All politicians lie......it's what keeps them in the money.
And I was a 'dyed in the wool' republican until this second Bush term and the sad state of his handling of our relations with the rest of the world community.
And oddly enough, his defense of 'our oil' has not resulted in the cost of same going down, as evidenced by the recent spike in crude prices.......so what has it gained us, other than padding his cohorts' pockets with cash, and hardening much of the world's resentment against us?

Well, there's a lie worthy of discussion: that we invaded Iraq to steal their oil. Not only have we not stolen their oil, but we are paying the highest prices ever for the stuff. The US has not gotten any free oil from Iraq, nor sweetheart deals or any advantage in oil prices from our liberation of Iraq. But you might examine the underlying reasons that "the world community" has complained about our actions in Iraq; I'm sure you will uncover some lies being told there.

So what do you really think?
If we had kept our nose out of the Muslim's world would they still have attacked us?
And would that have made all of our problems go away?

I am not trying to be argumentative.....I just want to know if you really feel that 911 would not have happened if our leaders had paid more attention and money to what is happening here........
It makes me rather sad to think about what might have been done domestically with all of the money (and lives) that have been spent in Iraq.....

I'm not sure what you are asking. Should we not have responded to 911? I think we should have. Are you saying our actions in the Middle East somehow justified the 911 attack? I don't think so.

As for Iraq, I'm sure you are aware that Saddam invaded Kuwait. The US led a coalition to remove him from Kuwait and from power in Iraq, but before we got to Baghdad, Saddam and the US agreed to a cease-fire that imposed certain requirements on Saddam. For ten years Saddam broke those agreements, including firing on US planes, operating aircraft in no-fly zones and refusing to allow complete weapons inspections. Iraq's violation of the cease-fire treaty in these ways justified our resumption of hostilities at any time. After 911 we gave him chances to comply, and he refused.

Bush didn't lie about Iraq's WMD. He told Congress what our intelligence agencies (and all other Western intelligence agencies) believed. But the fact that Saddam expelled weapons inspectors, by itself, was reason enough for us to take military action. Even though Saddam did not take part in 911, our country was shown to be vulnerable to terrorist attack and we could no longer ignore even the threat of WMD's in Iraq, especially since Saddam was in violation of the very condition of the cease-fire that would have allowed us to be at ease about Iraq having WMD's or not.

Has Bush been the greatest wartime president? No, but neither is he the evil dolt that so many people claim. Roosevelt was not reviled when the Battle of the Bulge almost lost us WWII, but Bush is blamed for every suicide bomber or terrorist act anywhere in the world, even though such attacks have been going on for more than 40 years.

The state that you live in regulates loans made there, not the federal goverment. the sub-prime lenders do business according to the rules that regulate them state by state. ever see the small print "Loan not available in this state or that state" on the TV commercials?

So if you are really mad about the sub-prime mess contact your local state senator/rep and govenor.

doesn't anybody study civics in high school anymore? the president of the US does not make any law. Only the congress can do that. the president can ask someone to sponsor a bill, but congress has to approve it in both houses before it can be sent up for his signature/veto.

the president doesn't have any money to spend until congress gives it to him.

he is not a king, or a dictator, and he is voted in/out every four years.

I agree with you Mr. Haley. I have been called an apologist for a failed president, but this comes from someone whose big complaint about the president is that Enron and the sub-prime mess came on this President's watch. This implies that the president is somehow responsible for everything (bad) that has happened in the last seven years: (did your grandmother die? it's Bush's fault. did you fall on some ice? it's Bush's fault.) There is no way to rationally discuss issues with such people because they confuse what has happened with the reasons for it happening.

Then, since they have no real argument to make, they attack the person instead, or in this case, my choice of avatar.

Who will they blame when Bush is gone, Misfit I guess?

I agree with you Mr. Haley. I have been called an apologist for a failed president, but this comes from someone whose big complaint about the president is that Enron and the sub-prime mess came on this President's watch. This implies that the president is somehow responsible for everything (bad) that has happened in the last seven years: (did your grandmother die? it's Bush's fault. did you fall on some ice? it's Bush's fault.) There is no way to rationally discuss issues with such people because they confuse what has happened with the reasons for it happening.

Then, since they have no real argument to make, they attack the person instead, or in this case, my choice of avatar.

Who will they blame when Bush is gone, Misfit I guess?

That's a given. I blame Misfit even now.

Who will they blame when Bush is gone

Ms Hillary... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

How do you make God Laugh?
...
...
Tell him your plans.

