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.
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.
Foxfyre- You will never get the "proof". You will get conjecture but not proof. And more to the point, you will never get the proof that President Bush lied as a lie is defined in the law.
With all of the bluster of the left wing, they seem to know almost nothing about law--all but the brilliant Debra LAW, that is.
BernardR wrote:Foxfyre- You will never get the "proof". You will get conjecture but not proof. And more to the point, you will never get the proof that President Bush lied as a lie is defined in the law.
With all of the bluster of the left wing, they seem to know almost nothing about law--all but the brilliant Debra LAW, that is.
Well Tico has a reasonably good grasp on the law too I think.
Foxfyre wrote: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.
I knew what you meant, Foxy.
Quote: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.
Well, not the wiretapping/court order comment, based on what we know.
Ticomaya wrote:Foxfyre wrote: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.
I knew what you meant, Foxy.
Quote: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.
Well, not the wiretapping/court order comment, based on what we know.
Okay, explain the wiretapping/court order comment from your perspective. Or was that discussed earlier in the thread? I thought I read through it all. And again I misspoke. My phrase should read: "....the fact that everything he has official;u said has so far been true as much as he could reasonably know the truth at the time."
(I shouldn't do this when seriously sleep deprived.)
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Foxfyre wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Foxfyre wrote: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.
I knew what you meant, Foxy.
Quote: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.
Well, not the wiretapping/court order comment, based on what we know.
Okay, explain the wiretapping/court order comment from your perspective. Or was that discussed earlier in the thread? I thought I read through it all. And again I misspoke. My phrase should read: "....the fact that everything he has official;u said has so far been true as much as he could reasonably know the truth at the time."
(I shouldn't do this when seriously sleep deprived.)
Sure. This is what Bush said on April 20, 2004, in a speech regarding the Patriot Act:
Quote:Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
LINK
Now I admit there may be a built-in ambiguity here, because one could argue that put in context, Bush was speaking about "roving wiretaps" in the context of the Patriot Act, not wiretaps in general, but what he said was, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," and "when we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." The clear meaning seems to be that anytime the government obtains a wiretap, it requires a court order. We have since learned that is not the case with the NSA warrantless surveillance program, which began shortly after 9/11/01.
An assertion that he did not lie here must rest on a claim that because of the context, he was only referring to roving wiretaps. But that's not what he said, and even knowing Bush's inarticulate tendencies, this seems a stretch.
What I ask is that anyone who wishes to show that he does lie state in each post:
1. A single quotation of the President's which is a lie
2. A bit of evidence, or an argument to demonstrate that it's a lie.
