Can you document claims that Bush lied?

[Buzz Clik]

An interesting phenomenon that happens on bulletin boards like DU is that some accepted notions generally go unchallenged. We pretty much accept that Cheney is evil, Larry Craig is a hypocrite, and Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

However, some of our mantras are don't hold much water outside the friendly confines of our little community. A perfect example is our basic understanding that "Bush lied." For some people, Bush is assumed to be lying every time he speaks. However, a lie has a very specific definition that includes knowledge that what is being said is untrue.

I'd be very interested in hearing from DUers who wouldn't mind posting their favorite Bush lie and solid evidence that Bush lied. Please keep in mind that being wrong is not the same as being a liar -- a liar must know that he is speaking untruths.

Well? Any takers? PLEASE! Provide direct evidence of these are lies and not simply cases of Bush being clueless.

[babylonsister]

1. Valerie Plame comes to mind. We will punish those involved and/or

responsible, let the investigation run its course. Doesn't appear that happened.

This could be a long thread!

[Junkdrawer]

2. His OWN press secretary said he lied:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6994.html

[Buzz Clik]

10. Pardon me while I play the role of devil's advocate:

"I had unknowingly passed along false information," McClellan wrote. "And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

That's pretty vague. He implicates Bush in being involved in the smoke screen, but we really don't have a case of Bush saying X when he knew it was a lie.

[Junkdrawer]

15. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is...

:wtf:

[Buzz Clik]

21. No, I'm not trying to be evasive.

I'm really looking to see how much of "Bush lied" we can actually prove.

[dorkulon]

153. WaPo:

"In June 2004, Bush replied 'yes' when asked if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800689.html

Specific enough for you?

[Buzz Clik]

5. In the case of Plame, lies were told, but was it Bush who was lying?

I am convinced that Scott McClellan resigned as Press Secretary because he fed lies by Karl Rove, Libby, and others in terms of no involvement. Is there any indication that Bush lied in this case?

[babylonsister]

9. I find it totally unrealistic to believe he knew nothing about it, but

I guess you're right, there's no solid evidence. Without knowing what the atmosphere is in the wh, I suppose it's possible he was kept in the dark. I just don't buy it.

[LeFleur1]

145. Bush Lies

He either knew or he's not the real president.

[bowens43]

11. If a member of his administartion lies he does so with bushes blessing

If he/she lies and he/she speaks for the administration , it's bush lying.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Bush is ultimately responsible for his staff. Absolutely.

But when "Brownie" tells us he did everything in his power to get FEMA moving after Katrina when in reality he was paralyzed with fear, is that Bush's lie? No.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Bush is responsible for his staff, but it really isn't his lie.

When "Brownie" told the country that he did everything in his power to get FEMA moving after Katrina when the reality is that he was cowering in fear, that was Brown's lie, not Bush's.

[creeksneakers2]

134. Bush said he didn't know about the levees breaking until

long after the fact. That turned out not to be true. Brownie told him on the phone. Bush ignored the problem.

[spanone]

42. bu$h* lied. said he would fire anyone involved. said it on the telly.

[Buzz Clik]

45. Is that really a lie?

If he already knew that Rove was involved and if he had already decided that Rove would not be fired, then he lied. Is that the case? Can we prove that? Otherwise, it's simply a case of him changing his mind.

I think he lied on this subject, but I cannot prove it.

[kas125]

141. But changing your mind AFTER you've stated your intent to do something

IS a lie. The very act of changing your mind and deciding not to do what you previously said you'd do makes what you said previously a lie.

[Branjor]

3. His campaign pledge

not to engage in nation building. Remember that one?

[Buzz Clik]

13. Yes, and he certainly didn't keep that pledge.

But, at the time he made the pledge, did he already have personal plans in place to build nations? Or, did "everything change because of 911?"

[Branjor]

16. The Downing Street memo

reveals that the Bush administration planned to go to war with Iraq from the very beginning, before 9/11.

[Buzz Clik]

27. Good. That comes very, very close.

The best Bush can do is the magic plausible deniability.

[Sugar Smack]

105. I really like what you're doing here.

:)

[Beausoleil]

31. "build nations" - who knows?

but he did plan to attack Iraq, his goal was "to be seen as a commander-in-chief":

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

I think most of us have seen this quote.

[Libby2]

128. He said, I don't believe in nation building,

apparently he does.

[AlinPA]

4. "Mission Accomplished". Evidence: what's been going on in Iraq since then.

[Buzz Clik]

14. But Bush didn't put up that banner. In fact, his admin claims they had nothing to do with it.

[AlinPA]

23. He said that combat operations were completed. What has been going on since?

[Lars39]

24. This post covers it pretty well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=902002&mesg_id=902046

[Buzz Clik]

28. Ok. That works.

This doesn't rise to the level "lying to the American people to get us into war with Iraq", but that's pretty damned solid.

:thumbsup:

[Stephanie]

97. Oh thanks!

:hi:

[Stephanie]

96. He was LYING >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=642138

************************************************************

<snip>Soon enough, Commander Daniels called to say that one person in the meetings preparing for the ship's homecoming was Cmdr. Ron Horton, the executive officer of the Lincoln and the ship's second in command.

Commander Horton was too busy to come to the phone, Lt. Cmdr. Daniels said, but he recounted what he said Commander Horton had told him about a shipboard meeting in late April with officers of the Lincoln and members of the White House advance team. The team, including security, had boarded the ship in Hawaii around April 28 to make preparations for the president's speech — some 75 to 100 people strong.

"The White House said, `Is there anything we can do for you?' " Commander Daniels said. "Somebody in that meeting said, `You know, it would sure look good if we could have a banner that said `Mission Accomplished.' "

And who was that someone? "No one really remembers," Commander Daniels said.

One of the White House communications people in the meeting, Commander Daniels said, was Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer who oversaw the production of the sign. Mr. Sforza did not return telephone calls seeking comment last week.<more>

************************************************************

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/national/03LETT.html

[Oilwellian]

104. Which is a lie

ROFLMAO!

[Zynx]

111. Uh huh. Right.

He certainly didn't say, "Take that down because there is a hard road ahead of us."

[Buzz Clik]

115. Don't get the impression I think Bush tells the truth much.

I'm simply relating what he has said. And, quite clearly, what he said has been disproved when you look at some of the other posts in this subthread.

[niyad]

121. the NAVY had nothing to do with that banner.

[Blarch]

6. I will bite.

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power," http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html


We all know the inspectors were allowed in Iraq. What do I win ?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. You do not have to pay the troll. nt.

