It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“Bush Lied?” Let’s Examine the Facts

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING TO THIS THREAD

“Bush Lied.” It’s the “Got Milk?” of present-day partisan politics in America. It is almost impossible to discuss American politics without this charge, in some form or another, being leveled.

For many Democrats, “Bush Lied” is an established fact, an article of faith, a two-word description of the man and his character. For many Republicans, it is itself a lie, a slanderous indictment without a true foundation in fact. On this point neither of these factions can meet, and thus, more often than not, discussion breaks down over this contention, with accusations, defenses and counter-accusations obscuring whatever the original topic may have been. Pointlessness rapidly ensues and meaningful debate shuts down.

For the rest of us, “Bush Lied” poses a question: “About what?” In other words, what are the specifics? The question of “Bush Lied” is not just a partisan issue, but a matter of interest to all Americans and, by extension, everyone on earth. It deserves attention outside partisan rhetoric, and analysis on its factual merits. If Bush has indeed lied, it is reasonable to want to know the details and have them supported by corroborated fact, and not obscured by opinion, unsubstantiated or false claims, innuendo or rumor.

Whatever your opinion may be about “Bush Lied”, it is a charge poisonous to political debate, as evidenced again and again throughout this and every other discussion forum on the Internet. It is a phrase that resonates around the world, and has direct bearing on world politics. It is both a controversy and a scandal, but valid questions about the truth of the claim and its extent remain in the minds of those who haven‘t chosen sides. Thus it seems a worthy topic for a thread of its own, and a topic suited to the charter of the Politics & Scandal forum.

Of course, to open such a thread is to virtually assure that the partisan choruses surrounding the subject will simply take root here, and I am under no illusions about that. The odds of the thread devolving into a “Mud Pit” thread are almost 100%, but I don‘t want this to be a “Mud Pit“ issue. This is a topic which transcends partisanship, even if 99% of the discussion about it does not.

Despite the likelihood of failure, I think it’s important enough to give it a shot, and urge potential contributors to respect the purpose of this thread and the importance of examining the truth surrounding this topic by observing the following guidelines.

THREAD GUIDELINES

Please observe, understand and abide by the following:

1. STAY ON TOPIC! This thread is about facts proving that Bush lied. Please take discussions of anything else to other threads, and please do not pollute the thread by starting off-topic discussions here.

2. Stick to the facts. Opinions are worthless to this discussion. What matters is solid, credible evidence proving a Bush lie. Almost the entire remainder of ATS is available for opinions, sticking to facts here is not an unreasonable request.

3. Cite your sources with valid links. When making a claim about a lie in question, cite credible sources with links to them. If no link is available to a source, then for the purposes of this thread it is NOT VALID. Use only one link per source, briefly summarize or quote the relevant points from the source with your link. Avoid “link-farm posts”, most people never follow a long series of links.

4. A "Bush lie" is a statement made personally by George W. Bush proven to be false. There are other definitions you can find in your Webster’s, but this is the definition for this thread. If you present a LIE for consideration, include sources showing both the original statement and the PROOF that it is false. Proof of a lie must come from a credible source that provides solid evidence of a lie, not opinions, assumptions or insinuations. If you are intent on proving Bush Lied, then kindly refrain from hypocrisy by lying or attempting to mislead others in the process of doing so. If you are refuting a post claiming a lie, confine the refutation to an analysis of the facts. If you consider a source not to be credible, back up that claim with a factual source demonstrating this. Please avoid referencing as sources partisan political websites whose credibility in a discussion of this kind is necessarily suspect.

5. Present one lie per post. Keep it simple and refrain from posting laundry lists of examples. I’m sure there are many reading this thinking “Bush lied? Let me count the ways!” Laundry lists are not practical tools for examination in this context. Short, concise and sensible posts are the best way to tackle this issue.

6. Present your BEST example of a “Bush lie.” I’m sure some members have closets full of examples of “Bush lies”. Dig out your best one and stick with it. Success in proving one lie is far better than failure to prove a thousand. Focus on quality, not quantity, and avoid the temptation to unleash a barrage of posts in a lame attempt to make a point. Such a barrage will only make the point that you’re lame. Polish off your finest example of a “Bush lie” and showcase it in all its brilliance instead of hiding it behind a smokescreen.

