Bush Admits He Lied (video)

Typical Bush.

0 Replies

He is simply pathetic...

0 Replies

It looks like a minor lie, but, in this video, he also says that when he made the first statement, he hadn't yet had a final conversation with Rumsfeld on the subject.

BTW, if people who hated you followed you around every waking hour with recording equipment, and then pored over your every word, I suspect that sooner of later, they'd see some statement that wasn't entirely true.

If this is all you've got on this guy after 6 years, that makes him pretty honest. If, on the other hand, it isn't the only lie you've caught him in, then let's discuss the other ones you think he's told in an orderly manner without all kinds of attempts to change the subject or go off on tangents in mid-argument. You don't even begin to have the guts to start an actual, linear, non-hysterical analysis of whether he's a liar without all sorts of personal remarks as distractions. I dare you. I await your change of subject.

0 Replies

I was already starting to wonder, how that guy ever got elected, as you never seem to see and hear any Bush supporters (apart from my husband!)

I think the bad thing is not just the lie.
You might say that it really isn't going to change the world.
What I find pathetic, is the fact, that he doesn't even seem to be bothered by it.
Did he say sorry even once? I don't recall it!

'Well, I had to give you that answer to make you go on to another question..'

Makes you wonder, how often he has tried to get people onto another question!

0 Replies

It called strategy.

If the Republicans held both Houses, Rummy would not have been fired.

Bush took a chip off the table that now the democrats can not bitch about.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

BTW, if people who hated you followed you around every waking hour with recording equipment, and then pored over your every word, I suspect that sooner of later, they'd see some statement that wasn't entirely true.

You had better correct that sentence, Brandon. You missed a key word. The sentence should start as follows: "BTW, if SOME people who hated you...."

Do you see how important it is to place "some" in the sentence? That way one can imagine several hundred people following Bush around, but without the "some" that would indicate that everyone who hated Bush was following him around and who is going to believe that over a billion people would waste their time chasing a simpleton.

Just trying to help, old boy.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Brandon wrote:
BTW, if people who hated you followed you around every waking hour with recording equipment, and then pored over your every word, I suspect that sooner of later, they'd see some statement that wasn't entirely true.

You had better correct that sentence, Brandon. You missed a key word. The sentence should start as follows: "BTW, if SOME people who hated you...."

Do you see how important it is to place "some" in the sentence? That way one can imagine several hundred people following Bush around, but without the "some" that would indicate that everyone who hated Bush was following him around and who is going to believe that over a billion people would waste their time chasing a simpleton.

Just trying to help, old boy.

No, you lack the guts to have a serious, linear debate. You suspect, undoubtedly correctly, that you couldn't win a debate without all sorts of attempted distractions, subject changes, etc.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Brandon wrote:
BTW, if people who hated you followed you around every waking hour with recording equipment, and then pored over your every word, I suspect that sooner of later, they'd see some statement that wasn't entirely true.

You had better correct that sentence, Brandon. You missed a key word. The sentence should start as follows: "BTW, if SOME people who hated you...."

Do you see how important it is to place "some" in the sentence? That way one can imagine several hundred people following Bush around, but without the "some" that would indicate that everyone who hated Bush was following him around and who is going to believe that over a billion people would waste their time chasing a simpleton.

Just trying to help, old boy.

No, you lack the guts to have a serious, linear debate. You suspect, undoubtedly correctly, that you couldn't win a debate without all sorts of attempted distractions, subject changes, etc.

Strong words from someone who is admittedly too cowardly to have an actual judge in a debate.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm just wondering why Brandon apparently cannot graciously accept the fact that Bush lied to the public and even admitted it later. For years he has been demanding proof for one single lie.

It would have been nice if he had had the guts to say something like "Yes, you're right on this one."

Instead what we're seeing is a lot of wriggling and talk about a "a minor lie". In my book, a lie is a lie is a lie.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I'm just wondering why Brandon apparently cannot graciously accept the fact that Bush lied to the public and even admitted it later. For years he has been demanding proof for one single lie.

It would have been nice if he had had the guts to say something like "Yes, you're right on this one."

Instead what we're seeing is a lot of wriggling and talk about a "a minor lie". In my book, a lie is a lie is a lie.

Probably because whenever I ask for an example, 99.9% of the time I get an evasion like this post of yours instead of the requested example.

You fail to perceive that I gave an appropriate answer to this statement of the president's. I said it looks like a lie, but a mitigating factor could be that the president said he had, in fact, not had a final conclusive meeting with Rumsfeld. I also said that if this is all you've got on this guy after 6 years of trying to smear him, he must be pretty close to a saint. How is that non-responsive?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Brandon wrote:
BTW, if people who hated you followed you around every waking hour with recording equipment, and then pored over your every word, I suspect that sooner of later, they'd see some statement that wasn't entirely true.

You had better correct that sentence, Brandon. You missed a key word. The sentence should start as follows: "BTW, if SOME people who hated you...."

