I was in a conversation on this board over the last couple of days wherein I said "President Bush has never lied to us."

Archaeopteryx and Schmutzie called me on it, and someone gave me a link to a whole fleet of websites devoted to the supposed lies told by President Bush.

For some reason I often screw up on creating hot links inside these posts, but let's see if this works. Don't bother to go read the whole thread unless you want to; I will be fair in summarizing and getting to the point, but here it is:

link

I believed it would be unfair to ask me to go browse a fleet of anti-Bush sites, because on both sides of the political spectrum there are slanted, propoganda-filled garbage dumps. Life's too short.

Furthermore, it is a common tactic to try to put people on the defensive in an argument on these boards to the point they are always trying to prove negatives. "Oh, you don't think that's a lie? Well defend this! And this! And this!" After 8+ years of speeches being parsed by those who hate the man, there are too many splices taken out of context for a person to defend.

So, I think it was fair for me to say, "Hang on. Give me your best shot. A lie as irrefutably obvious as, for example, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.'"

Make it your best shot, so if I am able to go research the context and successfully defend the President, I will prove that the constantly repeated and droning accusation of "liar" directed at the President is nothing more than the most vile kind of propoganda.

It took a few tries. I said, "Okay, is that your best shot?" Schmutzie was, apparently, not interested in responding and getting pinned down, or just got bored, or was busy elsewhere, but he did ignore my question at least once, while still trying to put the onus on me.

Arch. responded by giving me a link (I'll try to reproduce it):

here

The headline on youtube is, conveniently, "President Bush admits lying to the press." I think there are plenty of arguments to be made about whether the words he spoke are an admission of lying ("staying on" does not mean for how long), but I won't be clintonesque about it, because President Bush didn't try to parse it, either.

I told Arch. that it didn't make me want to call the man a "liar." But I didn't try to deny anything that was said.

Arch. said "If you lie, that makes you a liar."

I don't think I can argue with that and keep my reputation intact. So, all I'll say is this: I teach my children not to lie, and I believe in black and white, good and evil, absolutes, more than leftist progressives do. But I am a liar. And, as an adult, I recognize some things.

1. The anti-steroid, HGH witch hunt in baseball and other sports is a farce. If you tell a man he has a choice between being a box boy, or making millions of dollars playing the game he most loves in the world, and all he has to do is inject a new kind of carefully engineered performance enhancing drug, that has far, far less long term side effects than old school anabolic steroids, what in the hell do you think he's going to do??? I am not defending cheating or lying, I'm merely telling you what the real-world option is for so many athletes who are right on the edge of just barely making it to the big show in their sport. It's not even a hypothetical. It's the decision they are faced with all the time.

2. You are a phenomenal, gifted performer, who is a lock for the Hall of Fame, whether you take steroids or not. But you are chasing history. The people you are competing against should, be all rights, not be able to hit a ball half as far as you, nor run the bases as fast, nor throw as hard as they do. They should not even be in your league. Yet you just watched as one talentless oaf became the hero of America for a year, by breaking the long held record of a very skinny Roger Maris. He's not fit to hold your jockstrap. But the fans and the league turned it into a nightly festival, with magazine covers devoted to the two roid monsters every fucking day! Homeruns they want instead of the best stats ever put up by anyone, by far? Fine, then that's what I'll give them. I think Barry Bonds ruined his knees and his reputation for nothing. He would have been my baseball hero if he would have staid skinny. But there's no denying the nightly party and loud, constant, nation-wide huzzahs that ensued during is record chases. Yeah, he got booed in lots of stadiums, but that was media driven bullshit. He wasn't friendly with reporters and didn't sign autographs. So hate him. Clemens, all along, was getting his rozy ass kissed by everyone, even when he threw the spike of shorn bat wood right at Piazza. What in the hell was that?!?