How do you make men angry?
...
...
Tell them Gods plan... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

All I will say is that anyone who says Bush does not lie is an idiot. Sorry to be frank. Just my opinion.

If he does not lie then he is the idiot for not getting to the truth before sending our soldiers to die for nothing. He lies and people have died because of it. We execute murderers who kill one person. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and Bush and Cheney think they are above the law. Impeach them both.

All I will say is that anyone who says Bush does not lie is an idiot. Sorry to be frank. Just my opinion.

Who's the idiot, a person who says what they think and gives a reason, or a person, such as yourself, who completely ignores the very definition of a rather common word? Look up the word "lie". To lie, one has to know that the statement is false and still say it in order to deceive. Just my opinion, but I will take reason over your ignorant, emotional bias any day.

[Edit]: While I was answering your first crazy statement, you made this one:

If he does not lie then he is the idiot for not getting to the truth before sending our soldiers to die for nothing. He lies and people have died because of it. We execute murderers who kill one person. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and Bush and Cheney think they are above the law. Impeach them both.

Now you apparently think that perhaps Bush did not lie. If that's so, wouldn't that make you an idiot (based on your first statement)?

But you seem to think that the President must have some superhuman power to know things that no one else outside Iraq knew for certain and that Saddam himself went to great lengths to prevent anyone else from knowing. That was Saddam's worst violation of the cease-fire treaty and, pay attention here, justified our resumption of hostilities In Iraq.

We are a nation of laws. We don't execute criminals or impeach presidents based on your poorly supported opinion. This war was authorized by a huge majority in Congress, just as the Constitution requires. That was the law the President followed. If there was any reason for Congress to believe that Bush really, intentionally gave false information (Congress had the same intelligence reports the President did), the Congressional War Powers Act would have been denied or the President would have been impeached.

I am not the only one saying he lies. A lie is a false statement. Period. Intention does not matter. Even though I am sure Bush intended every falsehood he spoke. I do not think he is an idiot.

Did you even read the Public integrity original link in this thread. How can you say Bush does not lie. I just can't understand your position. And I guarentee you I never will. You are just wrong.

You can live in whatever world you chose. It is obviously not the same reality I live in.

I am not the only one saying he lies. A lie is a false statement. Period. Intention does not matter. Even though I am sure Bush intended every falsehood he spoke. I do not think he is an idiot.

Did you even read the Public integrity original link in this thread. How can you say Bush does not lie. I just can't understand your position. And I guarentee you I never will. You are just wrong.

You can live in whatever world you chose. It is obviously not the same reality I live in.

Don't you have a dictionary? There are plenty on-line. A lie is "a false statement deliberately presented as being true." You will never understand that simple English word because you are incapable of understanding reality. "You are just wrong." But I have at least given you a verifiable reason that you are just wrong, as opposed to your uninformed opinion.

Ok I'll try to use logic.

1) Bush has many speeches where he tells many falsehoods.

2) These speeches are INTENDED to influence people. No?

3) Falsehood + Intent = your definition of LIE.

Enough said. Do you understand. Duh.

Bite you all here in the politics thread.......we're listening to the turbo polka in the Cafe.............LOL.......

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

You guys have rather poor memories. Bush came into office with the economy faltering. Remember the "dot-com" bubble? Then, America was attacked and the economy tanked. The tax-cuts that went through Congress after those problems happened, helped to revive the economy. The Dow-Jones gained more than 5,000 points before the recent sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Unthinking, anti-Bush propaganda like this, which ignores reality, has led people like you to believe that the sub-prime problem and it's effects on the economy are Bush's fault too. Instead of echoing the ideologues who lay all problems on the White House steps, you should check your history.

By the way, a lie is a statement known to be false but deliberately presented as true; meant to deceive. Clinton lied, Bush did not. Deal with it.

And just what is your comment on the billions being spent to impose our ideals on Iraq?

I have made those comments in other threads, but this thread--supposedly set up to discuss (Bush's) lies--is not the place to discuss this, unless you think that there is some kind of "lie" being told.

All politicians lie......it's what keeps them in the money.
And I was a 'dyed in the wool' republican until this second Bush term and the sad state of his handling of our relations with the rest of the world community.
And oddly enough, his defense of 'our oil' has not resulted in the cost of same going down, as evidenced by the recent spike in crude prices.......so what has it gained us, other than padding his cohorts' pockets with cash, and hardening much of the world's resentment against us?

In a sense, I beg to differ Mark.

Not all politicians " lie ". What they do is tell people what they want to hear.

