# Bush/Cheney supporters - Try to explain these 2005 lies..... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2005, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952 "2005-12-23T08:30:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/1 "2005-12-23T08:30:27Z")
Bush and Cheney are liars of lies far worse the Bill Clinton’d one “I didn’t have sex with that woman” lie because of the far-reaching political implications. Please try to explain these lies (as summarized in Eleanor Clift’s new [column in Newsweek.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10578257/site/newsweek/page/2/) 1. The White House declaration that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had nothing to do with leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent 2. Regarding WMDs, —heard all the time from the White House—is that “everybody saw the same intelligence we did.” 3. “We do not torture,” Bush declared despite ample evidence to the contrary from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Vice President Cheney went to Capitol Hill repeatedly to lobby for the U.S. right to torture, capitulating only when the vote went against him 90 to 9. 4. Cheney in May 2005, “the insurgency is in its last throes.” 5. Bush says he bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because of the need for speed. According to FISA, the executive branch can tap anybody’s phone and not even get a warrant until 72 hours after the fact. 6. Bush says he talks to Congress all the time and that there was plenty of congressional oversight on the wiretapping. However, the Gang of Eight were forbidden to take notes or discuss what they were told with colleagues or staff. I’m convinced this administration perpetually lies. Bushies - Please explain just a few of these if you can. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/2 "2005-12-23T09:24:09Z")
I’m the furthest thing from a ‘Bush/Cheney supporter’, but that looks to be a rather crappy and superficial article, and at least a few items on your list are questionable at best. > [@](#): > > 1. Regarding WMDs, —heard all the time from the White House—is that “everybody saw the same intelligence we did.” Well, either everyone saw the same wrong intelligence, or everyone saw incomplete intelligence and drew the same erroneous conclusions as the administration. Strictly speaking, I don’t see where the lie is in the above statement. Now, if Ms. Clift had said “the Bush Administration made up the intelligence about Iraqi WMDs”, and backed it up with a fact or two, that would be different. > [@](#): > > 1. Cheney in May 2005, “the insurgency is in its last throes.” Hey, who knows, maybe he actually believed that that when he said it. > [@](#): > > 1. Bush says he bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because of the need for speed. According to FISA, the executive branch can tap anybody’s phone and not even get a warrant until 72 hours after the fact. Again, strictly speaking, where’s the lie here? The administration’s actions bespeak a rather cavalier view toward the law, but Ms. Clift fails to provide an alternate explanation as to why Mr. Bush did things this way. The rest? Yeah, some official lying there. No stunning new revelations I can see. One more comment: > [@Eleanor Clift](#): > > Bush and Cheney regard Congress and the judiciary as obstacles, not as equal branches of government. I don’t disagree, but since when did any administration behave otherwise, at least part of the time? ---
**Author:** ![comrade33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@comrade33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/comrade33)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/3 "2005-12-23T09:34:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, either everyone saw the same wrong intelligence, or everyone saw incomplete intelligence and drew the same erroneous conclusions as the administration. Strictly speaking, I don’t see where the lie is in the above statement. Now, if Ms. Clift had said “the Bush Administration made up the intelligence about Iraqi WMDs”, and backed it up with a fact or two, that would be different. you have got to be kidding. try [this.](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=faulty+intelligence+wmd&btnG=Search) what about the fact that the bush admin never backed any of their allegations with facts? are you saying you believed it too? what, you never gave the obligatory “cite” to the bush team? you bought it hook, line, and sinker with no research? i know i never believed anything that ever came out of a politician’s mouth. my god, if any politician told me that the sky is blue, i’d look up to make sure. > [@](#): > > I don’t disagree, but since when did any administration behave otherwise, at least part of the time? they have done it above and beyond anything that a previous admin has. you sound like an apologist. “well, other people did it, so its ok!” ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/4 "2005-12-23T09:52:23Z")
> [@comrade33](#): > > you sound like an apologist. “well, other people did it, so its ok!” And you sound like someone who has trouble with reading comprehension. Try reading the first line of my previous post again, then come back and accuse me of being a “Bush apologist” again. I was responding specifically to what I think was a crappily-written article, and an OP that appears to be more in the line of pointless baiting than an attempt at legitimate debate. I have not disagreed with the general claim that the Bush administration has lied about various things. Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/5 "2005-12-23T10:08:14Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Well, either everyone saw the same wrong intelligence, or everyone saw incomplete intelligence and drew the same erroneous conclusions as the administration. . . . No. The objection, as far as I understand it, is that the white house filtered and processed the information before “releasing” it. So the lie remains a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/6 "2005-12-23T14:01:55Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Well, either everyone saw the same wrong intelligence, or everyone saw incomplete intelligence and drew the same erroneous conclusions as the administration. Strictly speaking, I don’t see where the lie is in the above statement. Now, if Ms. Clift had said “the Bush Administration made up the intelligence about Iraqi WMDs”, and backed it up with a fact or two, that would be different. It is demonstrably the case that everyone did not see the same evidence. Most “people” in Congress saw an abbreviated version of the NIE. And here is the letter from the Congressional Research Service to Dianne Feinstein explaining what Congress did and didn’t see. [http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm](http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm) As to drawing the same erroneous conclusions as the administration, I don’t recall anyone else saying that Iraq was a grave and gathering threat and should be invaded pre-emptively. Rather, I think most people felt like Colin Powell did, that Hussein had been successfully contained by the program that was in place. If you have evidence that most people drew the same conclusion as Bush, I’d love to see it. (Oh, but I don’t need one of those cut and paste jobs with a bunch of Clinton’s statements from unspecified times in unspecified contexts that Hussein probably had dangerous weapons. I mean, evidence that everyone drew the same conclusion as Bush.) ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/7 "2005-12-23T15:10:35Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > The rest? Yeah, some official lying there. No stunning new revelations I can see. So, because the revalations are not “new”, it doesn’t matter that he’s lying? Besdies, I dont think you’ve convinced me that he’s not outright lying on the other points you addressed. Your just obfuscating the facts in the same way that Bush/Cheney do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/8 "2005-12-23T15:41:01Z")
> [@Soylent Gene](#): > > Bush and Cheney are liars of lies far worse the Bill Clinton’d one “I didn’t have sex with that woman” lie because of the far-reaching political implications. You may be right about the lies being “worse” – but an important distinction is that none of them are _criminal_. It may be “worse” to keep 1,000 workers at part-time status to avoid paying medical benefits than it is to steal a bottle of milk from a grovery store. But stealing the milk can get you arrested, and your worker scheme can’t. I wouldn’t mention this, except that you brought up the Clinton lie to compare. > [@](#): > > 1. The White House declaration that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had nothing to do with leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent. This assumes that “the White House” knew the Libby had something to do with the leak, and concealed it, as opposed to the assumption that Libby was not forthcoming within the White House. In other words – LIBBY lied, yes. How we get from that to “the White House” lied is unclear to me, unless you ascribe to the White House any lie told any any single person that works there. > [@](#): > > 1. Regarding WMDs, —heard all the time from the White House—is that “everybody saw the same intelligence we did.” Adequately discussed below. > [@](#): > > 1. “We do not torture,” Bush declared despite ample evidence to the contrary from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Vice President Cheney went to Capitol Hill repeatedly to lobby for the U.S. right to torture, capitulating only when the vote went against him 90 to 9. OK. > [@](#): > > 1. Cheney in May 2005, “the insurgency is in its last throes.” A lie is not a prediction. A lie is a factually false statement. > [@](#): > > 1. Bush says he bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because of the need for speed. According to FISA, the executive branch can tap anybody’s phone and not even get a warrant until 72 hours after the fact. Discussed in other threads, but briefly: this mischaracterizes Bush’s statements. He asserted other reasons as well, not simply the “need for speed.” > [@](#): > > 1. Bush says he talks to Congress all the time and that there was plenty of congressional oversight on the wiretapping. However, the Gang of Eight were forbidden to take notes or discuss what they were told with colleagues or staff. And that’s a lie how? > [@](#): > > I’m convinced this administration perpetually lies. Bushies - Please explain just a few of these if you can. Well, you’ve offered one statement that I think fairly qualifies as a lie. