• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Did President Bush lie to the American Public?

D

Dofuss3000

Golden Member
Definition of a lie:

1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

That is to say, did he know that WMDs were likely not to be in Iraq but he told the American Public that they were likely to be in Iraq. Other points on why we went to war may be brought up also.

Please tell me why you think he lied or did not lie to the American Public and provide me, and the rest of the P&N forum, with proof that he did (links). This, of course, may be very difficult but is absolutely nessesary none the less. The only valid proof is authentic videos, audio recordings and trancripts of speechs, letters, etc, that in no way can be discounted as propaganda of any sort. If your argument does not follow this format, it will be ignored.
 
This has been hashed and rehashed in P&N. Whether he knowingly passed along incorrect information form the CIA, etc. probably can't be proven. If he knew the information was a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, then he is diefinitely a liar.
I guess everyone has an opinion. I'll simply say that when it comes time to meet up with the Almighty I wouldn't want to be standing in his shoes. But by his own admission God talks to him and tells him what to do. So I guess he doesn't have a problem. Personally I haven't heard from the Almighty in a while. We had lunch one day some time ago and I haven't seen or heard from him since.
 
This has been hashed and rehashed in P&N. Whether he knowingly passed along incorrect information form the CIA, etc. probably can't be proven. If he knew the information was a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, then he is diefinitely a liar.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, it probably can't be proven that he knowingly passed long incorrect information or not.

The rest of you guys are going to be ignored for not contributing anything intelligent to this thread.
 
Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
This has been hashed and rehashed in P&N. Whether he knowingly passed along incorrect information form the CIA, etc. probably can't be proven. If he knew the information was a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, then he is diefinitely a liar.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, it probably can't be proven that he knowingly passed long incorrect information or not.

The rest of you guys are going to be ignored for not contributing anything intelligent to this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to believe it's impossible to prove he knows anything. I wouldn't be surprised if his name is on his notecards.
 
It is a fact that he provided incorrect information to the American public. Did he KNOW it was incorrect at the time? Well that's a bit harder to prove, as it would require deepthroat kinds of sources at the Whitehouse. Just like in court, proving events is much easier than proving intent.

So we're left with a situation where we would have a difficult time proving he lied, and an impossible time proving he didn't lie. I'll assume he told the truth simply because an intelligence failure is easier to believe than a conspiracy. I am not ruling anything out, however.
 
Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
This has been hashed and rehashed in P&N. Whether he knowingly passed along incorrect information form the CIA, etc. probably can't be proven. If he knew the information was a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, then he is diefinitely a liar.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, it probably can't be proven that he knowingly passed long incorrect information or not.

The rest of you guys are going to be ignored for not contributing anything intelligent to this thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean something like, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski?"
 
Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
It is a fact that he provided incorrect information to the American public.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof of this?
Click to expand...

I assumed this would be obvious...numerous statements were made indicating that our goverment believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and since the invasion there has been nothing to suggest that that was the case.

I assume you disagree and are not simply complaining that I didn't hunt down links to well known pieces of information. Which part do you disagree with? That we didn't find any WMDs, or that Bush said we would?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I assume you disagree and are not simply complaining that I didn't hunt down links to well known pieces of information. Which part do you disagree with? That we didn't find any WMDs, or that Bush said we would?
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for the undisclosed Iraqi informant sources that confirmed the existence of WMDs in Iraq to be revealed (since they could not be revealed due to security reasons pre-war).
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
It is a fact that he provided incorrect information to the American public.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof of this?
Click to expand...

I assumed this would be obvious...numerous statements were made indicating that our goverment believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and since the invasion there has been nothing to suggest that that was the case.

I assume you disagree and are not simply complaining that I didn't hunt down links to well known pieces of information. Which part do you disagree with? That we didn't find any WMDs, or that Bush said we would?
Click to expand...

Yes, he passed along incorrect info that was given to him. He didn't lie about it though, he thought what he was saying was true.
 
I think he knowingly and deliberately mislead the American people about our reasons for going to war with Iraq, but I've always supported the true reasons, so I'd never hold it against him.

(true reason = establishing a powerful middle east democracy to act as a catalyst for beneficial change throughout the region... Afghanistan, IMO, was too far removed to act in that capacity).
 
I think that the President and the UN and the CIA were on such bad terms that none trusted the other ones,

Any evidence that there were no WMD was viewed with suspicion from the White House, and they felt that it could not be trusted.
 
I'll offer a personal interpretation of what I presume to be common knowledge.

