the matter.

Bush himself came out the very next day and made it clear that if someone in his administration violated the law they would be "taken care of." And he reiterated that the Justice Department should investigate.

0 Replies

Bush acknowledges declassifying intelligence

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Monday that he had declassified intelligence documents in 2003 to help explain his administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

"I thought it was important for people to get a better sense of what I was saying in my speeches," Bush said, answering a question from an audience member at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. "And I felt I could do so without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence matters."

Bush said he had authorized the release of the documents because some Americans questioned his reasons for going to war.

_______________________________________________

So it wasn't classifed C.I. Try another angle.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG and Tico, Whatever you may claim regarding national security, please read the following:

# 29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." McClellan went on to say ""The president believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent by the appropriate agency and the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice." [36]

And your point is .....?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Amigo wrote:
So as long as I don't violate the law treason and endangering national security is legal. Thanks Mr. Bush. Thanks for the helping me understand the rules of the new America.

There is a thread devoted to this topic ...

Can you explain to me how exactly you theorize one can commit treason if one doesn't violate the law?

And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered.

http://groups.google.com/group/Coalitionforfreethoughtinmedia/browse_thread/thread/f10717240b6077b0/4966c848ad073584?lnk=st&q=Rove+fired+from+Bush+Sr's+'92+campaign+over+leak+to+Novak&rnum=2&hl=en#4966c848ad073584

"Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source. "

_______________________

Sure, Why you would ask is ridiculous but what the hell.

Revealing the Identity of an agent working for you own country for political retaliation is Treacherous and a threat to national security.

Then to say;

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Knowing in advance that a violation cannot be proven. Is "not violating law" while commiting treason.
.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
...

Can you explain to me how exactly you theorize one can commit treason if one doesn't violate the law?

And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered.

...

Sure, Why you would ask is ridiculous but what the hell.

Revealing the Identity of an agent working for you own country for political retaliation is Treacherous and a threat to national security.

Then to say;

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Knowing in advance that a violation cannot be proven. Is "not violating law" while commiting treason.
.

You'll note that my question was how you have concluded it to be "treason" if there is no violation of the law. Your answer, it appears, is that you believe it is "treason" because you think it's "Treacherous" and a threat to national security. But as you know, I've also asked you to explain how national security was endangered by the revelation of Plame's identity, and you didn't answer that question either. You seem to think it's treason and a threat to national security because ... well, because it just is.

And I think you presume an awful lot to make the claim that the revelation of her identity was "for political retaliation." It seems reasonably clear the purpose was to explain that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, not at the request of Dick Cheney as he claimed.

0 Replies

Quote:

And if we're speaking of the revelation of Plame's status as a CIA employee, tell me how national security has been endangered

Mendacity?

Riling up the Libs?

You are far too intelligent to need this explained to you, Tico.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya, Go back and reread what I claimed what Bush first said, then covered himself with another statement about "charged with a crime."

Nothing cherry-picked at all; what McCleannan says only supports my earlier contention about Bush's position on the Plam Affair.

Bush tries to back-track, but only people like you see nothing wrong with the handling of this crime.

You're the one nit-picking.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know