Anyway, this started getting longer than I intended. I didn't mean to divert attention from President Bush to the Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens idiocy in this country. But my son was a fan of Barry Bonds, and so was I, and all of his little class friends started saying, "How can you like Barry Bonds?!?!?! He's a cheater!??!!?" To me, it seemed that the parents of these children were repeating a media chant. Okay, it's easier to teach your children that cheating is wrong, period. But all of these little brats loved Roger Clemens, Mark McGuire, even A-Rod (who I would bet a year's salary is on HGH too). No, they turned on Barry because the media hated him too. He was the easy target. I told my son to make up his own mind. If he wanted to be a fan of Barry Bonds, that was his decision. He asked me what I thought. It was difficult to answer. Do I think Barry Bonds is taking steroids? Yes, yes I do, I said. But I asked him to consider that before Barry ever put on all that muscle he had already become the only member ever of the 400/400 club, his statistics across the board were the most jaw dropping ratios anyone had ever seen when it came to at bats, hits, strikeouts, extra base hits, etc., not to mention his fantastic defensive skills in spite of a weak throwing arm. And then, conveniently, the next day an article came out in the newspaper that listed something like 50 of the most recent baseball players that had failed their performance enhancing drug tests ... 40 of them were pitchers.

So, my son decided to remain a fan of Barry as he had been since he could remember, and he cut that article out of the paper and handed it to the kids who'd been giving him shit at school. "You're defending a CHEATER!" Honestly, that's what they said. My son said, "Okay, but he was great before he ever took steroids, and I still like him." I asked him if it bothered him that the other kids wouldn't even listen to his argument and he said, "Nah, they're just being stupid. But I still like them."

Anyway, now that I got that off my chest ... I am not comparing President Bush with Barry Bonds, at all. Nor am I trying to justify cheating or lying. I believe in black and white, good and evil, absolutes, but I recognize those are often philosophical things, that they are ideas. What I'm saying is, one can believe in absolutes and still understand, fully, yes, I'm going to say it, n- n- n- .... NUANCE! ARGH!

The point I was trying to say in short order was that I will not try to parse words for the meaning of "is", nor will I deny that if you tell a lie then that makes you a liar. I am a liar. Mea culpa.

But I will ask, if that's the standard you want to set, then that is fine. Does that justify so many thousands of people in this country who repeat the phrase that President Bush is "an evil lying _____, ______, _____?"

What gets me is that so many people have repeated the accusation as if it were a reflex now, and furthermore, so many people just let it go right on by without calling them on it, that the perception is becoming solidified.

Yes, I know, that's exactly what they want. They're succeeding. Not sure it will hold up in the historical record, but ask yourself, is it right? Is it fair?

Is this the same as President Bill Clinton lying about sexually harrassing his intern while wagging his finger in the face of the American people at a press conference, staged for the lie?

I will submit that although Arch. provided us with a short, concise youtube clip, that my claim that President Bush is perhaps the most honest president any of us has ever seen, stands. But I'm a liar.

I do not think that those who defend President Bush should have to wade through bushlies.com to disect the convoluted lists and unfair snapshots in time, looked at through straws.

If you want to call President Bush an "evil" liar, one of the worst in history, your best shot is that he deflected a question he did not want to answer because it was on the eve of an election (the answer could easily have helped his cause)?

Or is that not really your best shot? Was it merely what you (you collectively) consider a good, concise example?

So, I will ask the board. If you think President Bush is a liar, but you don't necessarily think that the one Arch. linked makes him the worst evil one in history, then perhaps you could come to some kind of consensus for us? Give us, say, the top three horrendous whoppers the President told that allows you all to spout the nonsense accusations of lying that you spout about him.

This is your opportunity to bash the man. Go for it. I'm only asking for some kind of fair consensus of actual lies that you think are the prime examples.

You see, I still believe he has never lied to us, the American people. Yes, Arch. gave me that link and if you lie that makes you a liar. I won't deny anything in that clip. But I'm a liar.

Looking forward to your bashing of a great man.

-Krazy Kazy

PS: "Lying" about WMDs in Iraq doesn't count. And you know it. He never lied. Everyone, everyone thought they were there, and the onus was on Saddam to prove they were not there. Saddam signed a treaty to that effect. Then he barred the door to the UN weapons inspectors after we gave him one last chance not to. He should have followed Qaddafi's example, but he thought we were bluffing. So try again.

Don't let it get to you,Kaz. These are really strange days for the democrats.

It's ironic that they gave you a hard time over whether Bush lied or not because when they are shown irrefutable proof of Obama's lies..they simply don't care that he did.

<link>

They ignore his lies completely. That's what makes them so non credible.

Yet the say to you that any lie by anyone is so wrong..strange days Kaz...strange days, indeed.

Obama's lies:

<link>

Thanks, Laurie.

Actually, I do let it get to me, because I think it should get to me. I see even President Bush's supporters just clam up too often. But I see your point. ;-)

on that note..maybe this will cheer you up, Kaz.

<link>

Enjoy!

:-)

This reminds me of the old game in HS Driver's Ed - "how many points for hittin a nun? A schoolbus? A cop? etc.

In this case, how many points for spotting KrazyKaz and Goonie crying in each other's beer?

Kazillions:

Thanks, Laurie.

Actually, I do let it get to me, because I think it should get to me. I see even President Bush's supporters just clam up too often. But I see your point. ;-)

I know. Look at this way as I know it bugs you that it seems like Bush gets slapped silly all over the planet....he seems to have enough conjones to handle it all.

He may well be right that years from now history will show the USA did remain free from terrorist attacks on our shores following 9/11 and throughout his presidency following the attacks..and Iraq is beginning to show real signs of stabilizing.

Iraq indeed was under tyrannical evil rule under Saddam. The USA freed them from that.

They do want our help but they know that as we help our very presence in many ways also foments resentments between the factions who all want to be on the controlling side of the politics in Iraq.So, hence the fodder for the hysterical arguments on the left that we 'must, must, must, must get out of Iraq now!',. It's just silliness.

In the end..Bush may go down in history as not the caricature that many try to portray him as.

These black and white thinkers who feel they must portray him as some evil guy akin to Hitler..just look silly.

He's too far right for me..but I don't see him as akin to an evil monster in any shape or form.

yeah, cinc..I shouldn't try to comfort people..it's fault of mine.

Kaz has been a long time decent poster on Slate. go figure why I would respect him for that,eh?

Very decent of you to share that with me.

I admit to "black and white" thinking. When Reagan called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire", for example, I thought that was a great day in history.

But people seem to forget that Reagan fully recognized the citizens of the Soviet Union were people just like us. Except, they were enslaved by their own government.

Anyway, I don't want to get you defending Reagan for me now, too, you've already been kinder than I have a right to expect. ;-)

And when Ollie used drug-money to help our "friends" kill nuns in Central America, what did you do - fire-off Roman candles?

You really disgust me, and that's not a rhetorical flourish.

To me, the amazing thing about Bush supporters is that they seem genuinely to believe the most absolutely bizarre and counterintuitive things that they are told to believe.

I'll give you two examples.

One. Bush did not want to tell the American people on the eve of the '06 midterm elections that he was sacking Donald Rumsfeld because he didn't want it to influence the election, and so he did the right thing.

Huh????????

Kaz, I want you to buy my barely-used Mercedes; I'll let you have it for a mere $10,000. It has the biggest engine Mercedes has ever manufactured.*

(* The day after I cash your check, I will tell you the truth. I burned up the Mercedes engine and replaced it with a rebuilt AMC Pacer engine.)

That's not just a lie. That, my friend, is fraud.

Second example. After being told that America is under attack, the C in C sat in an elementary school classroom for what? Seven minutes? Because he didn't want to alarm the little ones, and it was the right thing to do.

Huh?????

Did the C in C know whether there was anything he could do to save American lives in those ensuing minutes? No! He could not have known because he was listening to The Pet Goat and not, you know, like, getting up to the minute briefings.