I consider the WMD angle to be a lie because GWB had an intel assesment that was filled with caveats which he deemed necessary to remove from the sanitized version that was presented to Congress. Congress granted the use of military force on intentionally incomplete information. I find it hard to believe that anyone finds such actions to be truthful. Congress also said that all other avenues should be exausted before war. Though the evidence that GWB did not ever intend to comply with that instruction is circumstantial, the volume of it alone makes his intentions suspect. His failure to provide reasonable answers to these appearant inconsistancies compounds the problem. An example is pulling the U.N. weapons inspectors just after they were given unfettered access to any site and their preliminary assessment that there were no active programs. Allowing the inspectors to continue would have provided many obvious benefits incl.: demonstrating proof of the "self-defense" position to the world (if WMD found), foreknowledge of the number, type, and location of such weapons (if found), which would be invaluable intel for an invasion, proof that that they were not a credible threat (if none found) which meant that a costly (from many perspectives) war was unnecessary and re-affirming the security of our people.

The constant mentioning of Iraq, AQ, and 9-11 in the same breath by GWB and his minions was, I believe, an undeniable attempt to mislead the American people, and wholly unconcionable. It was done too many times to be anything but intentional, and is, at the very least, the moral equivelent of a lie, although it seems to meet the 2nd definition.

My conclusion? He lied.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'll offer a personal interpretation of what I presume to be common knowledge.

I consider the WMD angle to be a lie because GWB had an intel assesment that was filled with caveats which he deemed necessary to remove from the sanitized version that was presented to Congress. Congress granted the use of military force on intentionally incomplete information. I find it hard to believe that anyone finds such actions to be truthful. Congress also said that all other avenues should be exausted before war. Though the evidence that GWB did not ever intend to comply with that instruction is circumstantial, the volume of it alone makes his intentions suspect. His failure to provide reasonable answers to these appearant inconsistancies compounds the problem. An example is pulling the U.N. weapons inspectors just after they were given unfettered access to any site and their preliminary assessment that there were no active programs. Allowing the inspectors to continue would have provided many obvious benefits incl.: demonstrating proof of the "self-defense" position to the world (if WMD found), foreknowledge of the number, type, and location of such weapons (if found), which would be invaluable intel for an invasion, proof that that they were not a credible threat (if none found) which meant that a costly (from many perspectives) war was unnecessary and re-affirming the security of our people.

The constant mentioning of Iraq, AQ, and 9-11 in the same breath by GWB and his minions was, I believe, an undeniable attempt to mislead the American people, and wholly unconcionable. It was done too many times to be anything but intentional, and is, at the very least, the moral equivelent of a lie, although it seems to meet the 2nd definition.

My conclusion? He lied.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: Spot on!

 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'll offer a personal interpretation of what I presume to be common knowledge.

I consider the WMD angle to be a lie because GWB had an intel assesment that was filled with caveats which he deemed necessary to remove from the sanitized version that was presented to Congress. Congress granted the use of military force on intentionally incomplete information. I find it hard to believe that anyone finds such actions to be truthful. Congress also said that all other avenues should be exausted before war. Though the evidence that GWB did not ever intend to comply with that instruction is circumstantial, the volume of it alone makes his intentions suspect. His failure to provide reasonable answers to these appearant inconsistancies compounds the problem. An example is pulling the U.N. weapons inspectors just after they were given unfettered access to any site and their preliminary assessment that there were no active programs. Allowing the inspectors to continue would have provided many obvious benefits incl.: demonstrating proof of the "self-defense" position to the world (if WMD found), foreknowledge of the number, type, and location of such weapons (if found), which would be invaluable intel for an invasion, proof that that they were not a credible threat (if none found) which meant that a costly (from many perspectives) war was unnecessary and re-affirming the security of our people.

The constant mentioning of Iraq, AQ, and 9-11 in the same breath by GWB and his minions was, I believe, an undeniable attempt to mislead the American people, and wholly unconcionable. It was done too many times to be anything but intentional, and is, at the very least, the moral equivelent of a lie, although it seems to meet the 2nd definition.

My conclusion? He lied.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Very well said!
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'll offer a personal interpretation of what I presume to be common knowledge.

