Ignorance ?= Lie

The only way anyone is going to prove Bush willfully misrepresented the truth is to prove that he knew there were no WMD's, and that ain't gonna happen unless someone finds some incriminating audio recordings or has a time machine.

Maybe the poll should have said, "Someone is being dishonest if...."

Kind of like the whole "rendition" thing. We don't send kidnapees (oh, uh, sorry, I meant, detainees) to countries where we KNOW they will be tortured. Of course, we do send them to countries where torture is commonplace, but we are willfully ignorant about how the countries behave toward prisoners....

That's pretty much dishonest. Of course, with the whole WMD thing, the administration didn't only tell us that Sadam had them, they told us in detail how much he had. They showed us photos of "mobile weapons" facilities and told us about secret uranium deals in Africa. They showed us documents that any high school student with a set of encyclopedias could have proven to be forgeries. They also told us a couple of times, after the war started, that they had found them. They, uh, yeah, they uh, just umm, went away once the journalists got there. Throughout the whole thing, what did the administration not tell us? They failed to mention all the evidence that showed that their evidence wasn't reliable. That's just plain dishonest.

Where are the Congressional investigations? These are the people who investigated the funding of Bill Clinton's cat's fan club, but they can't investigate this? Dishonest, lying, thieving bastards.

Just my opinion, though....

Iggy told me there would be pie in this thread.

Given the whole point was to discredit my argument into "Oh noes, you called it teh lie!!1" - the only relevancy left of that old discussion here is vague at best.


Now, is Bush a de facto liar? Surely. I seem to remember hearing glaring inaccuracies and direct quotes out of context here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

Which isn't to say the Democrat leaders don't love to lie, too. FactCheck is my news of choice because it bashes on both parties and their leaders more or less equally.

I vote independant, for the record. Campaign 2004 I voted a split ticket in terms of party lines, about even Republican and Democrat. No, I did not vote for Bush. No, I did not believe Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction worth our time. Sorry.

Lucky for us you're not the judge in most criminal cases. All you would need to prove is that Bush had evidence his information was unreliable and suppressed that information while pushing evidence of WMD. And that is just what the media is finally starting to report.

We'll see when we see. I am not going to hide my intense dislike for our president. It would ratify my opinion and suspicion of him if we did find out with hard evidence (and I would have the same suspicion of any politician in his position, even one that had elocutionary abilities), but in terms of declaring him a liar beyond the given that all politicians are liars takes real evidence. Beyond just saying that people are starting to find it out.

Lecktor=1
Chance=0

Okay, well, here's a lie for you. This was said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo NY



He said this on April 19, 2004



Liar enough for you?

Did you vote?

When you state something as fact when you don't actually know it to be true, it's a lie.

I dont think this statement is true at all.

No one I met thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even the media in my country, slave to US interests that it is, did not think so. None of the actual investigators charged with checking it out thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in fact the lead invesitgator was quite clear about it. Pretty much everyone outside of the USA was quite certain that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe it wasn't just Bush that thought Sadam had them, but it was mostly just the American government who were pushing that line, and certainly not even the majority of them at that.

To say that "everyone thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" is historical revisionism. It did not actually happen that way.

When you state something as fact, provided to you by your intelligence agencies, while you are in the highest office in the land you are not a liar.

If he's such a liar after all these years by all means raise impeachment. Oh right, you have to prove it. My bad. But while you're at it, let's prosecute the entire cabinet and agency heads. Only fair after all.

BTW, I saw WMD's during my vacation in sunni Iraq.

ROCK THE VOTE

Chance the score is still Lecktor 1 - Chance 0

Oh wait, here's another one,




As reported in the Washington Post, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

Yep

We did. I've got some pics.
Again, did you vote?

Good, just wanted to set the pace here.

Two things here. His intelligence agencies also reported that the reports of WMD were of questionable veracity. So, when you have reports that can't be verified from suspect sources and you state them as fact, yes you can be fairly called a liar. And the second is, you don't have to prove anything to get someone impeached, the Clinton impeachment proved that. All you have to do is have the votes in Congress. As long as the Republicans control Congress, Bush won't be investigated seriously. That's called corruption.

What does the office have to do with it? All of the evidence that Powell presented to the UN was under major doubt, not just by foreign intelligence agencies, but by many within our own. The documents that spawned the yellowcake story were already known to be forgeries. They lied. Brazenly. Even if it had turned out to be true they'd still have lied. Impeachable lies? I don't think so. Every administration is instrested in the sales pitch first and the facts second, and it's certainly not limited to republican administrations.

The neo-cons had invading Iraq on their to-do list before they ever got in office (PNAC anyone?). They opportunistically pulled together whatever evidence they could find to build the case for war. They called it a slam dunk case when they knew full well all of the evidence was in doubt. It was never about Iraq posing an immediate threat to the US, or fear of them supplying nukes to Al Qaeda. It was all about the long term domino theory advocated by the neo-cons. Any claim by the administration that that's not the case is a bald faced lie in my opinion.

March on soldier. Campaign year '07 is around the corner. I predicted this would go on and on in these forums until the next Pres. election year and I savor the outcome of that. Your voice may be the one that makes the change you so valiantly seek. Until then we won't know how that will turn out will we?

Actually it's next year's Congressional elections that are important right now. To get the President investigated and impeached we need to get Democrats and moderate Republicans elected. Come 2008 Bush will leave office anyway. Hopefully he'll be out before then. And my very favorite lie Bush has told?

Well hell you sure set me straight. Beat your heads into the wall for all I care. These discussions are a redundant loop that frankly I'm tired of. All I ask for is respect for the troops. You give that and you won't see my Sedaeku Flamebringer ®

My older brother is retired Air Force, my little brother did a stint in the Marines. My uncle was Navy, my aunt was a WAC. My father spent 20 years in the Coast Guard. My step-father was in WWII. One brother-in-law is retired Navy, the other was in the Army National Guard. You don't respect the troops in my family and we take it very personal. Opposition to the President and his policies isn't a sign of disrespect for the troops. It's one of the liberties they're fighting to preserve. We're damned lucky to live in a country like this, and we are even more lucky to have such dedicated people looking out for our defense.

How do typographical errors enter into this?

Since when did I become God?

The last thing I want to do is answer anyone's prayers.

I thought the issue was whether or not he is a liar because of Iraq.

My personal opinion of politicians is already self-evident in the broad scope of things.