President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Really, even if it had been funny, you would need to follow the rule of three. After three times, it ain't funny. And it wasn't funny the first time.

Tico..


That is hardly moving it to a lower priority. Something is or isn't a priority. If something is on my priority list, I think about it and it is important. If something is on my priority list then it is a priority. If it isn't on the list then it is not a priority.

Your argument Tico is that Bush didn't lie, Bush is just incompetent. Bush, 6 months after 9/11 didn't have a priority of finding the perpetrators. Bush took the job on then failed to do it. Incompetence.



At least Bush has a working plan when it comes to Iraq that will do exactly what he has promised. We only need to wait a little bit.


(Like we only needed to wait for him to get Bin Laden.)

Are you denying that Debra LAW has a brilliant legal mind, Roxxxanne? If you are, you have not read her posts. There is nothing wrong with praising brilliant people. Or are you anti-feminist?



I am amazed that the brilliant legal mind, Debra LAW, has overlooked the legal definition of LIE.

I am quite certain that no one on this thread can prove that President Bush lied in terms of the legal definition of a lie.

again-Debra LAW has inspired me to become precise in my thinking. I will try to follow her example although I will never be able to match her brilliance. I have, because of her example, purchased a Legal Dictionary and am attempting to understand its definitions.

One which fascinates me is the legal definition of Lie.

Black's Law Dictionary--Sixth Edition

quote( Capitals mine)

lie- "A falsehood uttered for the PURPOSE OF DECEPTION; AN INTENTIONAL STATEMENT OF AN UNTRUTH DESIGNED TO MISLEAD ANOTHER"

I am certain that many feel that it is not difficult to decide that a person is a "liar" but, in a court of law, it is necessary that those who make such a charge prove it in terms of the definition above.

When one reviews the statements of President William Jefferson Clinton, in his depositions, some would say that common sense reveals him to be a liar. But such is not the case, legally, for many of his utterances.

The reason that President William Jefferson Clinton was not charged with perjury is that. as Clinton's defenders emphasized,the crime of perjury is narrowly defined in federal law. A false statement under oath is not enough. The statement must be deliberately false, that is, a lie; it must be material to some issue in the proceeding in which it is made; and it must be false rather than merely misleading.

That is why, when Paula Jones's lawyers asked Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, many of his answers would not expose him to prosecution for perjury.

Paula Jones'lawyers were not skillful enough to ask him about specific sex acts. They did not define those acts specifically enough. Therefore, William Jefferson Clinton could not be charged with perjury on those counts.

It is easy enough to call Clinton a liar on those counts. It is, under the law, difficult to prove that he did indeed lie.

Did your mom have any kids that lived, Bernard?

There are many kids alive today in Iraq that will grow up in freedom, thanks to our President's forceful and forthright plan for victory in Iraq! It's right around the corner!

Victory, that is. Iraq's thousands of miles from here.

Now, be nice, Snood. No "Ad Hominem" That's against the rules, you know. Try, if you can, to address the substance of the posts rather than commenting on a person's familial history. As you may be aware, some people feel aggrieved when such questions are raised.

You were saying?

Oh, okay - mea culpa. I meant, did she have any normal kids who lived?

He was asking if your mother delivered any live births, Italgato.

This thread is about Bush, not Clinton. Although i'm not surprised to see the "oh yeah, what about Clinton ? ! ? ! ?" ploy being used . . .

Bookmarking, but I'll draw the fire for a bit.

George Bush is certainly not the most articulate, quick on his feet, or the most competent President of the United States that we have had. He has disappointed me by abandoning some Conservative principles and by ignoring some issues that were important to me.

Having said that, I believe that word for word, comment for comment, promise for promise, and statement for statement, he is by far the most honest President we have had at least in this Century. What he says may turn out not to be right, but I am confident that he believes what he says to be true when he says it.

My definition of a lie is a statement that the speaker or writer knows to be an untruth or incomplete truth. By that definition, George Bush is not a liar in his position as President of the United States.

Set, he's played the Clinton card. Think he'll quote Richard Posner at us next?(Italgato, right--that was one of the ones I couldn't remember, in between massagatto and mortkat)

Now we MUST have accord on this point. :wink:

Aaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You guys slay me . . . i don't which of you is filled with more poop . . .

So as long as you are out of touch with reality you can't be accused of being a liar. Nice one there, it does give us a third choice.

Bush - liar, incompetent or psychotic. - you make the call.

So Fox, this must mean that you think Reagan was dishonest. Can you tell is what it was about Reagan that lead you to decide he was dishonest? This must mean that you think Eisenhower was dishonest. Can you tell us what is was about Eisenhower which lead you to decide he was dishonest?

