POLL: How strong is the evidence G.W. Bush lied?

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I thought a poll might be appropriate given the multiple debates raging about whether or not Bush lied.

I find it interesting that we can read the same articles, see the same quotes, and review the same reports, yet come to opposite conclusions on what they mean. Some will adamantly insist we've seen conclusive proof Bush lied. Others will equally adamantly insist the same material proves Bush did NOT lie. Some will agree others in the Bush administration lied, but not Bush himself. Finally, I suspect some believe Bush lied but we don't have proof yet. What do you think?

Note: I'm not talking about inconsequential lies like, "I like your hair." Please focus your response on lies of material significance to America, if not the world.

Finally, since we already have plenty of threads about specific articles, reports, claims, etc., I suggest limiting discussion to how and why you reached your conclusions about the evidence you've seen, and to discussions about the poll results.



Edit: added bit re. discussing poll results
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Just a few but no point in arguing with the brainwashees.
They would believe the sky was purple if bush and co. said so.


Bush on Iraq
1. "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." [Bush Remarks, Cincinnati OH, 10/7/02]

Fact:Saddam Did not Have Chief Requirements for Nuclear Weapons

The Washington Post reported, "What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials." Inspectors in postwar Iraq have "found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s." [Washington Post, 8/10/03, 1/7/04]
2. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Fact: Bush Administration Knew Claim Was False

In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to Niger was unfounded. In October, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January, just days before Bush uttered the false charge CIA officials tried again to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain -- with added the caveat that they had received the information from British sources. [Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; NPR, 6/19/03]
3. "In an interview with Polish television on May 30, Mr. Bush cited the trailers [found in postwar Iraq] as evidence that the United States had 'found the weapons of mass destruction' it was looking for." [New York Times, 6/26/03]

Fact: State Department Said Bush Rushed to Judgment

The New York Times reported, "The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today. In a classified June 2 [2003] memorandum, the officials said, the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as President Bush has done...Administration officials said the State Department agency was given no warning that the C.I.A. report was being produced, or made public." [New York Times, 6/26/03]
4. "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished." [Bush, News Conference, 10/28/03]

Fact: Sign Was Produced by White House

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan later acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White House," though he claimed that the Lincoln's crew had requested some sort of banner. According to reports, "The man responsible for the banner, Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer now with the White House communications office...is known for the production of the sophisticated backdrops that appear behind Mr. Bush with the White House message of the day, like 'Helping Small Business,' repeated over and over." [Washington Post, 10/29/03; New York Times, 10/29/03]
Bush on the Economy
5. "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term." [Bush, State of the Union, 2002]

Fact: Deficit Will Be Largest in History and Will Exceed $400 Billion Every Year for Next Ten Years

The deficit will exceed $400 billion every year through 2014. By 2014, the deficit will reach $708 billion. In 2004, the deficit is projected to reach a record high of $477 billion, dwarfing the previous record of $290 billion posted by Bush's father in 1992. [Congressional Budget Office, 1/26/04, 2/27/04; Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, 1/21/04, 2/1/04]
6. "Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens," Bush promised. [Bush Remarks at Western Michigan University, 3/27/01]

Fact: Bush Deficits Due Largely to Tax Cuts

In 2002, due largely to Bush's tax cuts, the federal government posted a deficit of $158 billion and returned to deficit for the first time since 1997. In 2004, Bush's three tax cuts over as many years reduced revenues by $270 billion. Over 35 percent of the $9.9 trillion deterioration from 2002-2011 is due to Bush's tax cuts. By 2014, tax cuts will account for 40 percent of the deterioration. Despite Bush's claims to the contrary, only 6 percent of the $477 billion deficit in 2004 is due to the lackluster economy. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/21/03; Congressional Budget Office, 3/04; CBO, Historical Budget Data, Table 1 http://www.cbo.gov; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/27/03]
Bush on His Own Policies
7. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson September the 11th." [Bush 11/27/02]

Fact: Bush Initially Opposed Independent 9-11 Commission

Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]
8. "Bush had pushed hard for the Medicare drug benefit, but said he would not sign anything that exceeded $400 billion." [Boston Globe, 1/30/04]

Fact: Bush Administration Intentionally Hid Cost of Plan To Win Votes in Congress

In late January 2004, the Administration announced they had underestimated the total cost of the package by $135 billion. Bush relied on a $400 billion figure for the first decade of the prescription drug benefit in persuading fiscal conservatives to support the plan last November. But less than two months after signing the legislation, and two years before the benefit becomes available to seniors, the Department of Health and Human Services revised the number up to $535 billion. According to the Washington Post, "Among a small group of lawmakers who negotiated the bill's final version, 'it was an open secret' that administration officials believed 'there is no way this is $400 billion.'" [New York Times, 1/30/04; Washington Times, 12/8/03; Washington Post, 1/31/04; Boston Globe, 1/30/04; New York Times, 2/2/04]
9. "We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of...carbon dioxide." [Bush speech, "A Comprehensive National Energy Policy," 9/29/00, Saginaw, MI]

