Why Is It OK that the President Lied?

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
Nobody seems to even mention it.

I guess one possible explanation is that he did intend to keep Rumsfeld for another two years but was overruled by someone??

link
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
It's interesting the source is FOXNews. I don't find it to be a big deal because Bush obviously didn't want it out before the elections because he felt it might put his party at a greater disadvantage.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
because it's not that big of a deal?

/shrug

the only people who have a right to be pissed are the republicans themselves.
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Ferocious
Nobody seems to even mention it.

I guess one possible explanation is that he did intend to keep Rumsfeld for another two years but was overruled by someone??

link

Obviously because it wasn't about S*X!!:disgust:
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Huh. Looks like Fox News is maybe going to try and cuddle up to the new power by finally allowing less-than-positive words about their President to be published. It won't fly. We know what big tools their station is.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I asked that very question---and also mentioned a story on the yahoo news to the effect GWB was going to replace Rummy regardless of the election outcome.

Has GWB no shame?---he give the American people his word that both Cheney and Rummy were staying until the end of his term just a week ago---and at the same time he is talking to Rummy's replacement?

This has to be a world record fastest flip flop---from the same man who accused dems of being from the waffle house.

Sorry you can't call this a mere canard--or an over-exaggeration---this can be only called a lie---and a damnable one at that---what a high note to start out GWB's lame duck swan session.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Huh. Looks like Fox News is maybe going to try and cuddle up to the new power by finally allowing less-than-positive words about their President to be published. It won't fly. We know what big tools their station is.
This was written by Susan Estrich, I believe she was the campaign manager for Dukakis.
This is an OP-ED piece.

Plus it is not a lie, he changed his mind. Pretty simple.

I wonder if this is just the first in a line of articles that will try to make the American people believe that Bush lied about something. Sort of a warm up to investigations. Lord know many on the left want impeachment, they might start slow and work their way up.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,919
2,886
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Huh. Looks like Fox News is maybe going to try and cuddle up to the new power by finally allowing less-than-positive words about their President to be published. It won't fly. We know what big tools their station is.
This was written by Susan Estrich, I believe she was the campaign manager for Dukakis.
This is an OP-ED piece.

Plus it is not a lie, he changed his mind. Pretty simple.

I wonder if this is just the first in a line of articles that will try to make the American people believe that Bush lied about something. Sort of a warm up to investigations. Lord know many on the left want impeachment, they might start slow and work their way up.

I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.

 

biggestmuff

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2001
8,201
2
0
He changed his mind or an event occurred and he had to change his original decision.


Do you have a bloody lip?
No.
*POW*
Why did you lie?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: JD50
I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.
He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him. :laugh:
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
He changed hi mind in a week? When he was already talking to the replacement when he said that he'd keep Rummy for the next two years. You guys are really blinded. Hell he even basically admitted that he lied.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
I don't know if he lied - he might not have acted on faulty intelligence - if he doesn't know it's wrong at the time, he hasn't necessarily lied, but I think he has an obligation pull out of Iraq because the initial intelligence was wrong.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: JD50
I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.
He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him. :laugh:

Hehehehe. Bush and his lackeys have had more flip flops than could fit in an airport hanger. Maybe that's why Republicans don't mention 'flip-flop' anymore, when Kerry did it he was wrong, but when Bush does it he's making a decision based on an event. Boy howdy.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Huh. Looks like Fox News is maybe going to try and cuddle up to the new power by finally allowing less-than-positive words about their President to be published. It won't fly. We know what big tools their station is.
This was written by Susan Estrich, I believe she was the campaign manager for Dukakis.
This is an OP-ED piece.

Plus it is not a lie, he changed his mind. Pretty simple.

I wonder if this is just the first in a line of articles that will try to make the American people believe that Bush lied about something. Sort of a warm up to investigations. Lord know many on the left want impeachment, they might start slow and work their way up.
Bush is already on record for his reasons about the switcharoo. In his post-loss presser he was asked this same question. I can't find the transcript but his answer was something along the lines of "I didn't want this to overshadow or impact the elections."