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/9 "2005-12-23T15:50:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You may be right about the lies being “worse” – but an important distinction is that none of them are _criminal_. It may be “worse” to keep 1,000 workers at part-time status to avoid paying medical benefits than it is to steal a bottle of milk from a grovery store. But stealing the milk can get you arrested, and your worker scheme can’t. I wouldn’t mention this, except that you brought up the Clinton lie to compare. > > This assumes that “the White House” knew the Libby had something to do with the leak, and concealed it, as opposed to the assumption that Libby was not forthcoming within the White House. In other words – LIBBY lied, yes. How we get from that to “the White House” lied is unclear to me, unless you ascribe to the White House any lie told any any single person that works there. > > Adequately discussed below. > > OK. > > A lie is not a prediction. A lie is a factually false statement. > > Discussed in other threads, but briefly: this mischaracterizes Bush’s statements. He asserted other reasons as well, not simply the “need for speed.” > > And that’s a lie how? > > Well, you’ve offered one statement that I think fairly qualifies as a lie. I wanna jump on this right fast. I’, going to joun the rising chorus of people who say we don’t care what your “learned reading” of the law is, especially after your “stellar performance” in in several related thread discussing legality. Further, even if, through some **deliberate misreading** , it was painted as “legal” it won’t make a bit of difference. The OP simply talked about lying. Was the OP talking about a pack of lies? YES IT WAS. Further, Bush never asserted ant reall needs or reasons. All he has ever given is lies, half truthes, misrepresentations, and empty slogans. Whether it was barderline legal or not is besides the point. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/10 "2005-12-23T15:50:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You may be right about the lies being “worse” – but an important distinction is that none of them are _criminal_. It may be “worse” to keep 1,000 workers at part-time status to avoid paying medical benefits than it is to steal a bottle of milk from a grovery store. But stealing the milk can get you arrested, and your worker scheme can’t. I wouldn’t mention this, except that you brought up the Clinton lie to compare. > > This assumes that “the White House” knew the Libby had something to do with the leak, and concealed it, as opposed to the assumption that Libby was not forthcoming within the White House. In other words – LIBBY lied, yes. How we get from that to “the White House” lied is unclear to me, unless you ascribe to the White House any lie told any any single person that works there. > > Adequately discussed below. > > OK. > > A lie is not a prediction. A lie is a factually false statement. > > Discussed in other threads, but briefly: this mischaracterizes Bush’s statements. He asserted other reasons as well, not simply the “need for speed.” > > And that’s a lie how? > > Well, you’ve offered one statement that I think fairly qualifies as a lie. I wanna jump on this right fast. I’, going to join the rising chorus of people who say we don’t care what your “learned reading” of the law is, especially after your “stellar performance” in in several related thread discussing legality. Further, even if, through some **deliberate misreading** , it was painted as “legal” it won’t make a bit of difference. The OP simply talked about lying. Was the OP talking about a pack of lies? YES IT WAS. Further, Bush never asserted ant reall needs or reasons. All he has ever given is lies, half truthes, misrepresentations, and empty slogans. Whether it was barderline legal or not is besides the point. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/11 "2005-12-23T15:51:45Z")
> [@Soylent Gene](#): > > I’m convinced this administration perpetually lies. Bushies - Please explain just a few of these if you can. > [@](#): > > Well, you’ve offered one statement that I think fairly qualifies as a lie. Which statement is that? Can’t be the above one, unless you are arguing that **Soylent Gene** is just pretending to be convinced—and there’s no reliable way you could evaluate that. ---
**Author:** ![comrade33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@comrade33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/comrade33)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/12 "2005-12-23T18:44:13Z")
> [@](#): > > And you sound like someone who has trouble with reading comprehension. _puts down “war and peace” (yes i am actually reading it for fun)_ i said you SOUND like one. i read your post, and i know you aren’t, but what you said made you SOUND like an apologist. ---
**Author:** ![comrade33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@comrade33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/comrade33)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/13 "2005-12-23T18:49:45Z")
i forgot to add, > [@](#): > > an OP that appears to be more in the line of pointless baiting than an attempt at legitimate debate. i do agree with you on this one. bush bashing is getting pretty old. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/14 "2005-12-23T19:04:06Z")