[Buzz Clik]

29. I agree, that's shady.

However, Saddam did not allow them in until the wheels of the military were already moving. We had an invasion date scheduled for at least a few weeks before Saddam finally relented.

We all know that there were no WMD there, and we all suspect that Bush knew this, too. But, trying to prove a lie requires a pretty clear evidence.

This is close, but no cigar.

[Blarch]

36. WTF ?

Bush said the inspectors were not allowed in.

The fact is they were let in. Was he wrong ? ..or lying ?

I find it hard to believe he didn't know the inspectors were inside Iraq.

I win, Lock the thread. :toast:

[Buzz Clik]

37. No, that's not what I said.

Blix was still in Iraq within a day or two of when the bombs started falling. He told Bush there was no evidence of WMD, and Bush told him to leave Iraq to avoid what was coming.

BUT! Saddam did keep the inspectors out for years, and he defied Bush for several months before finally relenting.

You and I both know that Bush was going to bomb Iraq anyway, but his statement really is not a lie.

[bowens43]

7. Lies do not have to be specific.

Exaggerations are lies. Distortions are lies. Misleading statements are lies.

Anyone whop says that we can't document bushes lies is an idiot.

[Buzz Clik]

30. I agree, but ...

Bush's words have always been carefully scripted. He has been led by a team of writers and lawyers who might very sure that his words don't cross into the "lie" category.

Bush claiming after the 2004 election that he now had "a lot of political capital" was a total exaggeration, but hardly amounts to a lie.

[truedelphi]

132. I think the media is saying this sometimes now

The talking heads, (maybe Keith Olberman?), will mention that Bush never came out and said that Iraq
was behind the Nine Eleven strike.

But he set up his speeches so that the one image flowed along into the other - nine eleven - Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

If you go back and try to find him actually SAYING it, I don't think anyone can.

But the way his speeches were set up, it was implied.

[Sugar Smack]

110. Lies of omission are also lies.

Those may be the worst, because they cannot be specifically documented.

[chelsea0011]

8. Iraq has WMD's and is reconstituting his nuclear weapons programs

Niger, anyone?

[Buzz Clik]

32. Well, most of that boils down to interpretation.

We all know now that the intelligence was cherry picked to make the case. Was Bush a part of that? Did he know that the case he was making was a lie? Can we prove that?

[chelsea0011]

44. You would have to believe that the President was out of the loop

at every security meeting and then Cheney pulled him aside and handed him a piece of paper with the truth written for him. I don't have the logs of the meetings but an impeachment hearing would certianly get them released. But can I do it? No.

[Buzz Clik]

46. agreed.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Jerry Politex at BushWatch compiled a list of lies in one debate in 2000:

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies2.html

[Warren Stupidity]

17. I have pictures of his lips moving. nt.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

18. Searching on the string "bush plausible deniability" returns a lot of potential cases.

Good starting point if anyone's game.

[spanone]

25. there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq .....evidence enough

[Buzz Clik]

35. But he was told by the Director of the CIA that the evidence was strong enough to make the case.

So, was lying, or simply repeating bad information?

[creeksneakers2]

135. He was lying

A memo was later released which noted a conversation between Bush and Blair. Bush told Blair that he didn't expect the inspectors to find any WMD. Some of the intelligence Bush said proved WMD was satellite intelligence - building that wouldn't move or go away. By a month later, inspectors were saying the satellite intelligence was all garbage. So Bush must have known in advance that intelligence was bogus.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Websites and books are devoted to the subject:

http://www.bushlies.net/

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bush-Lies-Telling-President/dp/1883991943

[kelligesq]

33. his lips moved.

:puke:

[TacticalPeek]

34. ‘I’ve Not Made Up My Mind’

(admittedly this assumes a mind not in evidence)


Spanish Notes Reveal Bush Was Hell-Bent On War, Despite Claiming ‘I’ve Not Made Up My Mind’

Today, the Spanish newspaper El Pais published a transcript of a discussion between President Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in February 2003 in which Bush told Aznar that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein with or without a UN resolution:

“We must take him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready.”

Though Aznar asked Bush to “have a little patience” and urged, “It is very important to have a resolution,” Bush pushed for war throughout the meeting, telling the Spanish Prime Minister, “We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.”

Just a few days later, Bush insisted to the American public that war with Iraq was not a certainty:

BUSH: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” <3/6/03>

BUSH: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” <3/8/03>

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/bush-aznar-talk/


There are numerous other items that establish this lie, including the WH meeting in March 2002, undenied, when Bush told Senators etc. "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.", and his first NSC meeting that Paul O'Neil documents, and his orders to move key assets out of Afghanistan in spring 2002 to prepare for Iraq, and the little-noted Operation Badger, etc etc etc.

Now, that's a damn lie.

[Buzz Clik]

40. In my view, this is the strongest case for Bush lying.

There are all kinds of indications that BushCo had solid plans to invade Iraq well 9-11 and even before the 2000 election.

[Echo In Light]

52. "All kinds of indications?" It's called the PNAC. Read up

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[wishlist]

38. More often, Bush's surrogates Rice and Cheney have told the blatant lies

Bush is a very sly crafty politician who has successfully avoided outright lies in favor of evasive misleading remarks and deliberate deception (lies of omission) in order to avoid impeachment. Instead he allows (encourages?) his immediate subordinates and spokespeople to do the outright lying, one reason why there are stronger grounds for Cheney to be impeached. For instance Condoleeza stated they had no prior warnings about Bin Laden intending to attack and she claimed total ignorance about the possibility of terrorist attacking by use of planes. Cheney has repeatedly lied about Saddam having WMD's and having ties with Al Qaeda and responsibility over 9/11.

Many of what are perceived are Bush lies are not outright lies but misleadingly deceptive and evasive statements such as his explanations about his intentions regarding Social Security reform when he said during the 2000 campaign that he would not reduce benefits when in fact as soon as he won reelection he pushed his privatization scheme that included reductions in guaranteed benefits to future recipients (but no reductions to current beneficiaries).

Bush lied about his Administration not being responsible for Plame leaks and his intention to punish those involved in the Plame wrongdoing. But he deflected the lie by claiming personal ignorance and that the matter was up to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury to determine criminal wrongdoing, not just wrongdoing. However he cemented his dishonesty over that matter by letting his subordinates get away with their silence and lies when it became known they were involved and finally by commuting Libby's sentence. But he has gotten away with that due to Congress's unwillingness to hold him accountable.

