Confessions of a Liar

EricGo · 11-09-2006, 12:15 PM

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions...p-8286354c.html

Bush admitted he'd been less than honest about the changes at Defense.

Asked at Wednesday's news conference about his Cheney-Rumsfeld stay-the-course declaration of the week before, Bush admitted he'd misled reporters.

"I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said of his interview with The Associated Press and other reporters.

"And so the only way to answer that question, and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer. ... The other reason why is I hadn't had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet, and I hadn't had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet, at that point."

Translated: he had a hidden agenda. What liar doesn't ?
I think this is illuminating, as one of the few examples of the shrub not just reading canned text.

**efusco** · 11-09-2006, 12:42 PM

I give him an easy "pass" on this.
If a reporter asks him if he's launching the assault on the enemy at 9pm tonight, and the plan is to launch the assault at 9pm tonight, he'd be a fool and it would be a danger to our men for the president to say "I cannot tell a lie, the assault will be at 9pm tonight."

In the case above he was in a similar corner. Such an announcement would have dramatic reprecussions on the election. Even though the reporters were on target the pres had little choice in his responses...."No Comment" would be interpreted as an affirmation.

The president needs to lie about some things of immediate import and national security import. His words carry a tad more weight than yours or mine. Certainly there's a fuzzy line somewhere and I don't want him crossing that to the point that he's deceiving the nation on issues we need to know about ("no, the enemy is not breaching our shores"), but some issues that could have serious reprecussions need to be handled carefully.

EricGo · 11-09-2006, 12:54 PM

So tell me Evan, did his lie protect national security ? That is the standard NeoCon excuse for every travesty, and I'm surprised to see you repeating it.

An honest president would say: "I do not discuss invasion times, for obvious reasons." The shrub likewise could have said "I do not speculate on the future make-up of my cabinet, for obvious reasons".

**TonyPSchaefer** · 11-09-2006, 01:04 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 9 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]346341[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

So tell me Evan, did his lie protect national security ? [/b]

If his responding accurately to the question would have swayed the voting results the other way, then yes he did protect national security. Of course, he wouldn't heave meant to.

EricGo · 11-09-2006, 01:08 PM

I appreciate the humor Tony, but the IF .. WOULD syntax is the point here.

Lying is such a slippery slope, when it is rationalized by the possibility of a chance of a non-zero event.

Pinto Girl · 11-09-2006, 01:24 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 9 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]346309[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions...p-8286354c.html

Bush admitted he'd been less than honest about the changes at Defense.

Asked at Wednesday's news conference about his Cheney-Rumsfeld stay-the-course declaration of the week before, Bush admitted he'd misled reporters.

"I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said of his interview with The Associated Press and other reporters.

"And so the only way to answer that question, and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer. ... The other reason why is I hadn't had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet, and I hadn't had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet, at that point."
Translated: he had a hidden agenda. What liar doesn't ?
I think this is illuminating, as one of the few examples of the shrub not just reading canned text.
[/b]

Uhhhh, then why was Saddam convicted on the eve of a major election? I'm sorry, but I feel that President Bush's credibility is perhaps not all that it could be when it comes to truth, lies and knowing which one is which. There were other ways to answer the question without actually telling a lie, as has already been demonstrated above.

I don't think I'd let him off so easily. It was becoming pretty clear that the Democrats would take control; this administration seems willing to try just about anything in the name of self-preservation...I think there's at least a shadow of a doubt.

dbermanmd · 11-09-2006, 01:27 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Nov 9 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]346329[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

I give him an easy "pass" on this.
If a reporter asks him if he's launching the assault on the enemy at 9pm tonight, and the plan is to launch the assault at 9pm tonight, he'd be a fool and it would be a danger to our men for the president to say "I cannot tell a lie, the assault will be at 9pm tonight."

In the case above he was in a similar corner. Such an announcement would have dramatic reprecussions on the election. Even though the reporters were on target the pres had little choice in his responses...."No Comment" would be interpreted as an affirmation.

The president needs to lie about some things of immediate import and national security import. His words carry a tad more weight than yours or mine. Certainly there's a fuzzy line somewhere and I don't want him crossing that to the point that he's deceiving the nation on issues we need to know about ("no, the enemy is not breaching our shores"), but some issues that could have serious reprecussions need to be handled carefully.
[/b]

I think you have it correct.

I am amazed at the amount of hate President Bush generates.

I am almost amazed at the amount of hate that is possible to be generated by people in general.

Pinto Girl · 11-09-2006, 01:36 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]346362[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

I think you have it correct.

I am amazed at the amount of hate President Bush generates.

I am almost amazed at the amount of hate that is possible to be generated by people in general.
[/b]

While I don't hate him personally or as a politician, I do resent the way this adminstration (and since he's the boss, Mr. Bush *has* to accept responsibility) has tended to sometimes talk a moderate line...but when push comes to shove, it throws fresh red meat to its hardline neoconservative power base.