Fact: Bush Overruled Whitman, Broke Campaign Promise to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions

In March 2001, in a letter to Republican Senators, Bush overruled then-E.P.A. Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and backed off a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, after encountering strong resistance from the coal and oil industries, as well as Republicans. "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act," Bush wrote in his letter. Many conservationists view curbing carbon dioxide emissions, like "greenhouse gases," as a key to reducing global warming. [AP, 3/13/01; Washington Post, 3/14/01; Bush letter to Senator Chuck Hagel, 3/13/01]
Bush on Bush
10. "I'm a uniter, not a divider." [Bush, Austin American-Statesman, 7/30/00]

Fact: No, He's a Divider

The Washington Post reported, "As Bush begins the final year of his term with Tuesday night's State of the Union address, partisans on both sides say the tone of political discourse is as bad as ever -- if not worse." One senior administration official said, Bush could have built "trust and goodwill" by pursuing more broadly appealing initiatives. One former Bush aide said the White House "relished the 'us versus them' thing." [Washington Post, 1/18/04]

After former Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly challenged Bush's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, his wife--a covert CIA operative--was exposed by columnist Robert Novak. Novak said her identity was given to him by senior administration officials. "A senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife... 'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,' the senior official said of the alleged leak. Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility." [Washington Post, 9/28/03]

Bush called on senior White House advisers and the Republican Party leadership to wage attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. According to the Washington Times, "The White House is escalating its attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle... [W]ith polls showing the Republican Party is losing some support in its handling of the economy, President Bush last week ordered senior advisers to take the gloves off and sharpen their rhetoric." [Washington Times, 12/7/01]
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
every administration lies. It all depends on what kind of lies they tell.

yeah, I think Clinton lying about blowjobs is a LOT LESS serious than Bush lying/exaggerating WMDs and such.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Poll much?

Here we go yet another Bush lied thread. YABLT anyone? Ya I'd like a BLT with bacon lettuce and termaters.

What evidence of his lying do you refer to? I've seen no EVIDENCE.

On the matter of the ties between Iraq and 9/11. Whom do you think is really behind the attacks on 9/11?

Timeline:
1991: Bush Sr. attacks Iraq
1993: 1st terrorist attempt on the WTC...coincidence this happened at this time? umm no.
but the attempt failed so....
2001: They try again and this time succeed.

Now if you can't connect the dots given that history...well....perhaps you're not quite as bright as our fumbling speech president.

Call him dyslexic or a speech fumbling shrub or whatever if you like, but please don't call him a liar, mmk?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
With all due respect steeplerot, there are other threads where that might be more appropriate. There's no point in turning this into yet another flame war.

Edit: likewise to element
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: element
Poll much?

Here we go yet another Bush lied thread. YABLT anyone? Ya I'd like a BLT with bacon lettuce and termaters.

What evidence of his lying do you refer to? I've seen no EVIDENCE.

On the matter of the ties between Iraq and 9/11. Whom do you think is really behind the attacks on 9/11?

Timeline:
1991: Bush Sr. attacks Iraq
1993: 1st terrorist attempt on the WTC...coincidence this happened at this time? umm no.
but the attempt failed so....
2001: They try again and this time succeed.

Now if you can't connect the dots given that history...well....perhaps you're not quite as bright as our fumbling speech president.

Call him dyslexic or a speech fumbling shrub or whatever if you like, but please don't call him a liar, mmk?

Read the 2nd post.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
With all due respect steeplerot, there are other threads where that might be more appropriate. There's no point in turning this into yet another flame war.

Edit: likewise to element

With all due respect in return Bowfinger, I was merely addressing your questions about whether Bush lied or not. What part of my post do you find does not fit the topic of your thread?

"Finally, since we already have plenty of threads about specific articles, reports, claims, etc., I suggest limiting discussion to how and why you reached your conclusions about the evidence you've seen, ..."

Hello? You asked for why I reached my conclusions but now don't want to hear it?
 

Rob9874

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,314
1
0
Originally posted by: element
Hello? You asked for why I reached my conclusions but now don't want to hear it?

Just make sure it doesn't support Bush.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: element
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
With all due respect steeplerot, there are other threads where that might be more appropriate. There's no point in turning this into yet another flame war.

Edit: likewise to element

With all due respect in return Bowfinger, I was merely addressing your questions about whether Bush lied or not. What part of my post do you find does not fit the topic of your thread?

"Finally, since we already have plenty of threads about specific articles, reports, claims, etc., I suggest limiting discussion to how and why you reached your conclusions about the evidence you've seen, ..."

Hello? You asked for why I reached my conclusions but now don't want to hear it?
Fair enough. If that was your thought process, more power to you.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
How was I trying to start a flame war?
If you'd like I will delete the rather lengthy post but it seems a valid answer since you asked why.
*shrugs*
 

eriqesque

Senior member
Jan 4, 2002
704
0
71
Originally posted by: steeplerot
How was I trying to start a flame war?
If you'd like I will delete the rather lengthy post but it seems a valid answer since you asked why.
*shrugs*

Because that's what you do best.
And you speak of brainwashed
You are the poster child buddy.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
As I said:
  • Finally, since we already have plenty of threads about specific articles, reports, claims, etc., I suggest limiting discussion to how and why you reached your conclusions about the evidence you've seen, and to discussions about the poll results.