7. Keep your posts SMALL and READABLE. Do not make huge posts, they tend to be ignored. Do not paste boilerplate into posts. Do not quote large sections of other posts and begin point/counterpoint flame wars. Keep your posts focused on a specific lie, one at a time, one per post. Try to prevent thread bloat.

8. Take off-topic discussions to other threads. If a post does not directly examine an example of a Bush lie, it is off-topic. This thread is not about Clinton, Watergate, JFK, Democrats, Republicans or conspiracy theory. Please take off-topic discussions to other threads or start a new thread for them. Please respect the importance of this topic. Note that this is basically the same as guideline #1; please get the point about that.

9. Don’t be a thread cop. Ignoring off-topic posts is generally the best way to avoid having them derail the thread. Please take your desires for law enforcement, defense of pride and ego, care for correcting the unforgivable mistakes of others and general need for order to other threads. If necessary, temporarily ignore a user, but PLEASE do not pollute the thread with thread cop posts. Please stick to posts which address the topic. I reserve the right to be the thread cop for this thread, but will try to confine myself to addressing posts relevant to the topic. If you must comment about off-topic posts and can’t contain your need, please put such comments in a post that DOES address the topic, and keep them brief and pertinent. If you are the subject of such a comment, please DO NOT compound your error by responding with an off-topic post. All ATS moderators are, of course and as always, exempt from any limitations I may attempt to impose, and I welcome and encourage their support in keeping this thread on-topic.

10. If you aren’t sure if a post follows these guidelines, don’t post it. Err on the side of caution. Try to DENY IGNORANCE by not obscuring this thread with posts that don’t belong here.

I expect every single one of these guidelines to be rudely and summarily ignored, but without a framework for discussion, no discussion is worth pursuing, so there it is. As pointless as the effort may prove in the end, it is still worthy of an attempt. Perhaps this topic is ultimately better suited to a thread in the research forum, but some useful information may nonetheless emerge here.

If you are willing to observe and respect the guidelines for this thread, I welcome and look forward to your contributions. If not, I request that you refrain from posting to this thread. Remember, if you choose to pollute this thread, the disgrace is your own, not mine, and brings disgrace to your point of view, not mine.

Now, let’s see if anything worthwhile comes of this, or anything at all.

The Truth Is Out There. Let’s bring some of it here.

Edit: Updated Guideline #4 per observation by MaskedAvatar.


[edit on 7/25/2004 by Majic]




posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Questions for clarification:

If Bush did not mouth the words, but one of Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice or Wolfowitz did, is that a Bush lie?

What is Bush knew the information that they were communciating to be false and delegated the communication of the falsehood to them?



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
An excellent question. For the purposes of this examination, let's clarify the definition as follows:

4. A "Bush lie" is a statement made personally and publicly by George W. Bush proven to be false.

The issue of Bush creating false impressions and the use of surrogates to mislead is a very valid, pertinent and fascinating topic for discussion on its own, but let's leave that to another analysis. We're pushing our luck here as it is.


I'll update Guideline #4 in the article to reflect this change. Thanks for a great question!



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Majic says


THREAD GUIDELINES

Please observe, understand and abide by the following:


Jesus H. Christ. WTF do you think you are??? Two screens of guidelines which you, as thread originator, think you have the right to impose?

It is especially ironic that you would publish these guidelines, since you consistently violate them yourself.

In my thread Bush and Blair Lied About Mass Graves in Iraq, you replied to an on-topic post by RockerDom which contained a passing reference to debunked Niger uranium documents with two detailed posts about the question of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. You effectively derailed the thread into a discussion about the Iraq/uranium/Niger issue.

In the thread Bush Asks Blacks to Go Republican, you first replied to an off-topic remark by curme about the Army Times with an off-topic post. Then you replied to an off-topic post about Bush lying by marg6043 with an off-topic post of your own, asking for proof of Bush lies. This resulted in an off-topic exchange of posts between you and me.

In the same thread, you replied to an off-topic post by RANT replying to an off-topic comment by Seth Bullock with an off-topic post of your own. This resulted in another off-topic exchange of posts between you and me.

In other words, in these two threads you managed to derail both threads with off-topic posts. I am pretty sure if I examined other threads you have participated in, I would find similar thread derailling behavior.

As someone said, Physician, Heal Thyself.

By the way, consider my post "Bush and Blair Lied About Mass Graves in Iraq" to be my first contribution to this thread.







[edit on 7/27/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   

President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
Aired December 4, 2001 - 15:18 ET


THE PRESIDENT: You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.

Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

www.whitehouse.gov...


A Lie and a terrible joke at the expense of the people who died on September 9th. 2001.

It would have been impossible for Bush to see the first plane, because that particular video wasn't released until the following day.

The video is known as the 'Gamma Press Video' and was released on 9/12/01.

As a note of interest, this story is repeated at the Town Hall Forum on Economy in California on January 5th. 2002, so that discounts the idea that it was a forgetful moment:


Originally by George W Bush
Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

www.whitehouse.gov...


Keep that story straight!

[edit on 25-7-2004 by shanti23]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
donguillermo: This thread is not about me, you or other threads. We can discuss other topics in other threads.

This thread is about facts proving that Bush lied.

If you possess demonstrable evidence of a Bush lie, I invite you to present it concisely in this thread.

Please address the topic or refrain from posting to it.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Well how bout the truth?

If Bush had not invaded Iraq there would be nearly 1000 more american soldiers alive today, drinking beers and having fun this weekend, The UN would still be debating and fighting with Saddam about inspections. The US would still not be attacked or threatend by Iraq today. I mean today..

*Shrug* was it time for war?

Wonder how those 1000 dead would vote?



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
donguillermo: This thread is not about me, you or other threads. We can discuss other topics in other threads.

This thread is about facts proving that Bush lied.

If you possess demonstrable evidence of a Bush lie, I invite you to present it concisely in this thread.

Please address the topic or refrain from posting to it.


Oh, I see. The fact that you are a frequent violator of the guidelines you propose is not a proper subject for discussion. Hypocrisy is acting in a manner contrary to your beliefs. Since these guidelines represent your beliefs about proper posting, the fact that you frequently violate these guidelines makes you a hypocrite. I think it is very much on-topic for posters to this thread to know that the thread originator is a hypocrite, since he frequently violates the posting guidelines he insists on other posters following.

Please do not tell me again to address the topic or refrain from posting. I will post any damned thing I please in this thread, unless or until I get a warning from the moderaters.

The fact that you originated the thread does not make you the thread boss. If you give me any more orders, I will cross post previous posts I have made exposing you as a liar, a plagiarist, and a frequent user of strawman arguments.

[edit on 7/25/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Folks... I may not be a mod or anything, I don't know what the thing between Majic and Don Guillermo is, but I don't feel comfortable about someone being called a "liar" and other things. Whatever differences people might have, we are on this board to exchange knowledge and views, and I personally don't find it particularly interesting to watch mud-slinging.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
Folks... I may not be a mod or anything, I don't know what the thing between Majic and Don Guillermo is, but I don't feel comfortable about someone being called a "liar" and other things. Whatever differences people might have, we are on this board to exchange knowledge and views, and I personally don't find it particularly interesting to watch mud-slinging.


When you show conclusively that someone has lied, calling them a liar is not mudslinging, it is truth in reporting. In Majic's case, he provided a source link for material in his post. The material was not in the link he provided. Posting a false link is a lie as far as I am concerned.

Oh, Majic, great enforcer of thread guidelines. Ott's post is off-topic. I assume you will duly chastise her.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
On September 15, 2003, George Bush said


Economic security is on my mind. I'm sure the numbers are beginning to look better. But there's still people looking for work.


www.whitehouse.gov...

The third sentence makes it clear he was talking about jobs.

Ten days earlier, on September 5, 2003, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued the following report.


Friday, September 5, 2003.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: AUGUST 2003

Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 93,000 in August, and
the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 6.1 percent, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported
today.


ftp.bls.gov...

George Bush knew the latest employment report showed a loss of 93.000 jobs in August, 2003. Yet he said the numbers were beginning to look better. A lie? I report, you decide.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
OK. I generally think games are ruined by too many rules, but I'll play:

Bush says, "Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer."

Source: www.whitehouse.gov...