As it turns out, there are more than a few Rs who are pissed at him for holding the resignation until after the elections. Some of the R leadership feel that letting Rummy go before the election could have helped them by showing that the Rs were acknowledging a need for a change of direction in Iraq.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,919
2,886
136
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: JD50
I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.
He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him. :laugh:

Hehehehe. Bush and his lackeys have had more flip flops than could fit in an airport hanger. Maybe that's why Republicans don't mention 'flip-flop' anymore, when Kerry did it he was wrong, but when Bush does it he's making a decision based on an event. Boy howdy.

So do you not want them to change the course of the Iraq war?

 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: JD50
I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.
He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him. :laugh:

Hehehehe. Bush and his lackeys have had more flip flops than could fit in an airport hanger. Maybe that's why Republicans don't mention 'flip-flop' anymore, when Kerry did it he was wrong, but when Bush does it he's making a decision based on an event. Boy howdy.

So do you not want them to change the course of the Iraq war?

Bad reading comprehension. I was just commenting on more Republican hypocrisy. And believe it, if Bush changes his stance on Iraq it will not be because he actually changed his mind, but because the Democratic majority forced his hand.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,919
2,886
136
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: JD50
I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.
He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him. :laugh:

Hehehehe. Bush and his lackeys have had more flip flops than could fit in an airport hanger. Maybe that's why Republicans don't mention 'flip-flop' anymore, when Kerry did it he was wrong, but when Bush does it he's making a decision based on an event. Boy howdy.

So do you not want them to change the course of the Iraq war?

Bad reading comprehension. I was just commenting on more Republican hypocrisy. And believe it, if Bush changes his stance on Iraq it will not be because he actually changed his mind, but because the Democratic majority forced his hand.

And I was also commenting on the Democrat hypocrisy. You guys want him to change the course of the war and leave Iraq, but the moment he changes things you guys accuse him of flip flopping.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Bottom line---GWB's word is not worth a warm pitcher of spit----as old Cactus Jack used to say.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,548
1,128
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: JD50
I think you forgot that Republicans are not allowed to change their minds on something. If a Republican changes his mind, or he was just flat out wrong about something, that means that he lied.
He was for Rumsfeld before he was against him. :laugh:

Hehehehe. Bush and his lackeys have had more flip flops than could fit in an airport hanger. Maybe that's why Republicans don't mention 'flip-flop' anymore, when Kerry did it he was wrong, but when Bush does it he's making a decision based on an event. Boy howdy.

So do you not want them to change the course of the Iraq war?

Bad reading comprehension. I was just commenting on more Republican hypocrisy. And believe it, if Bush changes his stance on Iraq it will not be because he actually changed his mind, but because the Democratic majority forced his hand.

And I was also commenting on the Democrat hypocrisy. You guys want him to change the course of the war and leave Iraq, but the moment he changes things you guys accuse him of flip flopping.

If the Repubs werent blown out Rummy would still be there. Rove had Bush believing the repubs werent in danger.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Err no. There's a difference between actually making a decision based on careful thought and analysis over time, and a quick turnover just so you can be 'right'. Changing course on Iraq makes sense, and perhaps if Bush meets with Pelosi and whoever the Democratic Majority Leader will be, and conferences and comes up with a compromise on Iraq, then we'll all definitely have some praise for that decision. But staying the course (oh wait, he was never stay the course? Flip Flop! That's what I'm talking about) will be stupid, and immediate changing of course, while welcome, would be insincere and actually pretty silly-looking for his part.

There is no Democratic hypocrisy when Republicans cried "Flip Flop! Flip Flop!" like a bunch of retards pointing at footwear whose name sounded funny, when Kerry made his poorly-worded "I was for it before I was against it" comment (which, I've said before, actually makes perfect sense if you're not one of those pointing at funny-sounding footwear). It's only fair game that Bush and his circle of friends get the same treatment for far more worthy things ("We were never stay the course", a prime example).

So stop crying about how Bush just can't get a fair break. He's gotten more than his share of breaks, and most of them were not fair at all.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
In the US the only thing forbidden is sex, violence is ok. So lying about a relationship can get you kicked out as president, but lying about why thousands of US soldiers were sent to their deaths is fine. Not that hard to understand, right?