I consider the WMD angle to be a lie because GWB had an intel assesment that was filled with caveats which he deemed necessary to remove from the sanitized version that was presented to Congress. Congress granted the use of military force on intentionally incomplete information. I find it hard to believe that anyone finds such actions to be truthful. Congress also said that all other avenues should be exausted before war. Though the evidence that GWB did not ever intend to comply with that instruction is circumstantial, the volume of it alone makes his intentions suspect. His failure to provide reasonable answers to these appearant inconsistancies compounds the problem. An example is pulling the U.N. weapons inspectors just after they were given unfettered access to any site and their preliminary assessment that there were no active programs. Allowing the inspectors to continue would have provided many obvious benefits incl.: demonstrating proof of the "self-defense" position to the world (if WMD found), foreknowledge of the number, type, and location of such weapons (if found), which would be invaluable intel for an invasion, proof that that they were not a credible threat (if none found) which meant that a costly (from many perspectives) war was unnecessary and re-affirming the security of our people.

The constant mentioning of Iraq, AQ, and 9-11 in the same breath by GWB and his minions was, I believe, an undeniable attempt to mislead the American people, and wholly unconcionable. It was done too many times to be anything but intentional, and is, at the very least, the moral equivelent of a lie, although it seems to meet the 2nd definition.

My conclusion? He lied.
Click to expand...


i agree. he lied or just wasnt paying attention to all of the information.
there was a lot of slight of hand going on and, to be honest, im not entirely sure why.
i know people love to scream OIL! and perhaps im just wishing there was more to it...but i cant see that as being the only reason.
 
Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I'll offer a personal interpretation of what I presume to be common knowledge.

I consider the WMD angle to be a lie because GWB had an intel assesment that was filled with caveats which he deemed necessary to remove from the sanitized version that was presented to Congress. Congress granted the use of military force on intentionally incomplete information. I find it hard to believe that anyone finds such actions to be truthful. Congress also said that all other avenues should be exausted before war. Though the evidence that GWB did not ever intend to comply with that instruction is circumstantial, the volume of it alone makes his intentions suspect. His failure to provide reasonable answers to these appearant inconsistancies compounds the problem. An example is pulling the U.N. weapons inspectors just after they were given unfettered access to any site and their preliminary assessment that there were no active programs. Allowing the inspectors to continue would have provided many obvious benefits incl.: demonstrating proof of the "self-defense" position to the world (if WMD found), foreknowledge of the number, type, and location of such weapons (if found), which would be invaluable intel for an invasion, proof that that they were not a credible threat (if none found) which meant that a costly (from many perspectives) war was unnecessary and re-affirming the security of our people.

The constant mentioning of Iraq, AQ, and 9-11 in the same breath by GWB and his minions was, I believe, an undeniable attempt to mislead the American people, and wholly unconcionable. It was done too many times to be anything but intentional, and is, at the very least, the moral equivelent of a lie, although it seems to meet the 2nd definition.

My conclusion? He lied.
Click to expand...


i agree. he lied or just wasnt paying attention to all of the information.
there was a lot of slight of hand going on and, to be honest, im not entirely sure why.
i know people love to scream OIL! and perhaps im just wishing there was more to it...but i cant see that as being the only reason.
Click to expand...

i think he just went off bad intel....maybe had some contradicting info...but found it small and ignored it.... the russians germans and the french all belived he had WMD's...but does it matter now...no not really...so why are we still talking about this...its like bringing up monica and clinton

 
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
This has been hashed and rehashed in P&N. Whether he knowingly passed along incorrect information form the CIA, etc. probably can't be proven. If he knew the information was a distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, then he is diefinitely a liar.
Click to expand...

You are probably right, it probably can't be proven that he knowingly passed long incorrect information or not.

The rest of you guys are going to be ignored for not contributing anything intelligent to this thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean something like, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski?"
Click to expand...

hahahahhahaha but he was a good president remeber...didint do0 anything for 8 yearsa...just sat in the office
 
War is a last resort. Bush made it his first resort by choosing the intelligence that fit his agenda and ingoring all else.

Bush lied. Period.

I find it indicative of the state of our democracy that the majority of Americans can't even recognize when they've been lied to anymore.

 
Originally posted by: conehead433I'll simply say that when it comes time to meet up with the Almighty I wouldn't want to be standing in his shoes.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. A hot seat in hell awaits...

 
He's an adult. He knew damn good and well what was being intimated by his administration's propaganda. And then he used the British, too, to help convince the American public.

Disgusting.
 
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Every President lies to the American public. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Clinton lied, and the casualty was his reputation.

Bushweasel lied, and casualties amount to over 1,500 dead American soldiers and over a hundred thousand dead, innocent Iraqi citizens.

Payback is hell, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top