President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Setanta wrote:

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?

We need only compare Bush with Clinton generally, since she wasn't specifically talking about the last 3 weeks of Clinton, but claiming Bush is the most honest President we have had in this century. We "have had" two Presidents in this century. And Bush certainly is the most honest of the two.

0 Replies

Old but an interesting article...

Quote:

The True Lies of George W. Bush

When Democrats accuse George W. Bush of being a liar, Republicans -- and until recently, the media -- have responded that Bush is a man of integrity whom you can trust at his word. It was the evil Bill Clinton who lied. Remember him wagging his finger at us? That bastard!

Well, yes, Bill Clinton did indeed lie to us. He lied to us about a blow-job. It sure is good that we spent nearly $100 million to find out how semen reacts on a cotton blue dress from the Gap. Of course, it turned out that he was telling the truth to us about Whitewater and filegate and travelgate and campaign finance-gate and gate-gate and more. I'm sure we could find better uses for that money today. But, Clinton certainly did lie about that hummer. Imagine that, a man lying about sex. In America no less.

Of course, unlike another president, Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone.

Anyway, I decided to put just a short list together of lies by George W. Bush. These are not banal lies about one's sex life, these are big lies, whoppers and tall tales about his own record, who he is, what he's done and what he stands for.

BUSH LIES

0 Replies

You have failed to establish that the Shrub is more honest than Clinton, in the first place, and you have failed to demonstrate that he has not lied repeatedly, as has been alleged by many members in this thread.

But i'm not surprised. Your m.o. is the argument, not the subject of the thread.

0 Replies

I am sure Setanta has evidence to show that Bush is a greater liar than Clinton.

I am not certain, however, that his evidence, whatever it may be, would withstand the scrutiny of a legal definition.

It is clear, by his own admission, that Clinton lied. He admitted that he lied. I know of no such admission that has come from George W. Bush. In the absence of any judicial finding that George W. Bush has lied and because of William Jefferson Clinton's admission that he did indeed lie, I can only surmize, that at the very least, the score is, Clinton--l lie; Bush- No lies.

What is the proof that Clinton lied?

Why, his very own words---

quote William Jefferson Clinton--

"I tried to walk a very fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not full accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses about Ms. Lewinsky were FALSE."

An addendum is necessary here.

To those who would indicate that Clinton did lie under oath but it was "only" about sex, I am sure that the brilliant legal scholar Debra LAW can tell us that sexual activity is indeed material to many legal claims, both old and new, ranging from actions for divorce and disputes over custody and prosecutions for rape, incest, sodomy, child molestation sexual harrassment, palimony and paternity. The fact that a witness is asked about his sex life does not confer a license to lie, on the theory that sex is private and questions about sex therefore immaterial.

If I missed the fact that President George W. Bush admitted to lying, would someone please reference the fact? Thank you

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

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.

When I created this thread, I stated very clearly that the purpose is to debate only the single question of whether the president is a liar or not - not whether he is good or bad in some other respect, or whether his policies are good or bad. I asked that a certain format be followed in which a quotation was presented along with some evidence or argument supporting the idea that it's a lie. I ask that you show some respect for the right of every thread creator to define his thread, and adhere to the stated topic and at least approximately to the format, or else find some other thread in which to post what you want to post.

You may, of course, ignore my wishes regading the thread, but in that case, I don't imagine anyone will have a very good reason to respect your wishes for threads you create. Should you then ask such an individual to stay on topic or leave your thread, that person will only have to post a link to your behavior here, to make a case that you do not deserve a consideration which you do not yourself show.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
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.

When I created this thread, I stated very clearly that the purpose of this thread is to debate only the single question of whether the president is a liar or not - not whether he is good or bad in some other respect, or whether his policies are good or bad. I asked that a certain format be followed in which a quotation was presented along with some evidence or argument supporting the idea that it's a lie. I ask that you show some respect for the right of every thread creator to define his thread, and adhere to the stated topic and at least approximately to the format, or else find some other thread in which to post what you want to post.

You may, of course, ignore my wishes regading the thread, but in that case, I don't imagine anyone will have a very good reason to respect your wishes for threads you create. Should you then ask such an individual to stay on topic or leave your thread, that person will only have to post a link to your behavior here, to make a case that you do not deserve a consideration which you do not yourself show.

Oh for chrissakes, Brandon, it's not your thread. Try acting like an adult instead of a petulant child.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

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

Shhhh! I'm starting to get curious as to how many times he'll actually say the same thing over and again. It's like he's incapable of moving on until someone addresses him. Funny and sad at the same time.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

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

Shhhh! I'm starting to get curious as to how many times he'll actually say the same thing over and again. It's like he's incapable of moving on until someone addresses him. Funny and sad at the same time.

Typical behavior for a troll. The one thing that drives them looney is ignoring them!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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?

Surprising no one challenged you claiming Jan 1, 2000 was the first day of the 21st Century.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

When I created this thread, I stated very clearly that the purpose is to debate only the single question of whether the president is a liar or not - not whether he is good or bad in some other respect, or whether his policies are good or bad.