I won't embarrass you by bringing up Nixon . . .

Again, A lie is legally defined. No one has yet attempted to take the legal definition of a LIE and apply it to President Bush. Why?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am amazed that the brilliant legal mind, Debra LAW, has overlooked the legal definition of LIE.

I am quite certain that no one on this thread can prove that President Bush lied in terms of the legal definition of a lie.

again-Debra LAW has inspired me to become precise in my thinking. I will try to follow her example although I will never be able to match her brilliance. I have, because of her example, purchased a Legal Dictionary and am attempting to understand its definitions.

One which fascinates me is the legal definition of Lie.

Black's Law Dictionary--Sixth Edition

quote( Capitals mine)

lie- "A falsehood uttered for the PURPOSE OF DECEPTION; AN INTENTIONAL STATEMENT OF AN UNTRUTH DESIGNED TO MISLEAD ANOTHER"

I am certain that many feel that it is not difficult to decide that a person is a "liar" but, in a court of law, it is necessary that those who make such a charge prove it in terms of the definition above.

Just curious, Bernard: When you repeat yourself over and over (right now about Deborah Law; the other day it was advocating sex with animals), are you being ironic? You lay it on so thick, it's hard to tell.

One senses, though, that there's a point you're trying to make...

Oh wait, i see my mistake. You said "in this Century" (this ain't German, darlin', we don't capitalize substantives). So then, you were comparing the Bush administration to the last three weeks of Clinton's administration.

You see, this is how it works. The first day of this century was January 1, 2001. The Shrub was sworn in on January 21, 2001. Therefore, you are comparing the Shrub to the last three weeks of Clinton's second term. Can you explain to us the deep and deplorable dishonesty of the last three weeks of Clinton's second term?

The legal definition of a lie is A definition, not THE definition. Do you really need to be reminded that politics is the court of popular opinion, not a court of law? When someone's statements repeatedly have only a fleeting connection at best with the facts, it doesn't really matter whether they are lies, spin, misconceptions, stubborn refusal to listen to anyone else with different information, hubris, incompetence, advisers who fill your tabula rasa with their own peculiarly slanted take, subsequently disproved, and their own biases, informants who forge documents and facts whom you believe implicitly, gullibility, a staff who cherrypicks the data to support their own views, your own cherrypicked data, or some combination of any or all of these.. In most people's minds, that adds up to lies, somewhere along the line. And the buck stops at the Oval Office, no matter how W. twists and turns. No matter how those around him, and he himself, claim it's never his fault.

Incompetence or lies, Bernard, those are the choices.

So are you saying that he is sociopathic cuz he obviously is not telling the F#!@ing truth. Gosh, it is amazing that any sentient human being would defend this madman.

I am certain that many of the people commenting on this topic are not only well informed but rather learned. Some have strengths in special areas. There is a presidential historian named Dr. Fred I. Greenstein, who has extraordinary credentials. Not only is he professor of Politics at one of our leading Universities(Princeton) and the author or editor of eight books on the American Presidency, but he is also the director of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School program in leadership studies.

I believe that his commentary in his book-""The Presidential Difference" may cast some light on these threads.

Quote- P 200( CAPITALS MINE)

" In the world of imaginatiion it is possible to envisage a cognitively and emotionally intelligent chief executive, who happens also to be a inspiring public communicator, a capable White House organizer, and the possessor of exceptional political skill and vision, In the real world, HUMAN IMPERFECTION IS INEVITABLE, BUT SOME IMPERFECTIONS ARE MORE DISABLING THAN OTHERS. Many of the modern presidents have performed adequately without being brilliant orators. Only a fdew chief executives have been organizationally competent. A minimal level of political skill is a precondition of presidential effectiveness , but political skill is widely present in the handful of individuals who rise to the political summit. Vision is rarer than skill, but only Lyndon Johnson weas disasterously deficient in the realm of policy.

Finally there is thought and emotion, The importance of cognitive strength in the presidency should be self-evident. STILL,PRESIDENTS JOHNSON, NIXON, CARTER AND CLINTON HAD IMPRESSIVE INTELLECTS AND DEFECTIVE TEMPERAMENTS. They reversed Justice Holmes' characterization of FDR. Clinton's foibles made him an underachiever and a national embarrassment. Carter's defective temperament contributed to making his time in office a period of lost opportunity. Johnson and Nixon presided over major policy breakthroughs but also over ow of the most unhappy episodes of the twentieth century. ALL FOUR PRESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCES POINT TO THE FOLLOWING MORAL; BEWARE THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER WHO LACKS EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE. IN ITS ABSENCE ALL ELSE MAY TURN TO ASHES>"

end of quote>