Yet the CRS says,



Ultimately, the debate about Al Qaeda’s current status centers on the important question of whether it is growing or declining in strength. In the wake of the Afghanistan and Iraq military campaigns, when the predicted terrorist attacks on the United States and its interests did not materialize, what is the current level of threat to the United States? Most believe that the denial of safe havens and arrests of senior leaders have seriously crippled the organization when judged by its earlier form. However, it may be evolving into something new. For terrorist groups, periods of evolution can be particularly dangerous. Organizations in transition can be especially vulnerable to disruption and destruction, but they can also be less predictable and prone to lash out in order to cause additional damage, rally flagging supporters, and/or prove their continuing viability. With respect to Al Qaeda, evidence of new sophisticated operations, a possible succession plan in action, central coordination of attacks, and growing international ties, all increasingly converging on a common international agenda hostile to the United States and its allies, may give U.S. officials new reason for concern. In the short term at least, even successes in counterterrorist operations against a more decentralized organization can lead to greater difficulty in collecting reliable intelligence, as the paths of communication are increasingly unfamiliar, the personalities are changing, and the locations of operatives are more diffuse. While the long term trajectory is very difficult to assess, for the time being it seems that Al Qaeda (or its successors) has emerged from a period of inactivity and remains a very serious threat, requiring concentrated attention and vigorous countermeasures on the part of its prospective targets.


if you want the source for this, go to:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems like a lie to me.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

On Oct. 17, 2000, in a presidential debate against Democratic candidate Al Gore, then-Gov. George W. Bush of Texas promised a patients' bill of rights like the one in his state, including a right to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed treatment.

"If I'm the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court," Bush said. "That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington."

Today, legislation for a federal patients' bill of rights is moribund in Congress. And the Bush administration's Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to block lawsuits under the very Texas law Bush touted in 2000.


www.washingtonpost.com...

You need to register with the Washington Post to read the article.

When George Bush says "That's what I've done in Texas", he is lying again, because he is representing that he supported the patients' bill of rights in Texas. In fact, he opposed it. When the Texas Legislature passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, he let it become law without signing it. I don't have a link for this. I am suffering from Google fatigue.





[edit on 7/25/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
koji_K,

Thanks for that post I was wondering myself about that one, if we are a safer nation and the world is a safer place why our Olympics athletes need security in Athens? Why any athletes are in danger?

If we are a safer nation why we have warnings of imminent attacks all the time. I may not be a genius but somebody is lying here.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
donguillermo says


When George Bush says "That's what I've done in Texas", he is lying again, because he is representing that he supported the patients' bill of rights in Texas. In fact, he opposed it. When the Texas Legislature passed the bill with a veto-proof majority, he let it become law without signing it. I don't have a link for this. I am suffering from Google fatigue.



As governor of Texas, George Bush first vetoed the patient protection act in 1995. When the law was passed by an overwhelming majority of the legislature in 1997, Bush allowed it to become law without signing the bill. In Washington, the Bush administration has yet to make a patients’ right proposal, even though that has been identified as a priority by both the president and congressional Republicans.


www.benefitnews.com...

So Bush first vetoed the bill, then allowed it to become law without signing it. Yet he takes credit for it in the 2000 debates.

You can read a more detailed account of this matter at

www.johnkerry.com...

I know, I know. This is John Kerry's website. The article is sourced, but not with web links. If you think anything in the Kerry article is inaccurate, here is your chance to show that John Kerry is a liar.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The following is from a March 6, 2003 Presidential Press Conference.


Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.


www.whitehouse.gov...


On March 17, 2003, with a possible resolution waiting in the wings, Bush announced he would not call for a vote, saying, "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."


slate.msn.com...

George Bush never flip flops. George Bush is a man of his word. George Bush is a strong leader. ROTFLMAO!!!







[edit on 7/26/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
don guillermo - it's "he".
And as I'm more interested in discussing Bush's lies than Majic's alleged lies, I'll leave you two to your little spat.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Do Guillermo you remind me a member we used to have, I used to enjoy his post but he had to go away, that was a shame.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
don guillermo - it's "he".
And as I'm more interested in discussing Bush's lies than Majic's alleged lies, I'll leave you two to your little spat.


Excuse me, SIR. As far as Bush's lies, I have posted a total of five in this thread so far, including my referencing my post "Bush and Blair Lied About Mass Graves in Iraq", and two lies related to the Texas patients' bill of rights.

Basically, I could sit here for days with Google posting lie after lie by George Bush. He is easily the most dishonest President in my lifetime, which goes back to FDR. When Kerry characterized Bush and the Republicans as liars and crooks, he was speaking truth to power.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Don Guillermo - as you were, friend.
I agree totally, Bush is a liar and a crook. If Michael Moore's FACTS haven't proven it enough, I don't know what will. I'm just saying that if we're being offered the chance of a thread where we can concentrate all that evidence, we should do so regardless of who offers it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join