I think it's safe to say that our administration tends to value some individuals more than others, and has no problem saying so. I also believe that Mr. Bush's positioning of himself as 'inclusive' only begs the question, to whom...?

There has been a worsening breech of trust between the people and the politicians, and this is only the latest manifestation of the problem.

Proco · 11-09-2006, 01:39 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]346362[/snapback]</div>

Quote:

I am amazed at the amount of hate President Bush generates.
[/b]

He generates about as much as both Clintons, Pelosi, Howard Dean, Tom DeLay, or Dick Cheyney. Big surprise. People on the left dislike the leaders on the right. People on the right dislike leaders on the left. Nothing amazes me when it comes to politics.

Pinto Girl · 11-09-2006, 01:52 PM

I think the real problem is that it's easy to generate hate (from shock art to everything else that's 'shocking') but lots more difficult not to.

I think that hate is one of those emotions which closes down logical thought...at that point, people are thinking irrationally anyway and so might be receptive to additional hate/fear messaging.

Getting us to hate each other is a tool that is well used by the power elite on both sides of the political spectrum.

11-09-2006, 12:15 PM	#1
EricGo Three cats, one Prius, and assorted humans Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US) Posts: 1,810 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions...p-8286354c.html Bush admitted he'd been less than honest about the changes at Defense. Asked at Wednesday's news conference about his Cheney-Rumsfeld stay-the-course declaration of the week before, Bush admitted he'd misled reporters. "I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign," Bush said of his interview with The Associated Press and other reporters. "And so the only way to answer that question, and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer. ... The other reason why is I hadn't had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet, and I hadn't had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet, at that point." Translated: he had a hidden agenda. What liar doesn't ? I think this is illuminating, as one of the few examples of the shrub not just reading canned text. __________________ R2-E2: 2004 Prius, 37K miles, lifetime MPG 57.1 as of 8/2006. Rolling 12 month average: 61.05

11-09-2006, 12:42 PM	#2
efusco Troll Slayer Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nixa, MO Posts: 17,255 My Car: 2004 Prius Model: Package: #9 Thanks: 50 Thanked 263 Times in 158 Posts Friends: 37	I give him an easy "pass" on this. If a reporter asks him if he's launching the assault on the enemy at 9pm tonight, and the plan is to launch the assault at 9pm tonight, he'd be a fool and it would be a danger to our men for the president to say "I cannot tell a lie, the assault will be at 9pm tonight." In the case above he was in a similar corner. Such an announcement would have dramatic reprecussions on the election. Even though the reporters were on target the pres had little choice in his responses...."No Comment" would be interpreted as an affirmation. The president needs to lie about some things of immediate import and national security import. His words carry a tad more weight than yours or mine. Certainly there's a fuzzy line somewhere and I don't want him crossing that to the point that he's deceiving the nation on issues we need to know about ("no, the enemy is not breaching our shores"), but some issues that could have serious reprecussions need to be handled carefully. __________________ Evan E. Fusco, MD "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word." -Andrew Jackson

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Confessions of an airline executive	FloridaWen	Fred's House of Pancakes	1	11-18-2007 01:53 PM
Flip Flopper or Big Fat Liar?	Godiva	Fred's House of Pancakes	0	09-06-2007 12:47 AM
Confessions of a Prius snob	jkash	Gen II Prius Main Forum	13	02-02-2007 10:23 PM
If Bush is a liar then . . .	Wildkow	Fred's House of Pancakes	141	04-12-2006 12:57 AM

11-09-2006, 12:54 PM	#3
EricGo Three cats, one Prius, and assorted humans Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US) Posts: 1,810 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	So tell me Evan, did his lie protect national security ? That is the standard NeoCon excuse for every travesty, and I'm surprised to see you repeating it. An honest president would say: "I do not discuss invasion times, for obvious reasons." The shrub likewise could have said "I do not speculate on the future make-up of my cabinet, for obvious reasons".

11-09-2006, 01:08 PM	#5
EricGo Three cats, one Prius, and assorted humans Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US) Posts: 1,810 My Car: Model: Package: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Friends: 0	I appreciate the humor Tony, but the IF .. WOULD syntax is the point here. Lying is such a slippery slope, when it is rationalized by the possibility of a chance of a non-zero event.

11-09-2006, 01:52 PM	#10
Pinto Girl Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 2,372 My Car: 2006 Prius Model: Package: #9 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts Friends: 0	I think the real problem is that it's easy to generate hate (from shock art to everything else that's 'shocking') but lots more difficult not to. I think that hate is one of those emotions which closes down logical thought...at that point, people are thinking irrationally anyway and so might be receptive to additional hate/fear messaging. Getting us to hate each other is a tool that is well used by the power elite on both sides of the political spectrum.