Being incorrect doesn’t equal a lie. Back when I was at the academy I once got a 60% on a calculus exam, that doesn’t mean 40% of my answers were lies, it means 40% were wrong, but you better believe I thought they were correct (or as close to correct as I thought I could get) when I wrote them down. Basically all of your list more or less refers to things that, as of right now, we can prove to be “incorrect” statements by the administration (some of them I’m not even sure of that, but I’ll just agree since there’s no need to get into it all right now) but to actually be a lie you have to show there was a deliberate misleading. Like I said, just because the Administration SAID ONE THING, and another thing was the truth, doesn’t mean they lied. I could say I was born on March 5, and truly believe that if that is what I had always been told, but if I was actually born on March 6th, then my true birth date would be March 6th, not March 5th. That means I had been SAYING ONE THING, while another thing was the truth, but it doesn’t mean I was lying. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/15 "2005-12-23T19:32:38Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Which statement is that? Can’t be the above one, unless you are arguing that **Soylent Gene** is just pretending to be convinced—and there’s no reliable way you could evaluate that. #3, “We do not torture.” I said OK to that one. I see from your question that you thought I was saying something else, and that confusion arose from the juxtaposition of the last quoted line of the Op and my response, I think. But no. The one that I’m prepared to agree was a lie was #3. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/16 "2005-12-23T19:35:40Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Whether it was barderline legal or not is besides the point. If the OP had confined itself to talking about lies, period, then I never would have brought up the issue of legality. But the OP also brought up Clinton’s lies, by way of comparison. The conclusion the reader is invited to draw is how much worse Bush’s lies are, yet how Clinton was impeached and Bush won’t be. It was thus relevant to point out that trhe _sine qua non_ of Clinton’s impeachment was the crime he committed, not the mere fact that he lied. Without the comparison to Clinton by the OP, I never would have mentioned the issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/17 "2005-12-23T19:36:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > #3, “We do not torture.” I said OK to that one. > > I see from your question that you thought I was saying something else, and that confusion arose from the juxtaposition of the last quoted line of the Op and my response, I think. > > But no. The one that I’m prepared to agree was a lie was #3. But even then, I think it’s fair to assume that Bush was saying we do not torture **as a matter of policy**. No country could say “we do not torture” because surely someone somehwere in that country has tortured at some time. And it all depends on how you define “Torture”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/18 "2005-12-23T19:44:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But even then, I think it’s fair to assume that Bush was saying we do not torture **as a matter of policy**. No country could say “we do not torture” because surely someone somehwere in that country has tortured at some time. And it all depends on how you define “Torture”. True. But I think the context of the question was what the official policy of the US was. I certainly would NOT credit this as a lie if the issue was people acting alone, or without authorization, as they did at abu Grahib. But it seems that vigorous interrogation at Guantanamo WAS an official policy, properly approved, and – so far as I’m aware – the permitted limits of that vigorous interrogation can, by a fair-minded and reasonable person, be described as torture. It’s not the kind of lie that would qualify as perjury if given under oath for precisely the reasons you mention, but the question here is simply “lie.” I think it’s fair to call that statement a lie. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/19 "2005-12-23T20:16:51Z")
And just to show I’m a fair-minded guy, I’ll throw in a statement that _I_ believe to be a lie: > [@](#): > > [A]ny 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. Now, when I first read this quote, it seemed to me that the context was answering a question regarding the necessity of renewing the Patriot Act. In that context, this is not a lie. Now I have discovered that this statement was made NOT in response to a question, but essentially volunteered in a more general context, NOT in a Patriot Act discussion. That makes all the difference. So - a lie. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952/20 "2005-12-24T06:15:31Z")
Perhaps #1 can be replaced by Bush pledging to fire those responsible for the Plame leak and not doing so. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-cheney-supporters-try-to-explain-these-2005-lies/336952.md?page=2)