Therein lies the problem. If you disagree with a liberal, they label you as a liar. So when Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider, that is clearly an opinion based on political views, so Bush is a liar according to Democrats. He clearly has attempted to compromise with Democrats, but to no avail of course. When Bush stood on the aircraft carrier and declared victory, of course military victory had been achieved in terms of deposing Hussein, but liberals choose to measure his statement by their own standards, that of being victorious over all acts of terrorism in Iraq and establishing a stable system of government there forever. So Bush lied according to them. No intellectual honesty here by Democrats.

Most of the comments, criticisms, and derision aimed at Brandon9000 are mostly intellectually dishonest and poorly reasoned. Most of the so-called lies arise out of disagreements over policy, judgements, and interpretations of evidence by Bush rather than lies. I agree with Ticomayo that the statement about wiretaps always required appears to be a deception about a secret program. Probably an ill advised statement, but one designed to keep an important program away from potential terrorists so that they are not privy to the methods used. It was not a statement to protect his own skin, in my opinion. That is about the only purposeful deception that I might concede that Bush has made. I won't say there might be more if you examine every last word ever uttered by the man, but overall, when I listen to Bush, I understand the points made, and I think he is a fairly straight shooter. Not so with Kerry, Clintons, and certain other Democrats. I wouldn't buy a used car from them, let alone vote for any of them.

As I said before the "Bush is a liar" mantra is born out of the Democrats policy of payback for conservatives hounding Clinton for 8 years. They didn't care about honesty then, so obviously they don't care about it now.

0 Replies

And I am sure that you have noted, Okie, no one wishes to address the legal definition of a lie. I am certain that no one can handle that and PROVE, beyond the shadow of a doubt that President Bush has lied. However, we have the word of William Jefferson Clinton himself, in his plea bargain, that he LIED. I know of no similar admission by President George W. Bush.

0 Replies

Look they're both liars. They even told similar lies.

Clinton lied and shot off on a blue dress.

bush lied and shot off on an entire country.

Simple.

0 Replies

Blue Veined Throbber- Do you have incontoversible evidence of that?

If not, please place it in the category of your own opinion.

Incidentally, President Clinton was not impeached by the House of Representatives for "shot off on a blue dress". He was impeached for obstruction of justice.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Blue Veined Throbber- Do you have incontoversible evidence of that?

If not, please place it in the category of your own opinion.

Incidentally, President Clinton was not impeached by the House of Representatives for "shot off on a blue dress". He was impeached for obstruction of justice.

I will not. I will stand, pillar like, behind my statements and beliefs like our glorious president bush who is leading us to victory in Iraq.

Your demands mean no more to me than the demands of a cowardly terraist who hides in a cave. I will live by the shining example of the liberator if Iraq george w bush.

0 Replies

What a comedy of fools you Bushites are, denying all the way what you know in your heart to be true.

Thanks, Brandon. Thank you very much.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I really did not know that "terraists" hid in caves, Blue Veined Throbber. In fact, I don't know what a "terraist" is?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I really did not know that "terraists" hid in caves, Blue Veined Throbber. In fact, I don't know what a "terraist" is?

ask the illustrious george w bush....

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You have failed to establish that the Shrub is more honest than Clinton, in the first place, and you have failed to demonstrate that he has not lied repeatedly, as has been alleged by many members in this thread.

But i'm not surprised. Your m.o. is the argument, not the subject of the thread.

Sure I have -- not on this thread, but certainly elsewhere. And, unless you've not been paying attehtion, you would see I have demonstrated that Bush has not lied repeatedly, as alleged by the many leftists on this thread.

But I'm not surprised you refuse to admit as much.

And as far as your claim that my "m.o. is the argument, not the subject of the thread," I'm not sure what you intended to mean by stringing those words together in the order you did, but if your intent is to claim I'd prefer to argue than address the subject of the thread, I'd point out that it was you who chose to argue about Clinton's first 3 weeks in office rather than simply agreeing with me. And it strikes me that the subject of this thread is whether Bush is a liar, so the discussion seems entirely on point. But then again it's obvious you just want to be cantankerous, which is your m.o.

And I'd also point out that you were the one who accused me of being full of "poop." That's also your m.o.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What a comedy of fools you Bushites are, denying all the way what you know in your heart to be true.

...

Cycloptichorn

Is that another quote from Colbert, or did you come up with that on your own?

0 Replies

I would like to amend my previous post to specify the last 100 years as the technical intent of my phrase 'this century'. I was not clear on that point, however, and the more discernmentally challenged of course cannot be expected to put much of anything into its proper context.

With that matter cleared up, however, I believe that I addressed Brandon's thesis. I do believe President Bush tells the truth as he understands it as much or more than any other President has done in the last 100 years. He is not given to manufacturing incidents and placing himself within them. He has not been accused of nor convicted of lying under oath. No politico, reporter, nor any of the hundreds or thousands of those who fully intend to hang him if they can prove anything on him have been able to come up with any lie they can prove was a lie.

Remember: the definition of a lie is a statement offered as truth when the person stating it knows it to be untrue or intentionally causing others to believe an untruth.

The evidence that President Bush is not a liar is in the fact that everything he has officially said has so far been true as much as the truth could reasonably be known at the time. The entire record is out there. Disprove anything he has said as a lie if you can.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know