That wacky lying Bush (and Clinton & Reagan too!)

[elf6c]

Those wacky nuts- Telling the truth just ruins a good story.

Shitheads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html

W. having some truth “issues”

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.” And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy “for a long period of time.”

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.

But wait, he is hardly alone.

As Bush leads the nation toward a confrontation with Iraq and his party into battle in midterm elections, his rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks. Statements on subjects ranging from the economy to Iraq suggest that a president who won election underscoring Al Gore’s knack for distortions and exaggerations has been guilty of a few himself.

Presidential embroidery is, of course, a hoary tradition. Ronald Reagan was known for his apocryphal story about liberating a concentration camp. Bill Clinton fibbed famously and under oath about his personal indiscretions to keep a step ahead of Whitewater prosecutors. Richard M. Nixon had his Watergate denials, and Lyndon B. Johnson was often accused of stretching the truth to put the best face on the Vietnam War. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, too, played with the truth during the Gary Powers and Bay of Pigs episodes.

Oops, more truth issues for W.

In stop after stop across the country, Bush has cited an impressive statistic in his bid to get Congress to approve terrorism insurance legislation. “There’s over $15 billion of construction projects which are on hold, which aren’t going forward – which means there’s over 300,000 jobs that would be in place, or soon to be in place, that aren’t in place,” is how he put it last week in Michigan.

But these are not government estimates. The $15 billion figure comes from the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group that is leading the fight for the legislation and whose members have much to gain. After pleas earlier this year from the White House for “hard evidence” to make its case for terrorism insurance, the roundtable got the information from an unscientific survey of members, who were asked to provide figures with no documentation.

The 300,000 jobs number, the White House said, was supplied by the carpenters’ union. But a union official said the White House apparently “extrapolated” the number from a Transportation Department study of federal highway aid – not private real estate – that the union had previously cited.

Plenty more interesting points in the story. Sure W. lies, but at this point I am more shocked when a politician tells the truth. Which is just sad.

[Legomancer]

In other news, bear shits in woods.

[december]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
** Sure W. lies, but at this point I am more shocked when a politician tells the truth. Which is just sad. **

How do you know Bush was lying, rather than just making a mistake?

[Mac_Guffin]

I made a mistake. I read the above post knowing full well it was december writing it.

A mistake? One mistake? Which one was the mistake? Which of the others were lies?

[Squink]

How do you know Bush was lying, rather than just making a mistake?

When someone spouts a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, it’s quite reasonable to presume that they are lying. Can you supply some evidence that ignorance or stupidity are more likely explanations ? Just how credulous would you have americans be ?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I don’t think Bush really knows if he is telling truth or not. I think he just reads (or tries to read) what they put on the teleprompter for him. He’s not actually smart enough to read a whole complicated report with lots of big words, like “nuclear” and “capability.”

[december]

*Originally posted by Squink *When someone spouts a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, it’s quite reasonable to presume that they are lying.

ISTM that most of us posters on this board do that. Are we all liars?

Can you supply some evidence that ignorance or stupidity are more likely explanations ? Just how credulous would you have americans be ?

Occam’s Razor. Bush makes speeches all the time. It’s only to be expected that he or his speech-writers will make some mistakes. We all make mistakes. Even Cecil Adams sometimes makes a mistake (but very, very rarely.)

BTW a lot of Bush critics claim that he’s stupid. I don’t recall whether you’re one of them, Squink. However, those who think he’s stupid ought to be more willing to assume that his mistakes are unintentional.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by december *
**How do you know Bush was lying, rather than just making a mistake? **

Read the story, they address this issue. On a couple more truthfulness issues they give W. the benefit of the doubt. It seems clear Bush got caught out a few times. Oops. Heck, they even gave W. a pass on his relations with Enron. “I did not have political relations with that man!” heh heh heh. I thought the story was relatively balanced. That’s why I thought it worth discussing.

Are you looking for a reasoned discussion on the issue?

[Kal]

Even Cecil Adams sometimes makes a mistake (but very, very rarely.)

I think you’ll find that Cecil never makes mistakes - He has varying degrees of correctness.

[Mac_Guffin]

Originally posted by Squink
When someone spouts a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, it’s quite reasonable to presume that they are lying.

*Originally posted by december *
ISTM that most of us posters on this board do that. Are we all liars?

Most of us posters spout a long train of abuses and usurpations?

Really december, are you reading the same board as I am?

At least you included yourself in the above sweeping statement. To that specific, I would have to answer yes, having watched your rhetoric thus far.

[Legomancer]

So when Bush says something that turns out to be untrue, that’s an error, but if Clinton does it, he’s lying, correct?

[Polycarp]

How do you know Bush was lying, rather than just making a mistake?

When a man who is President of the United States speaks in public with his office-holding being recognized, he gets substantially more coverage than, say, an unemployed janitor from West Des Moines making a similar statement might.

IMHO, his responsibility to the country includes that to be sure that what he says as President is as accurate as he is capable of making it. That goes for all Presidents of whichever party. To do otherwise is to intentionally mislead the country as to the facts of which he can be reasonably apprised with minimal effort.

If he had a valid memory slip, no problem. If he was blindsided, e.g., by a question posed by the Boise Weekly Courier’s stringer as to the impact of the recent agricultural treaty with Latvia on our turnip farmers, and makes an error of fact in attempting to respond based on what little he remembers of a half-page briefing note on this less-than-vital-to-most-people question, that’s excusable.

However, I don’t believe that sort of excusable mistake is the case in the wide assortment of supposed Bush lies being alleged.