My concern is that if we start reiterating the "evidence" itself, this will quickly degenerate into another useless flame fest like the others. That's why I encourage reserving this thread for explaining how you reached your conclusions about the evidence, not the evidence itself.

In short, this is a chance to focus discussion. I obviously cannot control what people post, however, so the thread will take whatever direction posters choose to take it.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
So far the results are split roughly 50/50. That surprises me given the results of other polls. It will be interesting to see if that's an artifact of the narrow demographic of people who are on-line at the moment, or whether it is a trend that will hold.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
It isn't so much an overt act of deliberately telling mistruths, although that seems to happen in dubya-admin-land from time to time, as much as it is the constant creation of an image that runs contrary to every action taken by this administration.

Image is everyting. Let's elect an actor president. Let's raise a generation not trained to discern the truth but to be adept in targeting messages to influence ideas and even ideology. MBA. Marketing.

So they sold us a president whose approach to diplomacy is preemptive war, and he pours kerosene on the fire in the name of the fight against terrorism.

Image. Fire. Don't let it happen again.



________________
Of course, it's ridiculous to compare Bush with Hitler -
Hitler had a msutache!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Here's the bottom line as I see it: (1.) The Bush fanboys around here will never admit that Bush has done anything wrong, ever. Even if they are presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (2.) Those who hate/dislike Bush around here will find even the smallest wrong-doing to be an impeachable offense.

I think we're just that polarized.

I started thinking about this the other day. I thought, what if they actually DO find a stockpile of WMDs in Iraq some day? Not just some 15-year old artillary shell with inert chemical weapon components inside, long-buried from the Iran-Iraq war, but a real substantial find. I thought, you know what, as hard as it would be to choke down the pride and admit I was totally wrong, I would do so. I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Sometimes I wonder about the other regulars around here and whether if confronted with evidence that Bush lied, solid concrete evidence, would they admit it? Somehow, I have a hard time seeing that happening.
 

Rob9874

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,314
1
0
I think that's true to some extent. But I don't think it applies to everyone. I agree that Bush (and/or his administration) overestimated the existance of WMDs. However, I believe the war against Iraq was justified regardless of WMDs.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
"Fair enough. If that was your thought process, more power to you."

Well no that wasn't all of it. But I don't want to bore you with the details. Or start a flame war in your thread. Not that I thought it would, but you never know, threads do have a habit of being derailed sometimes. I guess you either have to censor it or deal with it. Guess I'll have to start my own thread on why I think Bush didn't lie. You're welcome to join in on it but please....no flamefests....hehe.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
I don't see evidence of outright lying so far but I sure see a lot of fluffing up and cherry-picking of the intelligence data. My gut tells me Bush "probably" lied.
 

fwtong

Senior member
Feb 26, 2002
695
5
81
I find it highly ironic that all the conservatives who were decrying Clinton for his semantics are using the same tactics that they once decried a few years ago.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
Amazing, isn't it? Reagan skated on selling coke to raise money for covert war, William Casey all of a sudden loses his ability to testify and George I comes along in time to pardon Ollie North. Clinton is stupid enough to pull the same stuff in Washington that he got away with as a backwater governor and we crucify his ass, then we let George II sell liberty in the name of security.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
It is quite curious how facts split down party lines...

It's not like there isn't a public record of these quotes. The only way I can imagine staying in denial about the facts of the various lies is to take a nuanced approach, questioning what the meaning of "is" is and such...

I particularly like this video (windows media) of Rumsfeld being confronted about the "imminent threat" lie:
Interviewer: Well, let me just ask you this... If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction though - granted all of that is true [affirmation from Rumsfeld] - why did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
Rumsfeld: You and a few other critics are the only people I know who've used the phrase "immediate threat". I didn't, the President didn't, and its become kinda folklore that that's, that's what happened. The president went...
Interviewer: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that?
Rumsfeld: I can't speak for nobody - everybody in the administration and say nobody said that. [int: vice president didn't say that?] If you have any citations... I'd like to see them...
2nd Interviewer: We have it here it says that: "some have argued that the Nu.." this is you speaking... "some have argued that the Nuclear threat from iraq is not imminent, and that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having Nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."
Rumsfeld: Mmm hhh... [affirming] and and uh... [int: that's close to imminent] well! um... I I tried to be precise and I've tried to be accurate. I'm so...
2nd Interviewer: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."
Rumsfeld Mmm hh... [afirming] Ah, uh, i... i.. i.. my view of the situation was that, he he had.... we we believed the best intelligence that we had and that other countries had, and that..." [end of clip]

Those quotes, if you care to track them down, are part of the congressional record from before the Iraqi war. That is, a record of Rumsfeld lying to the United States congress. At least according to my personal standard of what "is" is.... Perhaps I need to be more nuanced in my thinking?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |