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

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


W. having some truth “issues”

But wait, he is hardly alone.

Oops, more truth issues for W.

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.

In other news, bear shits in woods.

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

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?

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 ?

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.”

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.