Romney won the Michigan primary by telling the people here that as soon as he got to Washington, he would address the economic problems we are having here due to the auto companies closing plants.

That doesn't mean he will DO anything....but the people here ate it up anyway.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Ok I'll try to use logic.

1) Bush has many speeches where he tells many falsehoods.

2) These speeches are INTENDED to influence people. No?

3) Falsehood + Intent = your definition of LIE.

Enough said. Do you understand. Duh.

Now I understand: you don't speak English.

You also quite failed in your attempt to use logic. My definition of "lie" is what we English speakers understand the word to mean. It's what the dictionary confirms that it means. What part of "a false statement deliberately presented as being true" confuses you?

On the other hand, you just made up a definition (and then claimed it is my definition, when it isn't), but that simply shows that you are either stupid or a liar, or both. The example being discussed is Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq; this is not a lie because, even if it was false, no one knew that, including the President when the claim was made. Saddam kept the UN inspectors out and spread disinformation so that no one could know that. So the President, who believed that WMD were in Iraq, was not deliberately deceiving anyone. I've tried to make this as simple as I can to account for your lack of ability to understand English. Unfortunately, I can't write in your language, as I don't speak gibberish.

This is off topic, but I saw a reference to Michigan in the post below. I think the Democrates are cutting off a limb by excluding Michigan the way they did. I would call it disenfranchisement. I appears the Democrates don't have anything to offer a rust belt state like Michigan. Same goes for the Dems and Florida. I think the Dems don't want to win the Presidency. They seem not go give a hoot about states in trouble.

Ok I'll try to use logic.

1) Bush has many speeches where he tells many falsehoods.

2) These speeches are INTENDED to influence people. No?

3) Falsehood + Intent = your definition of LIE.

Enough said. Do you understand. Duh.

Now I understand: you don't speak English.

You also quite failed in your attempt to use logic. My definition of "lie" is what we English speakers understand the word to mean. It's what the dictionary confirms that it means. What part of "a false statement deliberately presented as being true" confuses you?

On the other hand, you just made up a definition (and then claimed it is my definition, when it isn't), but that simply shows that you are either stupid or a liar, or both. The example being discussed is Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq; this is not a lie because, even if it was false, no one knew that, including the President when the claim was made. Saddam kept the UN inspectors out and spread disinformation so that no one could know that. So the President, who believed that WMD were in Iraq, was not deliberately deceiving anyone. I've tried to make this as simple as I can to account for your lack of ability to understand English. Unfortunately, I can't write in your language, as I don't speak gibberish.

You do think gibberish though.

More logic.

If someone repeats a falsehood 900+ times they are either stupid or are intentionally doing it for a reason. Someone who defends another for doing such a thing is even more foolish.

You do think gibberish though.

More logic.

If someone repeats a falsehood 900+ times they are either stupid or are intentionally doing it for a reason. Someone who defends another for doing such a thing is even more foolish.

Finally! Something I can agree with.

Yes! You people who repeat 900+ times that Bush is a liar are "either stupid or are intentionally doing it for a reason." But, if you honestly believe it to be true, you are not lying, even though the statement is patently false.

I am just making an observation that repeating something 900 times is not done by a sane person without intent. Do you think Bush is insane or was he intentionally repeating falsehoods.

Once again, the proof is in the actions. I ain't making it up.

Falsehood + intent to deceive or influence ======= lie, lie, lie. No way around it. You can't spin the truth.

I am just making an observation that repeating something 900 times is not done by a sane person without intent. Do you think Bush is insane or was he intentionally repeating falsehoods.

Once again, the proof is in the actions. I ain't making it up.

Falsehood + intent to deceive or influence ======= lie, lie, lie. No way around it. You can't spin the truth.

I'm not "spinning" anything. My definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary. Yours just came out of your head and is wrong . . . so the spin is just yours.

But again, you ideologues who repeat 900 times that Bush is a liar are not sane (not rational) and you have a clear intent. But you can't back it up with facts. And, oh yes, clearly you are "making it up" as you go along.

I could say the same thing about your ceaseless defense of Bush. You don't ever stop do you? You are just like Bush. You can't admit that you are wrong.

I guess I will just have to stop here. I, unlike you, tire of repeating myself over and over making a point.


One last time, no doubt in my mind::: Bush told falsehoods with the intent to deceive; in other words he lied. I am going to leave it at that. Well before the 900+ lies that Bush and Co. told.

The example being discussed is Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq; this is not a lie because, even if it was false, no one knew that, including the President when the claim was made.

Based on what we know now, why are we still there? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .