President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Yeah. Bush lied to all the faithful Republicans, too.

I can agree with that. Its only a vitamin pill though. Sleep well.

129 pages and here is a scoop...Bush is still a liar.

This is just too funny. BernardR posts an article by a prominent neo-conservative - with extreme bias, and he wants to use this to make his point. ha ha ha....

Norman Podhoretz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Norman Podhoretz (born January 16, 1930) is an American intellectual considered to be a prominent neo-conservative thinker and writer.

I can't believe it..>Debra L A W..one of the most brilliant legal minds in the USA making two egregious mistakes in L A W!!!

Debra L A W said

quote

"We have OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that Bush cherry picked and shared information that appeared to support his war agenda"

BUT SHE DIDN'T SHARE THE EVIDENCE WITH US>

Could it be that there is nO EVIDENCE of that kind?

Present your Evidence, Debra LAW.

Debra L A W's second mistake was NEGLECTING to rebut any of Podhoretz's claims.

Debra L A W's response to the entire Podhoretz article which has, if anyone read it, documentation,was to say blah-blah.

I am very much afraid that the response made( blah-blah) by the learned prosecutor, Debra L A W is simply INADMISSABLE.

Podhoretz first paragraph from the article posted by BernardR:

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

************

Yes, a immoral and unnecessary war in Iraq by Bush and company telling Americans and the world that Saddam had WMDs and connections to al Qaida. We shouldn't need to go over the same speeches by Bush, Cheney, and Powell about "yellow cake, chemical labs, and those pictures Powell showed everybody those trailer chemical labs to make our point. All have since been exposed as lies.

If Podhoretz is supposed to be an American intellectual, we're really in bad shape.

It's immoral because the preemptive attack not authorized by the UN initiated what is now a massacre of innocent Iraqis by our bombs in the tens of thousands of innocent lives. If that isn't immoral, this guy Podhoretz doesn't understand human morals.

Mr. Imposter says that an article which is written by a prominent neo-conservative -with extreme bias, cannot be used to make a point because Wikipedia lists him as "a prominent neo-conservative neo-conservative thinker and writer".

I'll accept that but ONLY if any articles written by people who are characterized as being on the LEFT are also prohibited.

Mr. Imposter should utilize his time in checking out whether Mr. Pohoretz is lying or twisting the truth rather than doing an Ad Hominem on Mr. Podhoretz.

I will make it easy on Mr. Imposter. He can begin by totally refuting one of the alleged "lies" stated by Mr.Podhoretz-

quote--

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002( NIE contains fifteen agencies involved in gathering evidence for the United States) offered "with high confidence" the conclusion that:

"Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF BRITAIN, GERMANY, RUSSIA, CHINA, ISRAEL AND,YES,FRANCE ALL AGREED WITH THIS JUDGMENT"

end of quote


Yes, this is what Mr.Podhoretz wrote. Now, since Mr. Podhoretz, by virtue of being a neo-conservative, cannot possibly be wrong, it would be quite simple for Mr.Imposter to provide proof showing that the sentences above are inaccurate.

I await Mr. Imposter's proof(Please note, under the rules laid down by Mr. Imposter, no one on the left--by virtue of merely being on the left--may present evidence because of an obvious ideological bias.

I posted days ago six links that document the lies of George Bush and those of his subordinates. No one refuted the facts presented from those web sites. However, Rainman naturally, went above and beyond the call of duty as well as any sense of personal pride, and showed his a$$ by calling one website a conduit for Pravda.

Instead, days later, what was presented as a rebuttal was not any documention to support his own thesis that Bush was not a liar, but an unannotated article by self acknowledged conservative propagandist Norman Podhoretz who is a proud member of those Neo-Con artists of the Project for New American Century (PNAC) that itself presented repeated distorted strawman arguments replete with misleading logic and statements of others taken out of context.

So it goes from the den of liars lying to protect the lies of their lying buddies.

Now how about refuting with appropriate links the details presented in the link below, after all, the topic was "Bush lies" and these have been presented, One should expect from an adversary that these be rebutted with links to the facts, not opinion pieces which themselves are without proper documentation as to the statements declared.

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm

So the challenge presented to those who support George Bush is this; provide documentation that the things that support the theses that he is liar are untrue. Back up your own thesis that he is honest by debunking what is illustrated in the links I provided.

I will provide but three examples samples from the dozens linked with which you can proceed.

