I'm trying to figure out how to word this post correctly, to not upset anything. I was saying in terms of mocking, or digging up dirt, the situation is weak. Bill Clinton? Trent Lott?
I agree. It is among the least important of the various scandals and lies surrounding this administration. But it's also indicative of an administration which has made a habit of hiding the truth, then denying the truth and then, when it comes to it, lying. They do it at virtually every press conference. rimrocker was just pointing out that the beat goes on. I know a lot of people now defend Bush by saying, yeah, he's lying, but I don't care. These days, no matter what he says, you have to ask, well, is he telling the truth or is that one of those lies I'm not supposed to care about? What's amazing is that anyone still takes this guy seriously. You're right Nomar. This particular lie was not as significant as Lott's racist statements. Nor was it as big a deal as Clinton's perjury. But neither one of those guys managed to lie so much or do so much damage with their lies as Bush has. This particular one doesn't amount to anything compared to the others, but it is further evidence that we can't trust this guy at all.
giddy, I thought I just did that, but maybe I wasn't articulate enough. It represents a pattern of lying from this administration. Some are baby lies, some are whales. But every new one is proof that we can't trust a word that comes out of this administration. If there's any chance they might be made to look bad, they won't hesitate to lie. If there's a chance they'll look really bad, they'll lie like crazy. When folks say it's no big deal, they're empowered to keep doing it. So, you know... kudos. Good work. Way to participate in our representative democracy. Every time you blow off your president lying you're helping to shape strategy for the coming campaign. Worse though, you're helping to shape policy. How many lies does it take (big and/or small) to actually make you say, wow, maybe I can't trust this guy?
He lied about putting up the banner so he wouldn't look like a fool The point is that the man is a liar. Liars lie. That is what they do. Does Bush always lie? No. It is just that as a proven liar he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, when things appear questionable. It is the reason why Bush, rather than the Iraqi resistance looks increasingly desperate. Once you are unmasked as a liar, you just can't get away with the types of statements, people who are considered normally honest can. BTW the identical fonts on the two banners is the clincher for me, though, I guess they have fessed up on this lie.
I'd rather overlook some confusion about who ordered a sign made and then, of course, who actually made the sign. If Bush is micro-managing the Republic with that control of detail, we are in trouble. It's an immaterial question raised about an irrelevant detail that occurred almost 6 months ago. I imagine AND I hope that President Bush has more on his mind than the detail of that kind of tripe. If characterizing every miscue, mis-understanding, and mistake as a lie, then that is a kind of participation that I don't think we need in our representative democracy. Ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?" Save it for important stuff.
I know the banner on the USS Lincoln got most of the attention, but for me the funniest part of the press conference was this... Q. And the second question, can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq? THE PRESIDENT: The second question is a trick question, so I won't answer it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031028-2.html Bush looked so stunned when she asked that and stumbled before answering. I don't know how that question could possibly be a trick question anyway. It was Hilarious.
It's not about the confusion or who painted the banner; it's about the fact that Bush saw something politically damaging to him so he decided to disassociate himself from it by lying about it. Just like what he did with Ken Lay. It is noteworthy because activities like that make his well honored pledge of restoring "honor and integrity" to the whitehouse ring hollow.
The other point to be made about this lie is that it is simple and easily understood. When the administration lies about the distribution of tax cuts or Iraq or calls an increase in pollution "Clear Skies," those are tough lies to figure out and even harder to explain to everyone. This lie is simple and stupid. It will resonate with most Americans. Whoich brings up the question, "Why lie about this?" It is obvious that the banner was dreamed up and created by the White House visual people. Now, maybe the sailors did actually hang it... I can't imaging anyone in this WH actually doing manual labor unless it's for a photo op in Crawford... but Bush's statement, no matter how you parse it, was a lie. It was silly and it was uncalled for and it was purely political. If this is the attitude in the WH, it makes the Plame outing and some of the other things we've been reading about more understandable.
More handiwork from the sailors of the Lincoln! You know, the really insulting part, or is it the frightening part, is that hte administration feels the need to be sending subliminal messages to us via its magic font. It's like 1984; I would not be surprised to see a font behind him one day that says "2 + 2 = 5" or "These latest attacks in Iraq are a sign of progress!"
Mission Accomplished huh? Ya, uh... I think I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that one. Number of troops killed during war 115. Number of troops killed since Bush declared victory 116. BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. postwar combat death toll in Iraq climbed past the number of soldiers killed during the invasion when the U.S. military said Wednesday it had lost two more dead in a roadside bomb north of Baghdad. Their deaths brought to 116 the number of U.S. troops killed in hostilities since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1, surpassing the 115 killed in the war launched on March 20 to topple Saddam Hussein. complete story
LMFAO! Thank you, Sam. That's just awesome. The printing shop aboard the Lincoln is really top notch. You can tell that the lack of storage space has limited the number of fonts they can print in 856-point bold face though.
I can't believe this hasn't been brought into this thread... "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. " --Abraham Lincoln
Top ten lies: 10. "I have been very candid about my past." 9. "I’m a uniter not a divider." 8. "My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans." 7. "This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research." 6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." 5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger." 4. "I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]." 3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." 2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." 1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House." Source: The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
I am coming into this late in the day, but to addresss why this is significant, I'd like to point out what it indicates. You have a President who, when given a choice betwen taking responsibility for error or lying, chose the latter. That in itself speaks to what his priority is, and given the, shall we say, questionable nature of much of what this man has said about this war, the fact that he lied here, over something this insignificant should tell you all you need to know about what he would be willing to do over more significant things like were pur motives for the war sound, were their ulterior ones, was there a prejudgement to go to war, the whole CIA leak thing, etc. Now remember that, when goven the option of believing Bush or not, especially when the facts themselves leaned heavily in favor of the latter being most reasonable, several Bush supporters in here have been indignant about the willingness of some to disbelieve the man, and cited that as evidence that we were just Bush-haters. That is one reason why this is important. But a second and perhaps more important aspect to this is that it is so small an issue, and so easily refuted. That goes to show just what Bush thinks of the electorate. Polls have shown him that he can lie, mislead, fabricate, use false evidence, etc., and many Americans will continue to support him when the alternative is to admit that we were wrong and the rest of the world was right. So all he has to do is give any kind of rebuttle, irrrespective of how substantiated it is in fact, and many Americans will turn a blind eye and follow along, rather than risk another national insecurity complex that we had following Nam and Watergate...We are an incredibly proud people, and incredibly proud people would often rather swallow an obvious lie than their pride. The fact that most of us believed that the 9-11/Saddam link has been establ;ished, or that the world supported the war, or that we had found WMDs shows this... ...so for Bush to make such an obvious and easily refuted lie over something so minor is, to me, a clear indication that he knows we won't, in general, call him on it...Why should he think otherwise when we have, in general, swallowed to many bigger whoppers? He knows that many of us don't really want to face the truth...we want to win the bang bang, and make the bucks, and the other stuff, well...hey, we won the bang bang, didn't we?
Brokaw reported that the Navy requested it and the WH supplied it; Press reported that the WH made it. Are you still trying to contravene those "facts" to elaborate your point? I hope and assume that Bush has more on his mind than the genesis of one out of a thousand signs that have been made for his appearances.
