That's right. George Dubya Bush is a straight-up liar. Prevaricator. Fabricator. Forked-tongue person. He fibs, deceives, embellishes, tells tales, stretches the truth. HE LIES.
When are people going to finally get it into their heads that he hasn't lied only once: The Resident has a long history of duping people to get what he wants. He got the White House. He got his "war." He got his police state. He got the better (?) part of the nation to go along with the idea that the Sept. 11 attacks had something to do with Saddam Hussein to the tune of billions of dollars. And he's well on the way to getting more and more power for his empire. Is he lying about, say, the Valerie Plame brouhaha? I don't know. But I do know that he has lied so much that his word is not to be trusted. Shrub long ago gave up his right to a benefit of the doubt, as far as I'm concerned.
If you support the White House squatter, the leader of the league of lying liars, that's your business. But at least support him with your eyes wide open: Bush lies. And if you need a recounting of the Terrorist-in-Thief's mendacities, check out Susie Madrak at Open Source Politics. She, unlike Bush, has the stones to tell the truth.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dawn
You forgot dissembler.
I am under the impression that our entire body of politicians are a bunch of no good liars.
2 - Natalie Davis
Can't disagree with that. Not one bit.
3 - Chris Arabia
"you’d be a damned fool to think otherwise"
I should've stopped reading when the Open Source person resorted to a cheap insult--of me and a majority of the voting electorate.
Education funding increases have outstripped inflation by 50% since before I was born. Funding is NOT the issue.
The above-stated attitude is among the chief reasons that the GOP will do something I never thought I'd see: celebrate 10 years as the majority party in the House.
4 - Natalie Davis
I understand your feeling about the insult. I do question, however, "majority of the voting electorate."
5 - Vox Populi
Only one problem: Her posting is filled with lies. Bush was not AWOL from the National Guard, never said that Iraq was an imminent threat (in fact, he went out of his way to say they were not) and never tied Saddam Hussein to 9/11 (although he did tie him to Al-Qaeda, which has proven true). Bush has increased funding for education. The fact that you disagree with his policies on the environment, which continues to improve doesn't make them lies. The tax cut has brought about increased consumer spending and layoffs are declining month by month. Yes, the recession that started under Bill Clinton has ended thanks to the Bush policies and the economy is growing.
6 - Natalie Davis
:)
I'll just "listen" from here on in.
7 - Chris Arabia
Majority of the voting electorate:
Senate - GOP
House - GOP
President - all else aside, 50% approval has been about his LOW water mark for some time, whatever the reasons.
Madrak insinuates that I am a damned fool because I don't agree that W. is a lying anti-Christ. Well, the majority of the American people, even ones that don't especially like his policies, still seem to think him a decent guy, in numbers greater than the numbers of people who approve of his policies.
How is it not the majority of the voting electorate?
8 - Natalie Davis
Shrub's popularity is hovering around 49 - 50% the last I saw. That is not a majority (50% plus one), unless one factors in an error margin that might push the figure upward. As I've said, I give the man no benefits of the doubt. Infinitely bitten, always shy.
But let's say a majority of the people think him decent. Well, a majority is no proof of correctness. A majority once was OK with anti-misegenation laws. A majority once supported -- either openly or tacitly -- the oppression of people under law on the basis of gender and melanin. A majority once thought the planet to be flat.
9 - Natalie Davis
from Harper's
10 - Chris Arabia
You questioned the use of "majority of the voting electorate." That's all my response covered. Bringing in the significance of majorities is irrelevant.
Approval ratings rise and fall, and W's are at 50 at their LOWEST ebb, according to one poll (there may be others, but the ones I've seen suggest that 50 is aberrantly low) that used methods that skewed its results (too many dems, not enough likely voters, e.g., and my statement specifically referred to VOTING electorate).
Taking an optimal snapshot to mask his sustained popularity might be fun, but it is a bit disingenuous to extrapolate therefrom that my statement was somehow dubious. If he falls below 50 on a consistent basis, that could change as pertains to approval.
Yet even if that happens, many people who don't approve of him overall still think well of him as a person, so Madrak's condemnation would still, most likely, apply to the majority of the voting electorate.
11 - Tom Johnson
"Police state" - please. By the way I see this phrase being thrown around, it's obvious no one in America today understands what that even means. You have the right to do anything you did before Bush came into office. There is no police state but what is in your mind.
And whenever someone starts resorting to the childish names, like "Shrub," you lose all credibility - and not just with me, with all readers other than the very small contingent that already feel the way you do. When will people learn that you aren't going to influence anyone when you stoop to such pedantic levels as that? Really, aren't we mature enough to simply use his name? Most mature people will read this and come to the same conclusion that I did: that the writer is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and your ability to influence anyone but those who feel exactly as you do goes right down the toilet. No matter how much you hate someone, if you show respect to them, you will find that you have influenced not only the people you already had on your side, but you may influence people who weren't. And isn't that your only purpose in writing this to begin with?
12 - Chris Arabia
Harper's = subject change, and a fictional one at that.
13 - san
Bush was never officially declared AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard: he just never reported for duty after training.