Another good example of a very deliberate lie of omission (Romney is using this same lie now) is his statements about Saddam not letting the UN inspectors in. But he got away with that because in the past Saddam had prevented UN inspectors in so Bush could 'honestly' claim that Saddam would not let the inspectors in, while failing to disclose that Saddam HAD let them in during the runup to the 2003 invasion.

[Buzz Clik]

43. Exactly. You have captured the entire point of this thread.

We have been lied to by the Bush administration. Repeatedly. However, attributing these lies to Bush is nearly impossible.

[NashVegas]

39. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of"

of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving."

[Buzz Clik]

48. I believe that Bush is still convinced that he told the truth.

You and I know it was absolutely and totally wrong. But, if he believed it at the time, he wasn't lying.

[NashVegas]

50. We Happen to Disagree

I guess there's not much more to be said.

[Buzz Clik]

53. I'm not sure we disagree much.

One of the points of this thread has to do with the constant drumbeat for impeachment. To impeach a president, we'd need some rock solid evidence of crimes and misdemeanors. The admininstration certainly is guilty of all that, but does it clearly fall back in Bush's lap?

[lame54]

94. you need to offer up proof on that

[Buzz Clik]

114. Offer proof of my belief, or that he thinks he was telling the truth?

As far as my belief goes, you'll have to trust me.

With regard to Bush, he has said it in a least one of his softball interviews. I don't have a link at this time, but I'm not sure how relevant it is.

[lame54]

130. You use the words "accepted' and "assumed" and I think...

the word "believe" is equivalent to those in this context.
Belief does not require proof
Yet, you are asking for PROOF from those that assume or accept that what Bush is saying are lies.
They assume or accept because he has damaged his own credibility.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2712766

[TankLV]

143. If someone tells a deliberate falsehood, even if they tell themselves it's true - it's still LYING..

a lie doesn't depend on the teller believing it is true - if the facts show otherwise - it's still a LIE...

[wishlist]

41. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" n/t

[Buzz Clik]

47. I think that qualifies more as delusion or, possibly, bullshit on Bush's part.

Not really a lie.

[demgurl]

157. Bullshit = lie

My husband comes home and tells me that his secretary and he only slept together but didn;t do anything physical, that is bullshit. It is a lie. BULLSHIT = LIE

[Wizard777]

49. Don't forget about the lie of ommission. Did he tell the WHOLE Truth? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

55. No. Very seldom if ever.

[Echo In Light]

51. How many times has he used the term "war on terror?" That's a LIE every time

You're clueless yourself if you actually require an explanation.

[wintersoulja]

54. I can document the last time they told the truth

Right after those Saudis pulled a fast one on the twin towers.
Military/gubbmint honcho was quoted thus-
"We will be lying to the American people"

last true thing that they ever said.

[L. Coyote]

56. Too broad. How about lies in the State of the Unions only LOL

[Buzz Clik]

62. Absolutely!

We're all convinced that he's been dishonest for the past 7 years. But calling someone a liar really does require a bit of solid documentation.

[LanternWaste]

57. During his November 8 press conference, President Bush announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's...

"During his November 8 press conference, President Bush announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary and nominated former CIA director Robert Gates to take his place, even though days before the November 7 elections, Bush had said he wanted Rumsfeld to stay on through the end of his presidency. Bush explained that the reason for announcing Rumsfeld's resignation after the elections was due to the fact that he "didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign"; however, media outlets, with few exceptions, have avoided characterizing what Bush did as a "lie" or intentional misrepresentation -- this, despite Bush's own admission of a deliberate deception. Some outlets even failed to acknowledge Bush's November 1 statement that Rumsfeld would stay."


http://mediamatters.org/items/200611100005

[Buzz Clik]

63. Yep. That's definitely one. Thank you.

[hfojvt]

99. it is? I probably would cut him some slack.

First, it depends on what exactly he said. The quoted article says that he said "He wants Rumsfeld to stay". That could still be true, but he is caving to public pressure that wants Rumsfeld to go. Suppose he had announced Rumsfeld's resignation two days before the elections. Wouldn't we think he was doing so in order to help Republicans? Suppose, OTOH, that Democrats had not captured both houses of Congress. Would Rumsfeld still resign? I don't think so.

[LanternWaste]

117. "And my answer was, they’re going to stay on"

I think his quote is rather unambiguous and leaves little room for any defense...

"THE PRESIDENT: Right. No, you and Hunt and Keil came in the Oval Office, and Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they’re going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9009.html

[Buzz Clik]

118. I see your point, but basically this amounts to a classic politician's lie.

He says one thing because it's politically expedient, and then the truth comes out. Bush shrugs and says, "Ok, the timing wasn't right to tell the truth" and we accept that.

This isn't a lie that rises to the level of impeachable offense, but he certainly was being far from truthful.

[w8liftinglady]

58. try this site-hope you have lots of time

http://www.525reasons.com/

[Buzz Clik]

65. I scrolled through the first two screens. You're right -- it will take some time.

Most of what I saw there was dodging, shuffling, tap dancing around the truth, etc. Nothing that really amounts to an old fashioned lie. (Don't misunderstand -- you don't have to be a liar to be a criminal. In no way to I defend Bush and his administration.)

[zabet]

59. What about...

"I will get OBL, dead or alive."

He didn't do it when he had a chance
and has even said he doesn't even think
about OBL much anymore (except when the
fear level in America needs ramping up a
notch or two).

[Buzz Clik]

66. Yes, that's annoying as hell and a symbol of his incompetence.

Is it really a lie?

[zabet]

69. Well, so far it is...

He hasn't made good on that
statement yet and seemingly
has no intention of doing so.

[OnyxCollie]

60. Iraq on the Record.

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

About Iraq on the Record
Presented by Rep. Henry A. Waxman

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” Two years later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration’s assertions about the threat posed by Iraq.

Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Iraq on the Record is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. It contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made. It does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, it was excluded even if it now appears erroneous. For more information on how the statements were selected, see the full methodology. The Iraq on the Record Report is a comprehensive examination of these statements.

Iraq on the Record is searchable by the the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq:

President George W. Bush
Vice President Dick Cheney
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell
Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

It is also searchable by issue area:

Iraq's Nuclear Capabilities
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Iraq as an Urgent Threat

It is also searchable by keyword, such as "mushroom cloud", "uranium", or "bin Laden."

[Buzz Clik]

67. You definitely have this on the right track.

The key is in this passage:

It contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made. It does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, it was excluded even if it now appears erroneous.

That is exactly what we're looking for.

Now, the question is: How much of this is directly attributable to Bush? I'll sift through this when I get the time.

Thanks.

