Maybe liberals would be willing to condemn Jimmy Carter for hugging terrorists if he praised President Bush for something.:lol:

I sometimes wonder if the United States could have survived a second Jimmy Carter term. What a buffoon!

 

At that time, no way, no how. That would have been a disaster of epic proportions.

At that time, no way, no how. That would have been a disaster of epic proportions.

I remember trying to buy my first house shortly after Carter left office. People who whine about today's economy are lucky that Jimmy Carter did not burst onto the scene 30 years later. Carter put a face on the misery index. However, the rumors that A.A. Milne's Eeyore character was based on Jimmy Carter are not true. (Eeyore was born in 1871.)

Ignoring the group will not make it cease to exist. I think there is quite a difference in a current president doing this and a former one. I am positive that Carter is not seeking to legitimize anything, but to promote (however futile his attempt might be) peace. I don't think it makes him treasonous, anti-American, pro-violence, or anti-semitic. He's just a man trying to do something that is almost certain to fail.

 

:thumb:

I think it is time to take away his passport! What a goofball.

Surely you jest.

 

If you knew me, you'd know that I'm not the jesting type. What proof (not hunches driven by political beliefs and radical partisanship displayed in numerous posts on here) but hard and fast proof do you have that Bush is not honest? Back it up or as they say, shut it up.

If you knew me, you'd know that I'm not the jesting type. What proof (not hunches driven by political beliefs and radical partisanship displayed in numerous posts on here) but hard and fast proof do you have that Bush is not honest? Back it up or as they say, shut it up.

 

 

 

The standard for honesty in sworn testimony is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is perfectly reasonable for the American public to assume this standard for honesty applies when they hear the president or other administration officials convey certainty in their statements, and when they hear officials repeat essentially the same statements over and over again. It is especially important when the subject matter is the grave question of starting a war. There were many, many instances of less than the whole truth being told to the American people during the runup to the war in Iraq.

 

Repeatedly, prior to the war and even several years into the war, administration officials (most notably VP Dick Cheney) made reference to a supposed meeting between the Iraqi government and lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, strongly suggesting direct support of the 9/11 attack by the government of Saddam Hussein. In late 2001, Cheney stated that it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. As we later found out, the "pretty well confirmed" part was a fabrication--the U.S. intelligence community was extremely dubious to the theory that this meeting ever occurred. Cheney later referred to Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." In 2003 speech Bush said that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." The statements of both Cheney and Bush falsely and deliberately linked Iraq with September 11. Misleading statements like these from the highest officials in our government strongly contributed to the widespread (false) public perception that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration did nothing to discourage this belief until many years later. Is that telling the whole truth? Is that being honest?

 

On August 26, 2002, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, VP Dick Cheney declared that, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In later interviews, former CIA director George Tenet recalled that Cheney's comments went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Cheney's words ("no doubt") convey a certainty that was unjustified by U.S. intelligence views. Is that telling nothing but the truth?

 

In his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush made reference to discredited intelligence regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa. This story had already been discounted within the U.S. intelligence community, but it was used nonetheless in a highly visible speech calling for war. The White House later conceded that it shouldn't have been part of the president's speech. Of course, by then the effect had been achieved and the war was well under way.

 

I won't even bother to go into detail on Doug Feith's bogus "alternative intelligence assessments" that spun the beliefs and theories of administration officials (who were not intelligence professionals) as legitimate intelligence useful in supporting pre-emptive war with Iraq. Creation of what are essentially position papers in the guise of fully vetted intelligence reports is an inherently misleading and dishonest act.

 

These are but a few examples demonstrating specific instances in which the Bush Administration has been dishonest with the American public. There are others.

The standard for honesty in sworn testimony is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is perfectly reasonable for the American public to assume this standard for honesty applies when they hear the president or other administration officials convey certainty in their statements, and when they hear officials repeat essentially the same statements over and over again. It is especially important when the subject matter is the grave question of starting a war. There were many, many instances of less than the whole truth being told to the American people during the runup to the war in Iraq.