Do you see how important it is to place "some" in the sentence? That way one can imagine several hundred people following Bush around, but without the "some" that would indicate that everyone who hated Bush was following him around and who is going to believe that over a billion people would waste their time chasing a simpleton.

Just trying to help, old boy.

No, you lack the guts to have a serious, linear debate. You suspect, undoubtedly correctly, that you couldn't win a debate without all sorts of attempted distractions, subject changes, etc.

Strong words from someone who is admittedly too cowardly to have an actual judge in a debate.

Cycloptichorn

First of all, this post of yours is nothing but a logical fallacy. I know that attacking a poster when you can't compete with his ideas is par for the course for most liberals, but let me remind you that my personal merits or demerits have nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of any of my assertions, and do not constitute a disproof of anything I say. You cannot disprove an idea by pointing out personal faults of the person who says it. This is elementary.

Furthermore, despite the fact that your comment is irrelevant, I'm going to answer it. You are in no position to call me a debating coward, since you were, in fact, too cowardly to have the debate at all. Let's review what happened:

1. You challenged me to a formal debate, asserting that you could beat me in a debate on any subject of my choosing.
2. I chose a subject and rules were agreed upon by us.
3. The debate began, and as soon as you saw that my arguments didn't correspond to what you had anticipated they would be, you asked to have the rules changed.
4. I refused saying that I preferred to adhere to the agreed upon rules, rather than change them in the middle of the debate.
5. You withdrew from the debate, despite the fact that I was perfectly happy to continue.

By any standard, this constitutes a loss by you.

0 Replies

Oh come on! That is barely a lie, if at all. He shouldn't be attacked for something so inconsequential as that. Damn, that lie is almost as inconsequential as that one that Clinton told about not getting his dick sucked by that chunky lady. What was her name again?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I'm just wondering why Brandon apparently cannot graciously accept the fact that Bush lied to the public and even admitted it later. For years he has been demanding proof for one single lie.

It would have been nice if he had had the guts to say something like "Yes, you're right on this one."

Instead what we're seeing is a lot of wriggling and talk about a "a minor lie". In my book, a lie is a lie is a lie.

because he's president of the debate club, head of the school av team, tough hall monitor, longest serving safety patrol boy and keeper of the pocket protector. But, you knew that right? that was a rhetorical question right?

take joke Brandon, you know I love and admire you.

0 Replies

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/BushStatue.jpg

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

because he's president of the debate club, head of the school av team, tough hall monitor, longest serving safety patrol boy and keeper of the pocket protector. But, you knew that right? that was a rhetorical question right?

Yes it was.

<grins>

0 Replies

My error, Brandon, was in failing to point out that we weren't having a formal debate.

Formal debates require either a moderator or a judge, neither of which we had, because you were too afraid... let's see, what were your words? Oh yes, you were 'too afraid the winner would be judged the loser.' Which is your way of saying 'I'm too afraid of losing.' As you were assuredly not afraid of being judged the winner even though I had better arguments.

You are too much of a coward, and I'll prove it again: let's have another debate, with a judge, whom we both will agree upon. I have no time to argue past each other for dozens of pages with no successfull conclusion, and I don't even need to read your arguments to know that I think you are wrong; so without structure there is no point.

Put up or shut up. Agreeing to a debate only if there is no judge is cowardly. As soon as I realized you had no intention of doing so, I should have slapped you down then; you are correct in that it was my mistake allowing things to go on.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm a mix of Bush-despiser and Bush-pity-er, if I didn't look at the waves of harm from the pitiable bits ...

but, I think lying in this case is usual; offices of state and business, from big conglomerates to small shops, tap dance on interviews some fair amount of the time, though not always.

Lying in defensive talk, however inept or not, is a natural trait. Many times people come around and admit to failings, or to what is actually going on, but saying No at an immediate question is normal.

There are other matters to pay attention to now besides this kind of gotcha. Let us move along.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My error, Brandon, was in failing to point out that we weren't having a formal debate.

Formal debates require either a moderator or a judge, neither of which we had, because you were too afraid... let's see, what were your words? Oh yes, you were 'too afraid the winner would be judged the loser.' Which is your way of saying 'I'm too afraid of losing.' As you were assuredly not afraid of being judged the winner even though I had better arguments.

You are too much of a coward, and I'll prove it again: let's have another debate, with a judge, whom we both will agree upon. I have no time to argue past each other for dozens of pages with no successfull conclusion, and I don't even need to read your arguments to know that I think you are wrong; so without structure there is no point.

Put up or shut up. Agreeing to a debate only if there is no judge is cowardly. As soon as I realized you had no intention of doing so, I should have slapped you down then; you are correct in that it was my mistake allowing things to go on.

Cycloptichorn

Withdrawing from a debate in progress is a clear forfeit. Once the debate started, under conditions you agreed upon, you had no right whatever to demand that the rules be changed. I agree now to pick up the debate precisely where we left off, under precisely the agreed upon rules.

0 Replies

Brandon, do you realize what a laughing stock you have become here? Anyone with an ounce of pride would have quietly slithered away long ago.

0 Replies

Bush Admits He Lied (video)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know