1. BUSH: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]

found to be untrue here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888

The Washington Post reported an explosive story that a secret, fact-finding team of scientists and engineers sponsored by the Pentagon determined in May 2003 that two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops were not evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program. The nine-member team "transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003."

Despite having authoritative evidence that the biological laboratories claim was false, the administration continued to peddle the myth over the next four months.



2. Bush Domestic Spying

During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed "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."

see video here: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002181.htm

The Bush administration has offered the following justifications for its spying on U.S. citizens:

No Time for Warrants It could not wait to get a warrant because it needed "to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad.GEORGE BUSH 12/19/05

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

No Time for Warrants: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the President to seek a warrant up to 3 days AFTER initiating the wiretap. The President never sought any such authority after the fact for this program.

Congress Gave Authority: "authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes . . . authorization. . . to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

Congress Gave Authority: The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected this. In fact, Gonzales admitted that he was told by "certain members of Congress" that "that would be difficult if not impossible," during his recent testimony before congress.



3. CONGRESS HAD SAME PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE

Bush charged that " . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html

The Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release." (Washington Post, 11/13/05)

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-1-129

confirmed elsewhere: http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

This was confirmed by a Congressional Research Service report which found that the "President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods"

I would hope to get cogent rebuttals not rhetoric, but I know it is unlikely from the other side, so innuendo away. And Rainman I grant you but one rant, one post only to obsess about the object of your lip-smacking affections and wet dreams, THE MIGHTY CLENIS

Since I have watched this thread, I note with interest the abject denial of those who still support Bush and twist the intent of those who oppose the man's actions. I note with distaste that they are the ones, like Norman Podhoretz who are engaging in that hoary process of revisionist history.

If I am wrong about Bush's lies, you should be able to prove it.

Okie- I am sure you have noted the pathetic performance of those on the left-
meaningless statements that have no evidence to refer to

Ad Hominem attacks

refusal to rebut any part of evidence offered.

Shall we continually repost the same (insufferably long) article? That's certainly wowing everyone with your skilz.

clueless again are you? let me set it straight for you. when the thesis was made that "bush lied" evidence was presented to support that thesis in two parts.

first, his remarks were illustrated, then the thesis was proved by documentation presented that showed that his remarks did not conform to objective reality.

that is the way of the dielectic.

unfortunately, you and your buddies have chosen the way of the intellectually derelict.

having you and your buddies object to the thesis without documentation disproving it and rebutting the evidence supporting the original thesis indicates that you don't know what the fukk you are talking about.

as usual.

Mr. Kuvacz. I read your post. I think you are mistaken.

You wrote--"That is the way of the dielectic"

I have been looking all over the internet to find the "dielectic",but I cannot find it.

Also, I never noticed any documetation that PROVED that Bush lied. Would you be so good as to direct me to it?

Thank you, sir!!

(and maybe some clues about where I can find "dielectic". You may have some gnosis unavailable to only a few)

Oh come on, Mr.Kuvasz, you tell us about the dielectic( sic) that you know so much about which is the cornerstone of knowledge but you can't spell it?

Don't you read what you have written? That word--dielectic(sic) is the key word in your request.

Bernard waxes oh so sarcastic about other people's misspellings and seems blind to his own. What is this "documetation" you're seeking, Bernard? Just come off it.

I am seeking documetation(sic) on Kuvasz's dielectic( sic)

But, Mr. username, are you not aware of Mr. Kuvasz' erudition and reputation. He is far more learned that any three A2Ker's put together.

Here I must exclude, Debra L A W---the legal genius

Setanta---Historian par excellence

and one who has
been missing in
action, the
eximious
Mr. Blatham


One is simply not used to seeing Mr. Kuvasz make errors of any kind!!!!

maybe you haven't been keeping up on the news around here but I had a stroke last month that has left most of my left arm and hand paralyzed and has restricted my typing and forced me to rely on the unreliable a2k spell check, schmuck.

(S)he gave you a few examples last page. I'll repeat:




"There are none so blind who will not see"- great quote.

WOULD YOU BE SO GOOD AS TO DO IT YOUR DAMN SELF? YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTS TO PROVE IT WRONG. BY THE WAY, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT.




Anything but.
I don't know why I bothered. I'd would have had better luck getting my dog to understand physics than getting you to see the obvious.