Why Is It OK that the President Lied?

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

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.

It's just out of character for the Dub. Usually once he's made up his mind he doesn't change it even after it's be shown that what his decided on was as wrong as wrong could be.

 

[db]

What he said about Rummy staying is insignificant.
What matters is that he lied to get us into a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Since Bush was already talking to a successor when he announced that he was keeping Rummy, I would certainly call that a lie.

His excuse was that he did it for what he thought was political gain only makes it more despicable.

Since the short version of this is that he freely admitted that he lied to the American public for party gain, how can some of you just blow this off?

Just another example of how unprincipled Bush really is.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What's odd is not that he demonstrably lied (I don't see any other way to characterize this - last week he said Rumsfeld was "fantastic" and would serve until the end of his term, and now he says he was, at that time, planning on replacing Rumsfeld) but how obviously ham-handed the White House was about the whole process. He says he didn't announce Rumsfeld's replacement last week for fear of influencing the election, but why wouldn't he want to influence it, when the influence would IMO certainly have been more positive than negative? This seems like uncharacteristically poor planning by Rove et al. He's turned the whole situation into a win-win for the Democrats.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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

GW has never been required to take an oath to tell the truth, and can not be held accountable. Learned that from Clinton!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Tab
Depends what you consider a lie.

Or what "is" is. To lie under oath is a crime. Period.

 

[trenchfoot]

political rhetoric > ambiguous dialogue; seemingly meaningful yet meaningless statements; the skillful use of deceptive discourse; communicating above your target audience so as to imbue plausible deniability; injecting disguised innuendo in speech; suggestive intent; diversionary debate; etc etc

bush political rhetoric > lies disguised as gaffs, goofs, mispoken or botched phraseology; the jading of the masses from his insessant combined use of chronic speech impediments and lapses in logic in the delivery of lies; ergo, tolerance.

edit - content

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Tab
Depends what you consider a lie.

Or what "is" is. To lie under oath is a crime. Period.

True, what I don't quite understand what that has to do with what Bush or Tab said?

 

[m316foley]

I love how Keith Olbermann puts it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BePuriKW...rmann%20Letterman%20Clinton%20FauxNews

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DonVito
What's odd is not that he demonstrably lied (I don't see any other way to characterize this - last week he said Rumsfeld was "fantastic" and would serve until the end of his term, and now he says he was, at that time, planning on replacing Rumsfeld) but how obviously ham-handed the White House was about the whole process. He says he didn't announce Rumsfeld's replacement last week for fear of influencing the election, but why wouldn't he want to influence it, when the influence would IMO certainly have been more positive than negative? This seems like uncharacteristically poor planning by Rove et al. He's turned the whole situation into a win-win for the Democrats.

I personally think that they were going to get rid of Rummy after the elections, no matter who won, but didn't want to show any "weakness" or "chips in their armour", ergo the lie.

I too think making the annoucement prior to the election would have been the best course and an easy choice. I also think their failure to see that fact shows how out of touch they have become. A classic case of "The emperor wears no clothes"??

In any event, even Bush is bright enough to know that he has not only exhausted the US Treasury, but also all of his "political capital" at the same time..... not that he cares much.

 

[Stoneburner]

Sure it is expected for any politician to lie but Bush's handlers have always made him out to be some straightforward shoot from the hip pseudo cowboy. Bush is actually one of the most dishonest presidents ever. And he did not change his mind, bush does not flip flops, or flop flips and i've never seen him in sandals.