[frylock]

61. downing street minutes

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

[NNN0LHI]

64. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush said in an interview with a Polish TV station.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060413/ai_n16171583

WMDs refuted before Bush spoke

Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Apr 13, 2006 by Nedra Pickler Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The White House faced new questions Wednesday about President Bush's contention three years ago that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.

The Washington Post reported that a Pentagon-sponsored team of experts determined in May 2003 that two small trailers were not used to make biological weapons. Yet two days after the team sent its findings to Washington in a classified report, Bush declared just the opposite.

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush said in an interview with a Polish TV station. "We found biological laboratories."

[Buzz Clik]

68. That was a completely wrong statement, but Bush was simply repeating bad information.

The story had hit the news in the US before Bush made the announcement in Poland. It wasn't shown to be ca-ca until some time later.

[NNN0LHI]

71. Thats not what it says in the link I provided

>>>The Washington Post reported that a Pentagon-sponsored team of experts determined in May 2003 that two small trailers were not used to make biological weapons. Yet two days after the team sent its findings to Washington in a classified report, Bush declared just the opposite.<<<

[Buzz Clik]

72. oops. Another posted had put that one up on this thread...

... and it didn't mention that the truth was already known.

Wow. Declaring that they found WMD after they knew they hadn't. That's just stupid.

If Bush knew the truth about all that, then was surely lying.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

73. Some excellent quotes -- and some are definite lies.

I'm guessing that some of these are included in the website linked in Post #60 on this thread.

Thanks!!!

[Octafish]

74. ''We do not torture.''

I guess you could make a case for Bush that it IS somebody else who's doing the torture.

[Buzz Clik]

76. You know, this may be the most interesting one of the bunch.

Just about everyone associated with intelligence gathering considers waterboarding to be a form of torture. However, Bush always carefully qualifies his comments about it within the context of US law; this is particularly cute considering the incredible latitude being taken by the Office of Legal Counsel in this regard.

Personally, I think your quote is definitely a flat lie. I'm curious how this would shake out if he said it under oath and someone tried to show he was committing perjury.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

75. He said he had to go to war because Hussein kicked the inspectors out. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. Indeed - documentation of 3 times Bush lied about that

"Saddam chose to deny inspectors"

Bush repeated this bald-faced lie recently. The cowering press still lets him get away with it, but the public is no longer fooled.
...
And when Thomas reminded him that she had asked about Iraq, he said, "I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the (United Nations) Security Council; that's why it was important to pass (Resolution) 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose (emphasis added), then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it."
...
Asked by reporters about the questionable intelligence on Iraq that had distorted his speeches and decisions, the president bristled. He clearly believed such questions impertinent and unimportant. He preferred to talk about the big picture. In his concluding remarks that afternoon, Bush said: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in (emphasis added). And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."
...
"Don't you owe the American people an explanation?" a reporter asked. "Well, I think the Iraq Survey Group must do its work," Bush replied. "Again, I appreciate David Kay's contribution. I said in the run-up to the war against Iraq that -- first of all, I hoped the international community would take care of him. I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in" (emphasis added).

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/31/bush_lies/

And lying about the excuse for war is one of the worst things a president can do.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

77. He said Kenny Boy was actually an Ann Richards supporter. He

said he really didn't know him that well. After Kenny croaked, he eulogized him as if he knew the guy from way back.

[Buzz Clik]

Yes, excellent! That was a fantastic whopper.

[creeksneakers2]

137. Yeah

They found 75 handwritten notes from Bush to Lay. Bush called him "Kenny Boy."

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

78. "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt." nt

[Can o Beans]

79. Something that'd be very helpful around my house...

would be any citable proof that Shrubby KNEW he was lying when he uttered the now-famous "16 words" related to our suspicion about Saddam/uranium/Niger. My wife keeps saying that he was obviously wrong, but that he didn't KNOW he was wrong when he said it, and she and her family use that argument as the basis for their "he's a good man, just uninformed" BS.

Any help, DU? Is there anything that can prove that he knew that claim was false when he said it?

Much appreciated, in advance.

CoB

[Buzz Clik]

82. From a previous post on this thread:

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord

I have not had a chance to follow up and read all of this, but that comment may be there.

[hootinholler]

123. That technically isn't a direct lie...

The leading phrase "British intelligence has recently learned" gets him off the hook. Otherwise not only was it a lie, but it was a felony.

-Hoot

[SmokingJacket]

80. You can't PROVE the lies unless you get inside his head.

How can I prove that HE KNEW that Al Qaeda hitting with airplanes was a threat in August, when he later says he "never imagined" such a thing? Bush can simply say he thought he was telling the truth every time a piece of false information passes his lips.

Everything he says is calculated to slide by on that excuse. He has WHOLE STAFFS whose raison d'etre is to make sure he is never, ever caught in a provable lie.

When I say Bush is a liar, I'm actually saying: IN MY OPINION, Bush is a liar. And an Idiot, and an alcoholic, etc.

[Buzz Clik]

86. Well, that's sort of the point of this thread. However, he has been caught in a few lies.

When he said, "I really didn't know Ken Lay very well," but rode around in Lay's private jet throughout the 2000 campaign, sent him birthday cards that Bush signed himself, and attended multiple events with Lay -- well, that's a lie.

Trying to prove that the 16 famous words from the State of the Union address were lies is more along the lines you're suggesting. How can we know what was in his head?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

81. When John Kerry brought up the fact during one of the debates that bush said he didn't think about

Bin Laden. bush denied even though there's a video of it.

[annabanana]

83. He DID pledge to "protect and defend the Constitution" didn't he?. . .n/t

On TV, right up there in front of everyone?

[Buzz Clik]

87. He certainly has proved to be incompetent at doing that.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

84. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda,

because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." When asked by reporters later he claimed that he nor his administration ever claimed such a thing.

[Buzz Clik]

88. He should have said, "I cannot recall having said that."

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

102. That would have been the "smart" thing to do. But he pulled an O'loofa with that one. nt

[Buzz Clik]

107. LOL! Good comparison.

[hfojvt]

85. being clueless should not be a defense

If I post here, for example, something really stupid, like "most child molesters are gay" and 623 DUers respond with studies and links showing that to be a crock of shite, and yet one month later I post the same thing AS IF I HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH, then I have proven myself to be a liar.