 

Repeatedly, prior to the war and even several years into the war, administration officials (most notably VP Dick Cheney) made reference to a supposed meeting between the Iraqi government and lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, strongly suggesting direct support of the 9/11 attack by the government of Saddam Hussein. In late 2001, Cheney stated that it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. As we later found out, the "pretty well confirmed" part was a fabrication--the U.S. intelligence community was extremely dubious to the theory that this meeting ever occurred. Cheney later referred to Iraq as the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." In 2003 speech Bush said that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." The statements of both Cheney and Bush falsely and deliberately linked Iraq with September 11. Misleading statements like these from the highest officials in our government strongly contributed to the widespread (false) public perception that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration did nothing to discourage this belief until many years later. Is that telling the whole truth? Is that being honest?

 

On August 26, 2002, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, VP Dick Cheney declared that, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In later interviews, former CIA director George Tenet recalled that Cheney's comments went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Cheney's words ("no doubt") convey a certainty that was unjustified by U.S. intelligence views. Is that telling nothing but the truth?

 

In his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush made reference to discredited intelligence regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa. This story had already been discounted within the U.S. intelligence community, but it was used nonetheless in a highly visible speech calling for war. The White House later conceded that it shouldn't have been part of the president's speech. Of course, by then the effect had been achieved and the war was well under way.

 

I won't even bother to go into detail on Doug Feith's bogus "alternative intelligence assessments" that spun the beliefs and theories of administration officials (who were not intelligence professionals) as legitimate intelligence useful in supporting pre-emptive war with Iraq. Creation of what are essentially position papers in the guise of fully vetted intelligence reports is an inherently misleading and dishonest act.

 

These are but a few examples demonstrating specific instances in which the Bush Administration has been dishonest with the American public. There are others.

 

 

Thanks for the civics lesson on what you consider to be "honest". I didn't need it, but thanks anyway. Half of your post dealt with Cheney's comments and we were addressing Bush in our little back and forth. Addressing Bush, zero of what you posted confirms that Bush was being dishonest. There was, as you are well aware, conflicting intel on every issue that you raised. The fact that Bush "went with" intel that later was proven to be wrong, in no way confirms that Bush was being dishonest. It proved that the intel that Bush relied on was not the correct intel. While some intel advisors were telling him that the intel he was relying on was wrong, other intel advisors (in the U.S. and abroad) were telling him to the contrary. That is a far cry from being dishonest. Your answer was what I expected.

Thanks for the civics lesson on what you consider to be "honest". I didn't need it, but thanks anyway. Half of your post dealt with Cheney's comments and we were addressing Bush in our little back and forth. Addressing Bush, zero of what you posted confirms that Bush was being dishonest. There was, as you are well aware, conflicting intel on every issue that you raised. The fact that Bush "went with" intel that later was proven to be wrong, in no way confirms that Bush was being dishonest. It proved that the intel that Bush relied on was not the correct intel. While some intel advisors were telling him that the intel he was relying on was wrong, other intel advisors (in the U.S. and abroad) were telling him to the contrary. That is a far cry from being dishonest. Your answer was what I expected.

 

 

Ah, the old "there were many flavors and colors of intel, our boy W just relied on the wrong stuff" argument. Pitiful. And rather implausible. If there were so many valid alternate explanations for the intelligence being presented to the president, why was there no mention of this in public statements made by the administration? The quotes I provided convey a degree of certainty ("no doubt", "pretty well confirmed", "The British government has learned") that has been shown to be unwarranted by the facts and was known to be unwarranted at the time the respective statements were made. According to Webster's Dictionary, dishonest "implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud." Were the American people being told the whole truth?

 

And on your rather feeble attempt to sidestep the issue of Bush's honesty by pointing out that many of the statements were made actually by VP Cheney or others in his administration, excuse me, but who is the president? I know there are a lot of jokes that Dick Cheney is really calling the shots, but I believe the actual answer to that question is George W. Bush. Unless you're admitting that the Commander in Chief isn't in control of his own administration, statements made by his people reflect on his presidency and therefore on him. If Bush didn't endorse Cheney's numerous and disingenuous statements linking 9/11 to Iraq, why didn't he muzzle his vice president? If Cheney repeatedly made dishonest and misleading statements, does that dishonesty not apply to the president who empowered him and stood idly by while he made them?

