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

[Painman]

Originally posted by: naddicott

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]

See arsbanned's sig for the rest of that gem

 

[Ldir]

There are too many examples of Dubya making misleading and incorrect claims. He is either a liar or an idiot. I think idiot is an act. I am convinced Bush lied.

 

[Jhhnn]

Within the "Find me a way" context Paul O'Neill describes in his book, and the lack of any substance to the claims made, the answer is too obvious to belabor...

What would lead anybody to believe that Bush knows the truth about anything, or that he'd tell it if he did?

 

[cash1220]

Originally posted by: naddicott
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?

that video doesnt show rumsfield lying. saying that something isnt necessarily not a threat isnt the same as saying they are

 

[rudder]

1998 Indictment.

No link between Al-qaida and Iraq?

 

[DeeKnow]

i think it really depends on what 'lie' means.... :disgust:

 

[Corn]

Not another plagiarizer in our midst? Steeplerot, please explain: Moron's post was ripped directly from the DNC website.

Give credit where it's due, the Democrats worked hard fabricating that top 10 list. :roll:

 

[Spamela]

is "stretched the truth beyond all recognition & ignored all contrary evidence" == "lie?"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: rudder
1998 Indictment.

No link between Al-qaida and Iraq?

The English language is incredibly rich, but invariably pols and their minions do not use language to clarify or explain . . . they use it to obfuscate.

For instance, everyone (should) know that the CIA and KGB had back channel contacts throughout the Cold War.

Were they mortal enemies, diametrically opposed to major views held by the other? Of course.
Yet they had significant links, contact, and collaboration even (particularly helping Saddam against Iran).

There's a link between GWB and alcohol. There's been contact between GWB and convicted murders. There's been collaboration (on occasion) between GWB and the most liberal members of Congress. All of those statements are factual but provide precious little information as to the quantity or more importantly quality of the links, contacts, and collaboration. Accordingly, I could shape these factual statements into almost anything depending on what "version" suited my immediate needs.

LINK
GWB was an alcoholic.
GWB conquered substance abuse.

CONTACT
GWB had a flippant perspective on death penalty reviews often dismissing them out of hand.
GWB (or someone on his staff) deliberated on every death penalty review and judiciously decided none had merit.

COLLABORATION
GWB rarely works with liberal policymakers instead he focuses on an agenda advanced by a cabal of close advisors. When he does work with liberal policymakers he typically co-opts a popular idea but does not advocate sufficient funding.
GWB has worked with liberal policymakers to develop and institute major legislation in education and healthcare.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: cash1220

Originally posted by: naddicott
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:
"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."

that video doesnt show rumsfield lying. saying that something isnt necessarily not a threat isnt the same as saying they are

Trimmed it down to just the central lie for your reading comprehension. I said the video was of Rumsfeld being confronted with his lie (which is part of the congressional record), not that he lies on the video. Although his reaction to his own words is a textbook example of how people react when caught in a lie.

But see what you want to see, and apply differing standards of truthfulness based on the political affiliation of the liar in question (hint: all polititians lie at one point or another by common sense standards of "lie", most avoid outright perjury through careful but deceptive wording). If you've been reading about current events to this point, and are still voting "no lies" in the poll, there's obviously no convincing you, untill of course it's a democrat in question.

 

[Gaard]

It seems to me that this
thread should be required reading before being able to vote in this poll.

And read my sig too.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Spamela
is "stretched the truth beyond all recognition & ignored all contrary evidence" == "lie?"

Ask, etech or CAD. Ask them repeatedly . . . and pointedly. Please. :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

It must have been the demographics of the late night crowd. We've now settled in at about 2:1 to 3:1 depending on the question. That's more consistent with some of the earlier polls. It looks like there are a handful of people who believe Bush lied even though they don't think the factual evidence is that solid. Even those who believe there is solid evidence have differing opinions re. the strength of that evidence.

It's also interesting that support for the Bush administration is significantly lower than support for Bush personally. Not only were the results most lopsided there, with the majority believing there is irrefutable evidence the administration lied, but it also received the fewest votes supporting the White House and the fewest total votes. This suggests some may have chosen to abstain rather than vote against the Bush administration.

Finally, at the moment, the number of people who say they are certain Bush did not lie is exactly the same as the number who say there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever Bush lied. That could be a coincidence.

 

[Gaard]

No evidence whatsoever the Bush administration lied
12 votes 13.64 (%)

I'm wondering if these people actually are unaware of the documented lies, or simply refuse to accept the fact.

 

[arsbanned]

saying that something isnt necessarily not a threat isnt the same as saying they are

Am I detecting...NUANCE in that statement? You neocons are catching on.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I thought a poll might be appropriate given the multiple debates raging about whether or not Bush lied.

what on earth does a poll have to do with the truth.

the majority of posters on P&N are liberal
a fair number are Bush-Haters

any poll you take will show 2/3 of the posters are against Bush...about any issue...

like i've said all along, facts don't matter to liberals, only how they "feel" about an issue.

i'm sure that this poll will help raise the collective self-esteem of liberals, and help reinforce their "feelings" that Bush lied.

why don't you hold a poll to prove that Bush is stupid next, and then after that that Bush is immoral..
that's the liberal "Trifecta", Bush is stupid, a liar, and immoral...just keep chanting it over and over again...
hari krishna
hari krishna
Bush is stupid
Bush id stupid
...

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Gaard
No evidence whatsoever the Bush administration lied
12 votes 13.64 (%)

I'm wondering if these people actually are unaware of the documented lies, or simply refuse to accept the fact.