So, yes, I wrote an 18 page paper detailing Bush's record of lying. I researched and wrote this in March of 2004. Here's how I started my case

" My purpose here is to charge George W. Bush as a liar and to prove my case with numbers and logic. Starting with what he said in his first month in office:

"My plan addresses the struggles of American families and respects their judgment. It doesn't tell families how to spend their money; it doesn't single out some Americans for relief, while leaving others out. It's tax relief for everybody who pays taxes. That's what the times and basic fairness demand." Feb 5, 2001

Bush claims that his plan does not "single out some Americans for relief, while leaving others out". Was that true? His plan cut the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 33%. That singles out people paying the top rate, and leaves out those who do not. His plan increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1000. That singles out people who have children, and leaves out those who do not. His plan called for the elimination of the tax on estates. Since only estates worth more than $1 million were taxed, that singled out people with million dollar estates and left out those with smaller estates.

My Oxford desk dictionary defines "lie" as "being deceptive" and also "twist the evidence or facts" and "misrepresent or distort or falsify the evidence".

Thus, it is still a lie even if it is true that the entire package did contain something for every taxpayer. The key point is that the tax cuts did not have to be taken as a package. George W. Bush, or Karl Rove, cleverly tossed a nickel to the middle class in order to justify the wads of cash that his plan gave to the rich. If he gives a nickel to Jenna and $100,000 to Barbara, can he honestly say that he is not playing favorites among his daughters? After all, he might claim, he gave an allowance to each of them.

"This is my approach: tax relief for everybody, in every bracket, averaging $1,600 per family, while still reducing our national debt and funding important priorities." Feb 5, 2001

George W. Bush has talked alot about averages, and in my previous example he gave an average of $50,000 to each of his daughters. When he talked about averages, it was a way to ignore distribution. For example, if his plan gives $90,000 to say, 1000 millionaires, and gives $1,000 to 99,000 ordinary people. About half of the benefits would goto 1% of the people, yet George W. Bush would talk about how his plan gives an average of $1,890 to 100,000 people. It was pointed out to him many times that his plan favored the wealthy, so he should have known it did, but he continued to deny it throughout the campaign and even afterwards he asserted the opposite:

"Q Mr. President, Democrats in Congress think that this plan, as it's structured now, is weighted too heavily to the higher income brackets. Are you willing to work with them to perhaps change the ratios a little bit, if that's what it takes to get their support?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe the plan, strongly believe the plan that I have submitted is structured the right way. I've heard all the talk about class warfare and this only benefitting the rich. I think when people take a good, hard look at the rate reduction and who benefits and the fact that our plan erases inequities in the tax code, or eases inequities in the tax code; and that the biggest -- the bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts, people will come to realize it.

I think it's important to cut all tax rates, yes." Feb 5, 2001

"The bottom end of the ladder receives the biggest percentage cuts". That is almost the ultimate lie. Notice how he had to stop what he was saying, in order to get the wording right. His wording was a way to say something which was technically correct, but which would sound like: "this plan benefits poor people more than it does rich people." It is a way to distort the truth, and turn a small number into a big percentage. Going back to his daughters, suppose he increases Jenna's allowance by $10, and increases Barbara's by $10,000. Jenna might think that is unfair, but he can explain to her that her percentage increase is 20,000% while Barbara is only getting a 10% increase. Is any child with a third grade education going to believe that $10 is greater than $10,000 just because they are shown some percentages? In exactly the same way, Bush's tax cut provided me $300 on my taxes of $1200 and provided a CEO like Dick Cheney (who made $25 million in one year) a cut of $1.65 million on his taxes of $9.9 million. However, I got a 25% cut, and Dick "only" got a 17% cut. In that manner, George W. Bush says that my $300 is bigger than Cheney's $1.65 million.

Yet this was a lie which I found on Bush's website in October of 2000 and saw on TV ads in Wisconsin, and he was still telling it, with a straight face, in February of 2001.

"My tax relief plan is a fair one, lowering the rate for all taxpayers. The typical family of four with two children will get $1,600 in tax relief. And the greatest benefits, the largest percentage reductions, will go to those who need them most. My plan is pro-growth. It gives our economy a jump-start by leaving more money in the hands of those who have earned it." Feb 17, 2001

"The President's tax plan provides relief for every income taxpayer; however, it gives the lowest income families the greatest percentage reduction. Indeed, higher income individuals will pay a higher share of income taxes after this plan takes effect. (See Chart 2–2.)" Feb. 28, 2001

Please note that I am not trying to be political here, although it is true that I campaigned, wrote letters and made phone calls for Al Gore. It is also true that I oppose tax cuts for the wealthy and would rather see that money goto social programs for the poor, or infrastructure and school spending for all of society. My point is not so much about the policies themselves as it is about the arguments made to sell the policies to the public. George Bush could have said that the rich are over-taxed and it is only fair to let them keep more of their money. He could have said that when the wealthy get tax cuts that they invest more and that helps all of us (although there is a little disingenuous optimism in such an argument). Instead George W. Bush made speeches and ads promoting his tax cut as something that gave most of its benefits to the bottom. Bush claimed to be concerned about the poor and lower middle class taxpayers:

"My plan dramatically reduces the marginal rate on many low-income earners, rewarding overtime or a hard-won raise, encouraging Americans on their path to the middle class." Feb 8, 2001

"It recognizes that our tax code is unfair. It is unfair to people who struggle to get ahead. It is unfair for the single mom, who lives on the outskirts of poverty, who's working hard to provide for her family. For every additional dollar she makes above $25,000, she pays a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone who's wealthy. And that's not right and it's not fair. It's not what America is all about, as far as I'm concerned. Our tax code makes the code more fair." Feb 7, 2001

So there is George W. Bush with a tax cut plan which gives $1.65 million to CEOs who make $25 million a year, and he is trying to sell it based on how it makes things fairer for a single mother making $25,000 a year. Truth to tell, I am just as confused as Ted Koppel about this point, although I think it is probably the least of our concerns (by "our" I mean people like me who make less than $20,000 a year). I am not going to argue that what he said there is untrue, but rather that it is misleading. It is, again, a way to draw attention away from what the package does for Bill Gates and Tiger Woods, et. al. In talking about the above, Bush is acting like a used car salesman who talks about the new tires and the great Bose sound system. The car does have new tires, but the salesman wants to keep you from noticing that the transmission is shot. In the same way, Bush sold his lemon of a tax cut by pretending to be concerned about people making $25,000.

"Here's how my tax relief plan will work. We will simplify our tax code, reducing today's five brackets to four lower ones: ten percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. Families with children will also receive a tax credit of $1,000 per child. We will end the death tax, reduce the marriage penalty, and expand tax incentives for charitable giving.