Sitting in that room all that time with that dumb look on his face was the dumbest damned thing any President ever in the history of this nation has done.

"Thank God George Bush was our president on 9/11."

Hog

Wash

The Soviet Union was setting up bases for decades. With either direct control over, or staunch allies in, Cuba, Africa (and I mean all down the Coast of Africa), Asia, and Central America. They were actively trying to spread communism (i.e. a slave state) in areas such that they could control the world's shipping lanes, and therefore the world's economy, and therefore, the world.

This had to be countered. It HAD to. Yet the Democrats erected those unbelievably cynical politically motivated and possibly unconstitutional Boland Amendments to block the President's efforts to aid the Contras.

Were the Contras all sweetness and light? Oh holy shit, they were in a war! We were in a cold war!

We disgust each other, and that's not a rhetorical flourish.

Thanks for that brilliant example of Monday Morning Quarterbacking in a damned if you do damned if you don't set of scenarios.

If President Bush decided to fire Rumsfeld, then there was a proper time and place to make that announcement, and does so in a way that respects the man and his long service to the country, and in a way that does not influence an impending election on the eve of it. Your mercedes analogy is not even close. As I said, had President Bush made the announcement on the eve of that election it may have helped his cause far more than hurting it. Brilliant strategy then, eh!

So, two reporters are trying to take the opportunity of a rare visit to the Oval Office (where I believe I've read one is not supposed to do any campaigning, but maybe I'm wrong about that) to ask the President questions he does not want to answer. And this is your best shot?

Lastly, when you're sitting in front of children you don't panic them. The President must not show panic in public. He handled that day, and the ensuing days in heroic fashion. I'd have payed good money to see how you handle it (in an alternate universe where there are no real consequences when the Monday morning quarterback gets the ball).

Two questions, Cold Warrior:

1) Did we ever have troops on their soil?

2) Did they ever have troops on our soil (not counting Alaska)?

Answer that question honestly, and I'll ask you the next two.

Kazillions,

I don't think it's as simple as finding one statement that one can irrefutably prove that Bush lied about. The point isn't that we can take some factual statement and prove that Bush knowingly mis-lead everyone about it, the way one might try to convince someone that 2+2=5. It's that throughout his presidency Bush has said things like "I care about the victims of hurricane Katrina." or "The economy is doing well" (this was said just this week) or "I care about the troops in Iraq." or "Mission Accomplished." (Ok, he didn't actually say that, but you get the point). So here's the problem. If someones actions are so rarely in accord with their professed statements then what else are we to assume but that they are lying? If you sell me five used cars telling me they all run great and they don't, then I have no choice but to assume you lied about them. One or two, sure maybe you just screwed up. Five? No.

New Orleans is still a hell hole, the economy sucks, Bush was against a bill to give troops more education credits and has done nothing about soldiers with PTSD and the mission in Iraq is so obviously not accomplished (don't take this list as inclusive, there's certainly more examples). Keep in mind we're talking about the president here. This is not a man who can really cry that there was nothing that he could do about it.

So the problem isn't in finding one lie, it's in taking in the broader picture, that the presidents actions rarely seem to jive with what he professes to care about. He has sold us many used cars, none of them work the way he said they would, and now we have no choice but to think of him as a shyster.

right now. A majority of Americans believe Bush purposefully misled the public about the reasons for starting that war. Proving that he did so would be useful only if we were going to impeach him - and we're probably not.

In your previous thread, I commented about the cost - a $50 billion estimation vs. a trillion truth - and your reply was that it probably only did cost 50 billion up to the point where they declared 'Mission Accomplished'. It reminds me of a NASA launch once where the missile got a few hundred yards in the air and blew up. They characterized that as a successful launch - it was the flight that was a failure. If you parse context correctly - there's no such thing as lying.

Whether he intentionally misrepresented the truth or simply maintained an unrealistic perspective we may never know. History will be the final judge, but I have made mine and am ready to move on to better things.