Yes, he did declare Iraq an imminent threat to national security if it did not comply with UN resolutions. Bush did go out of his way to avoid specifically tying Saddam to 9/11. However, the public somehow managed to create this relationship on their own and neither Bush nor his administration ever made any attempt to disabuse the American people of that notion -- until -- when was it? -- last week.
According to economists, the recession began about six months into Bush's term; and ended, I believe, last November. In light of that analysis, you can make the case that we were headed into recession under Clinton; but you can't state that the recession *started* under Clinton.
14 - TDavid
Bush bashing, eh Natalie?
Liar, lies or not, whether we like it or not, the fact remains that he is our currently elected President (which I suppose could also go for debate with the whole Florida thing), and that he has our men and women soldiers over in a hazardous place at the moment.
I say we vote with our feet in the next election and work to get him campaigned out of office. No second term!
I must admit that I don't really see what character assassinating our currently elected President during this tumultuous time really gains? Does this have some sort of cleansing effect on some folks?
And no, I didn't -- and wouldn't -- vote for Bush. I remember what it was like when senior was in office.
15 - TDavid
And let me add that regarding comment #11: Tom, I totally agree with you.
16 - Mark Saleski
"Shrub?"
heck, if it's good enough with molly ivins (who's been closely following the his exploits for years), then it's good enough for me.
yea, he's our president, our troops are over there, etc.
well, some of us (who are all apparently "whining", "america-hatera", "fuzzy-headed", ...insert your favorite liberal stereotype here) never wanted them there in the first place.
17 - Natalie Davis
People have used nicknames for pols for centuries. Come on, now. Terrorist? Thief? These are things I believe he is in fact. Jerry is a milkman. Jennifer is an actor. George is a terrorist, thief, and liar. Not insults, truth.
Yes, we would disagree on his status as "president." He is not my president, never was.
My purpose in posting this was merely to link to the OSP article, which, in my opinion, states something that is obvious. Where did I say: "Turn away from Bush?" I didn't. I wrote, if you support him, that's your business, but do so with your eyes open. It never entered my imagination that I would persuade anyone of anything, not through this posting. If someone were to be persuaded, that would be icing on the proverbial cake, but it was not my intent. And I do my damnedest NOT to lie.
18 - Chris Arabia
"in my opinion, states something that is obvious"
well, the kind of shrill rhetoric in the article is not "obvious" to the majority of the present electorate, slavish and irrelevant adherence to the lawless yokels of the florida supreme court notwithstanding.
i read left-leaning sources that transcend the kind of "any electorate that disagrees with me is not a valid electorate" rants that remind me of mickey suslov, so i know they exist.
19 - Sean H.
Reading these posts it is apparent many people believe that the earth has been made flat. And President Bush must be to blame, right?
20 - Natalie Davis
lol
21 - Mark Saleski
or....if bush, cheney, and rumsfeld keep repeating "the earth is flat", well then, goddammit, it's flat!
22 - voxxy
Sorry, san, but the economists have placed the beginning of the recession in the summer of 2000, while the president was one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and the ending in 2001, when the president was George W. Bush.
Read the State of the Union message from last January. It specifically states that Iraq is NOT an imminent threat but must be prevented from becoming one.
23 - John Mudd
Bush lies quite a bit, and he cloaks everything in secrecy. His White House, unlike the Reagan White House, is filled with insiders that have been with him or his father, who I like to call Secrecy, Sr. (and "One Term, Sr.), from the very beginning.
What is about to happen to One Term, Jr., though, is similar to what happened to the king of presidential liars - Richard Nixon.
The plot's actually very similar to Watergate, and it'll probably unravel as such.
Whether W. is impeached or removed, or not, he's still toast in 2004 with this just now unraveling on the horizon.
Looks like republicans need a new nominee. Hey Arnold, how about running for the Republican nomination? I'm certain that Arnold could negotiate free trade agreements much better than W. has, and he could probably create more jobs, too. He would undoubtedly terminate unemployment and terrorists, too.
Hey Orrin, what's taking you so long with that amendment? Republicans need a real nominee in 2004 instead of this oligarchic liberal liar that's in there now.
24 - Hal Pawluk
"..You have the right to do anything you did before Bush came into office." (11)
Sure.
Except that now you might be thrown in jail and held incommunicado for an unspecified (and potentially unlimited) time.
Interested parties should take a close look at the details of the "Patriot" Act, as well as how it is being applied in ways that the framers had not intended. It started like this:
"A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months. Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law..."
"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. Prosecutors aren't apologizing." 9/15/03 article
Then there's Patriot II in the wings ...
25 - san
Voxxy, where are you getting your information? The most recent recession began in March 2001 and ended, not last November as I originally stated, but that same year, in November. In March 2001, George Walker Bush was president; Clinton had retired.
Two sources:
Chicago Sun Times
The Washington Post
And on Iraq as an imminent threat:
From the SOTU, January 2003: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
That's the only use of the word "imminent" in the address and it's not negated. Indeed, Bush says that "terrorists [implication: al Qaeda] and tyrants [implication: Saddam] [do not] announce their intentions." The overwhelming message in this statement is that terrorists and tyrants act "suddenly", that they don't fit the standard definition of "imminent threat", ergo they by their mere existence pose an imminent threat.
Q.E.D., voxxy.