My plan is directed toward individuals and small businesses. It offers relief for everyone who pays income taxes, and it keeps our national commitments to Social Security and debt reduction." Feb 8, 2001

It is dishonest to say that reducing the number of brackets "simplifies" our tax code. If there are three brackets or 100 brackets, people making less than $100,000 a year still figure their taxes by reading the tax table."


I can go on and on if you want more.

[Buzz Clik]

92. Nice arguments, for sure.

I think that you've captured the essence of what people mean when they call Bush a liar -- he twists, manipulates, obfuscates. The truth is in there somewhere, but so are the lies.

When we argue with the 30%-ers who still support Bush (or, more likely, don't support him but voted for him and are feeling a tad guilty), they go for the dictionary definition of lying. "Is what he said false? Did he know he was telling a falsehood at that time?" We clearly can show about a dozen or so flat lies from Bush's mouth in which he said something that he knew was wrong.

I'm guessing that your 18-page paper could have been significantly longer if you covered all of his comments.

[hfojvt]

113. because he told the same lies many. many times

even after people said to him "no, you are wrong" or at least tried to say it to him, or the public.

" Much of the 2003 bill only made tax cuts that were passed in 2001 happen earlier. One thing which was new was the reduction in tax rates on income from dividends. Once again, George Bush lied about who that would help:

"The final aspect of the plan says that we ought to get rid of the double taxation of dividends in America. (Applause.) First of all, there's just a simple fairness issue on the double taxation of dividends. Listen, we should be taxing corporate profits, and we do. But in this country, not only do we tax corporate profits -- when part of those profits are distributed to the owners of the companies, small and large alike, it gets taxed again. And who are those owners? Well, 50 percent"

AUDIENCE: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: "Yes, you're right. (Laughter.) We are becoming an ownership society when it comes to stock ownership. Thousands of people own their own -- they own equities directly. But thousands, as well, own equities through their pension plans. If you're a teacher, you own equities. If you're a policeman, you own equities. A lot of people in this country own equities. And. therefore, the more the plan focus -- or any plan focuses on helping the market, the more we're helping our average citizens realize wealth." May 12, 2003

I do not expect George Bush to be a CPA, however I expect him to get enough accurate information from CPAs on his staff to keep him from spreading falsehoods. Yes, millions of people own equities through their pension plans. However, dividends which are paid to pension plans are not taxed. Lots of people, like myself, who are also not CPAs, already know that. So a cut to taxes on dividends does nothing for a policeman or a teacher who owns stock through a pension plan. Also the President was saying that because lots of people own stock that lots of people will benefit from eliminating taxes on dividends.

However, since 1% of the population owns 39% of the wealth, and 20% of the population owns 84% of the wealth it is a clear fact that the people who own most of the wealth will get most of the benefits. The top 1% of the population will get about twice as much in benefits as the bottom 80% (which owns a whole 16% of the wealth). George W. Bush is using the deception of averages again. Very small tax breaks were going to lots of people who have small portfolios of stock, while very big tax breaks were going to very wealthy people. Once again, it is dishonest to pretend that a tax plan which provides huge benefits to a few wealthy people is being proposed to help alot of ordinary people. As I said before, it is easy to design a plan which will help ordinary people without creating a windfall for the super-rich. Even billionaire Warren Buffet wrote a piece explaining how this Bush plan would be a windfall for him and do nothing for his secretary.

So how does George W. Bush respond to criticism of his plan's windfall for the rich? Does he explain how our statistics are misleading? Does he provide a more complete analysis? No, he just provides another misleading example, and calls his critics liars:

"Oh, you'll hear the talk about how this plan only helps the rich people. That's just typical Washington, D.C. political rhetoric, is what that is. That's just empty rhetoric. This plan for a family of four making $40,000 a year would see their tax bill go from $1,178 a year, to $45 a year." May 12, 2003

His statistic is misleading, if accurate. If your son is grounded, and you ask him if he went out, is he telling the truth if he says "I cleaned my room" or "I took out the garbage"? Those are true statements, but they avoid the question, they are meant to distract from the fact of his disobedience that he went to a party after cleaning his room and taking out the garbage. Bush's example does not address the issue of the distribution. Although true, it is an irrelevant distraction. It hardly proves that how this plan "helps the rich people" is "just empty rhetoric". In fact, his entire statement is only empty political rhetoric.

I am saying these things in Kansas, and I do not hold any political office. Also, it would be nice if George Bush could provide an example of one time an elected Democrat, or CTJ, or CBPP, or Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Eric Alterman, David Corn, Ted Rall, etc. ever said that the entire plan "only" helps the rich people. They like myself, have said that it unfairly, unnecessarily, and primarily helps rich people. Unlike the President, I do not get to have the taxpayers pay to fly me around the country so I can give speeches to selected audiences and get free coverage from local and national media to help promote my point of view. Not only does George Bush want you to believe his lies, but he asks you to help promote his plan:

"Next week, I will travel to New Mexico, Nebraska and Indiana to address the nation's hardworking, small business owners, families and investors. My message to them will be simple: the surest way to grow this economy and create jobs is to leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it.

I urge every citizen to participate in this important debate and to make your voice heard. Explain to your local representative or your senators what tax relief would mean to your family and your business, and please tell the members of Congress why our economy needs that relief now." May 10, 2003

"I hope you'll join me in raising your voices to make sure that Congress enacts an economic stimulus plan big enough to help people who are looking for work, a plan big enough to encourage economic growth." May 12, 2003 in New Mexico

[wuushew]

89. Bush fired Rummy after the 2006 elections after denying he would do so.

Seems like a lie to me, although his supporters will probably make up some excuse.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

90. How about when he said he wasn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden

And then said he never said that?

Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

[SemiCharmedQuark]

91. Or when he said that the policy has never been "Stay the course" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU

[Buzz Clik]

93. Excellent. We forget the obvious, really stupid lies.

[Justice Is Comin]

95. The entire bs for the war urgency was the

"nuclear cloud" that was going to delivered by Saddam Husssein and we had to take immediate action to prevent it. Plus there were going to be balsa wood airplanes dotting our skies with bio-chemical agents and smallpox spores that were verified by intelligence and almost an imminent threat.

Only one thing wrong. Paul Pillar the National Intelligence Officer for all of the Near East and South Asia in charge of coordinating all 16 intelligence agency reports and reducing them to a one page NIE report summary for bush, testified before congress that he gave bush a summary that stated Iraq was YEARS from possessing a nuclear weapon.