 

The truth is obvious to any reasonable person, and it is obvious to the American public, who have voiced their opinions in numerous polls that they don't view George W. Bush as honest.

Ah, the old "there were many flavors and colors of intel, our boy W just relied on the wrong stuff" argument. Pitiful. And rather implausible. If there were so many valid alternate explanations for the intelligence being presented to the president, why was there no mention of this in public statements made by the administration? The quotes I provided convey a degree of certainty ("no doubt", "pretty well confirmed", "The British government has learned") that has been shown to be unwarranted by the facts and was known to be unwarranted at the time the respective statements were made. According to Webster's Dictionary, dishonest "implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud." Were the American people being told the whole truth?

 

And on your rather feeble attempt to sidestep the issue of Bush's honesty by pointing out that many of the statements were made actually by VP Cheney or others in his administration, excuse me, but who is the president? I know there are a lot of jokes that Dick Cheney is really calling the shots, but I believe the actual answer to that question is George W. Bush. Unless you're admitting that the Commander in Chief isn't in control of his own administration, statements made by his people reflect on his presidency and therefore on him. If Bush didn't endorse Cheney's numerous and disingenuous statements linking 9/11 to Iraq, why didn't he muzzle his vice president? If Cheney repeatedly made dishonest and misleading statements, does that dishonesty not apply to the president who empowered him and stood idly by while he made them?

 

The truth is obvious to any reasonable person, and it is obvious to the American public, who have voiced their opinions in numerous polls that they don't view George W. Bush as honest.

 

 

:thumb:

Ah, the old "there were many flavors and colors of intel, our boy W just relied on the wrong stuff" argument. Pitiful. And rather implausible. If there were so many valid alternate explanations for the intelligence being presented to the president, why was there no mention of this in public statements made by the administration? The quotes I provided convey a degree of certainty ("no doubt", "pretty well confirmed", "The British government has learned") that has been shown to be unwarranted by the facts and was known to be unwarranted at the time the respective statements were made. According to Webster's Dictionary, dishonest "implies a willful perversion of truth in order to deceive, cheat, or defraud." Were the American people being told the whole truth?

 

And on your rather feeble attempt to sidestep the issue of Bush's honesty by pointing out that many of the statements were made actually by VP Cheney or others in his administration, excuse me, but who is the president? I know there are a lot of jokes that Dick Cheney is really calling the shots, but I believe the actual answer to that question is George W. Bush. Unless you're admitting that the Commander in Chief isn't in control of his own administration, statements made by his people reflect on his presidency and therefore on him. If Bush didn't endorse Cheney's numerous and disingenuous statements linking 9/11 to Iraq, why didn't he muzzle his vice president? If Cheney repeatedly made dishonest and misleading statements, does that dishonesty not apply to the president who empowered him and stood idly by while he made them?

 

The truth is obvious to any reasonable person, and it is obvious to the American public, who have voiced their opinions in numerous polls that they don't view George W. Bush as honest.

 

I have no idea why Bush didn't muzzle Cheney. Maybe, I don't know, he agreed with him. Since I don't know, I won't make the assumptions that you are making. I still remember what happens when you assume.

 

And if you are basing, in whole or in part, your conclusion that Bush had to be dishonest based on public opinion polls it further undermines the credibility of your conclusion in my mind. Good Lord, do you really think the average American participating in polls knows anything more about the issues than the garbage they are fed nightly on the News? I don't. I realize that you do not think I'm a reasonable person because I do not agree with your position on this. With you, reasonable minds cannot differ. I don't look at it your way however. It takes a lot for me to accuse someone of being dishonest as I consider dishonesty to be the worst of character flaws. Liers and thiefs are the scum of the scum. Thus, I never accuse anyone, not Bush, not Bill Clinton, not anyone, of being dishonest unless I have absolute concrete proof.

You may think there is that proof. I don't think there is. Its not because I am not reasonable. Its because I have a differing standard than you do before I call someone, anyone, dishonest.