In these grave and troubling times of national duress, when our brave soldiers fight in the lion's den of terror to secure our freedom and New American Century.... small and inconsequental innaccuracies in the data used to formulate our battle plans may occur. Although this is troubling, as the battles may decide our national survival, inaccuracies were to be expected regarding the Iraq situation. This is obviously due to the sheer volume of data coming in with regards to Hussein's ties to Bin Laden and September 11th, and, nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, arsenals, and plans. The grave and growing threat was growing at a troubling rate, it was in fact, an imminent threat. Acting at the time that our nation did may have been the most decisive and perfect manuever at such a critical juncture. It was almost as if a direct message from God told President Bush to proceed with the onslaught against evil.

Certainly this Churchillian, Lincolnian, even Christ-like strategic brilliance will not go uncelebrated in the annals of history.

Zephyr

 

[latinmom2]

Originally posted by: rudder
1998 Indictment.

No link between Al-qaida and Iraq?

Kind of odd if this is all true that all the Bush haters passed on it.

And this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/index.html

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

I thought a poll might be appropriate given the multiple debates raging about whether or not Bush lied.

what on earth does a poll have to do with the truth.

the majority of posters on P&N are liberal
a fair number are Bush-Haters

any poll you take will show 2/3 of the posters are against Bush...about any issue...

like i've said all along, facts don't matter to liberals, only how they "feel" about an issue.

i'm sure that this poll will help raise the collective self-esteem of liberals, and help reinforce their "feelings" that Bush lied.

why don't you hold a poll to prove that Bush is stupid next, and then after that that Bush is immoral..
that's the liberal "Trifecta", Bush is stupid, a liar, and immoral...just keep chanting it over and over again...
hari krishna
hari krishna
Bush is stupid
Bush id stupid
...

Perhaps we should have a poll to determine whether heartsurgeon is a redeemable troll or an irredeemable troll.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Gaard
No evidence whatsoever the Bush administration lied
12 votes 13.64 (%)

I'm wondering if these people actually are unaware of the documented lies, or simply refuse to accept the fact.

In these grave and troubling times of national duress, when our brave soldiers fight in the lion's den of terror to secure our freedom and New American Century.... small and inconsequental innaccuracies in the data used to formulate our battle plans may occur. Although this is troubling, as the battles may decide our national survival, inaccuracies were to be expected regarding the Iraq situation. This is obviously due to the sheer volume of data coming in with regards to Hussein's ties to Bin Laden and September 11th, and, nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, arsenals, and plans. The grave and growing threat was growing at a troubling rate, it was in fact, an imminent threat. Acting at the time that our nation did may have been the most decisive and perfect manuever at such a critical juncture. It was almost as if a direct message from God told President Bush to proceed with the onslaught against evil.

Certainly this Churchillian, Lincolnian, even Christ-like strategic brilliance will not go uncelebrated in the annals of history.

Zephyr

small and inconsequential innaccuracies. i.e LIES.

just for fun dude, read this

paying close attention on, not only what the admin said, but when they said it.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

like i've said all along, facts don't matter to liberals, only how they "feel" about an issue.

do you have an explanation, hs, why 12 people stated that there is NO evidence that the Bush admin lied. Could it possibly be that facts don't matter to them.

And Bow, no poll is needed. Everyone here, Liberal and Conservative...Democrat and Republican...everyone...knows that heartsurgeon is a troll. As to be expected, however, very few conservatives will call a duck a duck.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Commission leaders see no major conflicts with White House on al-Qaida-Iraq ties

Sunday, June 20, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(06-20) 07:21 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Leaders of the Sept. 11 commission said Sunday they do not regard differences with the Bush administration over the question of al-Qaida's relationship with Iraq under Saddam Hussein as a major point of contention.

Saddam's alleged link with terrorists was a central justification of the Bush administration for toppling the former Iraqi government.

A commission staff report says that while there were contacts between Osama bin Laden's network and the Iraqi government, they did not appear to have produced a collaborative relationship.

Al-Qaida had "a lot more active contacts" with Iran and Pakistan than it did with Iraq, but "we don't see serious conflicts" with the White House over the issue, said the commission chairman, former Republican Gov. Thomas Kean of New Jersey.

Vice President Dick Cheney has said Iraq responded to some of bin Laden's overtures for assistance. That led the commission's vice chairman, former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, to again ask that the vice president provide evidence.

"We asked the vice president if he had information we did not have," said Hamilton, who appeared with Kean on ABC's "This Week."

Kean said, "Obviously, if there is some information, we need it."

Hamilton said the White House and the commission agree on the central point: There is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

Hamilton said the commission's mandate does not extend to the Iraq war and Kean said the staff report containing the finding is an interim document the commission will consider in compiling its final report.

The commission's report is due July 26. The actual release will depend on when the White House declassifies its contents.

Commissioners are reviewing that initial draft of the report, which is several hundred pages long, and say they hope to reach agreement by mid-July.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard
And Bow, no poll is needed. Everyone here, Liberal and Conservative...Democrat and Republican...everyone...knows that heartsurgeon is a troll.

Absolutely. The question is, is he redeemable or not? Is there hope for HS, or is he doomed to a life of senseless trolling?

It's a real test for liberals. On the one hand, liberals (in general) believe everyone has potential value, that everyone can contribute if you can only break through their shell of hatred and self-loathing and draw out the worthwhile person inside. On the other hand, sometimes you have to smell the coffee and accept reality.