"The Intelligence Community assessed that Iraq probably was several years away from development of a nuclear weapon —a judgment at variance with, for example, the publicly expressed view of the Vice President that Saddam Hussein was fairly close to getting such a weapon. The Estimate assessed that Saddam was unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction he did have against the United States or to give them to terrorists, except perhaps in the extreme case in which we tried to overthrow his regime, as with an invasion.”

bush is the ONLY one who saw that NIE summary and we have 4,000 Americans in graves and a two trillion dollar debt war because of it.

He knew there was no more need to go to war with Iraq than there was to invade Canada. 911 gave him the golden door to pull it off.

If all Americans actually KNEW about this testimony and absorbed it, there would be marches on the White House with pitchforks.

[Buzz Clik]

101. Excellent post.

I'm curious that one could even say "several years away" when, despite the lack of inspectors, their infrastructure for constructing weapons grade fissile material simply didn't exist.

[EFerrari]

98. What about all the times we've seen him on teevee saying

"We do not torture"?

[Buzz Clik]

103. See post 74.

I agree with you, and posed a semi-rhetorical question in my response to post 74

[EFerrari]

109. It's unlikely that his preverication about the law gets him off the hook.

It would be interesting to be able to review tape with a list of Bush scandals in hand. We could probably find all kinds of things. Maybe that will be his legacy -- most lying taped.

[Political Heretic]

100. As President, Bush is responsible for the "Bush Administration"

When he stands by them, he stands by the lying, and is thus complicit in it.

When I casually say "Bush lied" - and this is just me speaking - I tend to use that generically, when what I really mean is to indict the administration: the bush administration, of which George W. Bush is chief and leader, lied to the American public so many times that it is a disgrace. As leader of that administration Bush falls into 2 categories:

1) Either he was out of the loop and innocently knew nothing in every single instance of lying and misconduct carried out by his administration, in which case he is incompetent and unfit to be president.

OR

2) He was aware - and thus involved - at some level in lying and misconduct carried out by his administration in which case he is unfit to be president, and possibly criminally culpable

I'm not sure what more you really need.

Now, documented evidence for the lying and gross misconduct of the administration abounds. You're not "struggling" to find evidence of that, are you?

[Buzz Clik]

106. "Struggling"? No, not really.

However, my desire to see all of this aired at DU was quite sincere.

[PDJane]

108. How about the lies by omission....

Like the fact that the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over before bombing started in Afghanistan, and the Bush lot didn't take the offer:


Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand bin Laden over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,573975,00.html

Dreamers and Idiots
Britain and the US Did Everything to Avoid a Peaceful Solution in Iraq and Afghanistan
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1111-05.htm


How Bush Was Offered bin Laden and Blew It,
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html


How about the multitudinous gag orders on Sibel Edmonds...and the amount of stuff that she's come out with anyway? How about the admissions from here and there that she has a case that isn't being heard?

[Sugar Smack]

112. EXACTLY.

:toast:

[Buzz Clik]

119. Interesting links. Thanks.

The first one goes beyond a lie of omission.

Indonesia is a massive training ground for terrorists. However, we have left them alone because "they are cooperating in the war on terror." From your link, it seesm that the Afghans were willing to cooperate but we turned down the offer and opted to bomb them instead.

[PDJane]

127. Precisely.

The war in Iraq continued despite the last minute efforts of several men, including Scott Ritter and Mr. Wilson, to avoid the fiasco.


In both wars, civilians are the main target and the main victims. The estimated 5,000,000 orphans and the 5,000,000 combined internally and externally displaced from the Iraq conflict should prove that if any proof is needed. Plus, of course, there is the damage to civilian infrastructure, including water treatment, sewage, and electricity.

[Zynx]

116. The fact that he routinely presents evidence that is immediately or later found

to be false is evidence enough for me. No one is that big of a dolt.

[niyad]

120. "the buck stops here"-- pity der chimpenfuhrer doesn't understand that.

WHY are you determined to defend this monster? is he clueless? he has no business in the job. is he lying? he has no business in the job. do his staff keep him in the dark? he has no business in the job.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

122. This thread offers good reference material for those interested especially #85. nt

[Buzz Clik]

124. I agree. I'll be summarizing the comments when the traffic on this thread slows.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

125. To be honest I'm surprised there aren't more recommendations.

This is one of the few arguments right wingers have left to defend this dude. Meaning the old "Prove to me that he's ever lied, you know like Bill Clinton did.".

[mmonk]

129. All you have to do is go back over the things he has said

regarding Iraq. Then put it against just about anything and include the White House Iraq Group, the Office of Special Plans, His statements that we don't torture, etc. etc. etc.

[Buzz Clik]

131. THESE WERE FANTASTIC RESPONSES! THANK YOU! SUMMARIZED BELOW:

From Junkdrawer: The Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.

Quoting Scott McClellan: "“I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the seniormost aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,” McClellan wrote. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6994.html

From Stephanie and others: Mission Accomplished

QUESTION: Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?

THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031028-2.html

The president's image makers, Mr. Bartlett said, work within a budget for White House travel and events allotted by Congress, which for fiscal 2003 was $3.7 million. He said he did not know the specific cost of staging Mr. Bush's Sept. 11 anniversary speech, or what the White House was charged for the lights. A spokeswoman at the headquarters of Musco Lighting in Oskaloosa, Iowa, said the company did not disclose the prices it charged clients.

<snip>

The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/16/nyt.bumiller

From TacticalPeek, frylock, and others: "I've not made up my mind."

Today, the Spanish newspaper El Pais published a transcript of a discussion between President Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in February 2003 in which Bush told Aznar that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein with or without a UN resolution:

“We must take him right now. We have shown an incredible degree of patience until now. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be militarily ready.”

Though Aznar asked Bush to “have a little patience” and urged, “It is very important to have a resolution,” Bush pushed for war throughout the meeting, telling the Spanish Prime Minister, “We will be in Baghdad by the end of March.”

Just a few days later, Bush insisted to the American public that war with Iraq was not a certainty:

BUSH: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” <3/6/03>

BUSH: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” <3/8/03>

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/26/bush-aznar-talk

see also: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

From LanternWaste: Rumsfeld will stay with the adminstration until the end of Bush's second term.

"During his November 8 press conference, President Bush announced Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as defense secretary and nominated former CIA director Robert Gates to take his place, even though days before the November 7 elections, Bush had said he wanted Rumsfeld to stay on through the end of his presidency. Bush explained that the reason for announcing Rumsfeld's resignation after the elections was due to the fact that he "didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign"; however, media outlets, with few exceptions, have avoided characterizing what Bush did as a "lie" or intentional misrepresentation -- this, despite Bush's own admission of a deliberate deception. Some outlets even failed to acknowledge Bush's November 1 statement that Rumsfeld would stay."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611100005

From blackops:

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

All of these statements are misleading because they claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. This was known before his comments in Poland, yet he repeated it two more times.


"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

Lies of omission from PDJane:

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand bin Laden over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,573975,0...

Dreamers and Idiots
Britain and the US Did Everything to Avoid a Peaceful Solution in Iraq and Afghanistan
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1111-05.htm


How Bush Was Offered bin Laden and Blew It,
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Little white lies:

"We do not torture."

Bush distances himself from Ken Lay, claims they were merely acquantances. Pure lies. http://www.bushwatch.com/archives-may06.htm

"We've never been stay the course." (from SemiCharmedQuark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU )

[rockybelt]

133. Here you go

www.bushlies.net

www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html

There are far too many to list here. Just check these sites out and see for yourself.

Why are you defending this fascist pig in the first place?

[1awake]

139. He has not defended bush,

He seems to be cutting through the claims that sound good, but can't be proved, to find the ones that can be.

[rockybelt]

144. Easier way

Tell me one truth.

[Sugar Smack]

150. Oooh, rockybelt took the hard road.

:o Whoooo!

[Buzz Clik]

148. I'm a bit surprised at your last comment, particularly considering ...

that in the post immediately above yours I summarized the undeniable, fully documented blatant lies.

1awake had it absolutely correct.

[gulliver]

136. It is also a lie to make a positive statement of fact and you have...

...reason to doubt it is true. You don't have to believe it is false, because the lie is in the false degree of certainty, not the words themselves.

[Buzz Clik]

149. I agree. And in post #131, I included a number of statements fitting your definition.

A number of other posters on this thread held this point of view, as well.

[creeksneakers2]

138. Bush even lies about his lies

I saw a one on one interview, I'm pretty sure it was on NBC, where Bush was asked about all the lies he tells. Bush responded that he always tells the truth. As an example, Bush offered that he was one of the first to admit the intelligence on WMD was wrong. That was an absolute lie! Bush was one of the last to admit it.

I remember when Richard Clarke went public with his book about Bush ignoring terrorism before 9/11. Clarke said that on 9/11 Bush pulled him into a private office and said he wanted a report on whether Iraq was responsible or not. At first the White House denied it, then they quoted Bush saying he didn't remember, then admitted it happened.

Bush spouts provable lies all the time. Some are better known but at most of his press conferences he tells lies. I could catch them if you really want me to look them up.

[Sparkly]

140. Can you document claims the Pope is Catholic?

:shrug:

Edit: Sorry -- but the past 8 years have seemed like an endless stream of lies, day after day. It'd take books!

[Buzz Clik]

151. Well, yes, depending on how you structure the threshold for a lie.

My intent was to find statements that Bush made that we could prove conclusively that he absolutely knew were wrong when he said them. That's a very high standard, and we had no trouble find many.

[troubleinwinter]

142. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Bush (09/01/05)

[Buzz Clik]

146. Excellent! Another one of those obvious whoppers that we managed to forget.

[SoCalDem]

147. Go to altavista.com video and click on George w Bush

"evidence" abounds :)

[Indi Guy]

152. I get your point, but I don't know which is worse -- a President who's a bald faced liar...

one who's a blithering, incompetent, arrogant, Messianic dolt.

To me, it's a distinction without a difference.

[demgurl]

154. He lies all of the time.

First I will say, as a parent, that my children tell me they are not lying all of the time but I know when it is a lie. They usually eventually come clean but they are lying and I am right. To figure out whether I am right, I usually only need to employ common sense and this clearly indicates if they are telling the truth or not. Now onto Bush........


If people say he is not lying it is because they want to be in the dark. He has said many things such as saying he would fire anyone involved with leaking Valerie Plame's name. Even the Sunday morning pundits called him on that one saying he moved the goal line after putting it in one place and then fudging what he had said.

He told us, while running for President, that if oil prices rose he would demand that they open the spigots. Well, gas prices have risen and the only thing I have seen him do is hold hands with an Arab in the Rose Garden. Mr. I-Am-A-Tough-Cowboy surely would have boasted, to Americans, if he had laid it all on the line for the Arabs and demanded lower gas prices. No, he clearly has not done this.

If you want to read the foreign press you will find many things there that you will not find here. They report many things that have been reported one way here and another way in every other foreign paper.

He lied about WMD's. He said they were there but they were not. He tried to make us feel threatened about mushroom clouds. Even if you do not have proof he lied about this (and I believe there is enough proof out there if you want to see it) you can sure say he is either incompetent or an asshole. Just look at his meeting with the press where he is making jokes out of no WMD's being found. He looks under tables and in other places grinning and smirking about not being able to find WMD's. Yes, it is also a big joke to me that we went looking for WMD's and it has so far cost us almost 3,000 soldier's lives (and so many more others) and yet the WMD's never materialized. (do I honestly need a sarcasm tag for that statement?)

Bush said there were WMD's and yet the UN reported that the most up-to-date information said there were not. The UN said they were almost finished their inspections and they were not finding a single thing. Instead of being happy that the most current information said that there was no threat, * gave the inspectors 24 hours to get out before they bombed the country. How does that sound for lying? If you wanted the truth wouldn't you have given the inspectors the miniscule amount of extra time the UN inspectors needed to avoid harming your troops or anyone else? You know, withholding the truth is the same as lying.

And then we have Bush telling us he was trying to work with Saddam but he carpet bombed Iraq many times. (look it up, I already know it is true) Bush was trying to get Saddam to attack us so he would have reason to attack Iraq.

We also have many foreign papers telling us that Saddam had given up before we went in. He was willing to peacefully leave Iraq and go into exile. Does this sound like someone who is a threat? No, but Bush rejected Saddam because he wanted in for the oil.

There are so many lies but those who will not be exposed to them choose to live in darkness. Enough said.

[dorkulon]

155. "I own a timber company? That's news to me. Wnat some wood?"

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." (See "supporting documents" at right.)

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.

http://www.factcheck.org/distortions_galore_at_second_presidential_debate.html

[opiate69]

156. "We;re talking about getting a court order before we do so.."

"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." April, 2004. Buffalo, NY

At the time he said this, they had already been wiretapping without warrants for some time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2326

[demgurl]

158. He lied about the American people not being wiretapped.

[NCMojo]

159. During the 2004 campaign:

"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."

Note that the Administration had been bypassing the FISA courts and illegally wiretapping domestic calls since at least 2003. And the President personally authorized the program.