http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/news...cle.asp?id=1740

I saw this article on the above site:

George W. Bush, Meet the Press, February 13, 2004:


Tim Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?



President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.



source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/





George W. Bush, Rose Garden press conference, June 1, 2004:

Question from reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly --

THE PRESIDENT: Chalabi?

Q Yes, with Chalabi.

THE PRESIDENT: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.

Q I guess I'm asking, do you feel like he misled your administration, in terms of what the expectations were going to be going into Iraq?



THE PRESIDENT: I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq.



source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040601-2.html


So- is this an example of an outright lie by GW Bush? If not- Why?

CR, I'd be interested to know exactly what you see as "the lie"? Forgive me for debating by question, but I am struggling to see a "lie". Can you be more specific?

Surely the lie is that GW Bush claims not to have spoken at any great length with Chalabi, but in a previous statement he claimed that he had had consultations with several Iraqi leaders, including Chalabi, concerning the 'basic law'...

So, he was either lying then, or now..

editted to add;

So- is this an example of an outright lie by GW Bush? If not- Why?

Yes it is. For by his own admission, he spoke to Chalabi concerning the founding of Iraqi law.

This seems like a lie to me, but it's probably nothing out of the ordinary. Back in February, the statement he made may just have been "stretching the truth," as I'm sure many (most? all?) politicians have done over the years, but recent events with Chalabi have shown that this discrepancy is more important than it may have been then. Perhaps after the problems with Chalabi arose in May (I'm not too familiar with what happened with that) Bush felt the need to distance himself from him. So who's to know which statement is true?

Bush doesn't deny meeting with Chalibi.



We all know Chalibi was at the State of the Union address, sitting right behind Mrs. Bush, so he was obviously given high status. We all know that Chalibi was heavily involved in providing information to our government and that he had the backing of the Defense Department .

But Bush didn't lie either. He was distancing himself from Chalibi. He should have handled the question better. He should have answered the question more directly. Avoiding these types of questions won't make them go away. It only provides political fodder to Bush opponents and it makes Bush supporters cringe.

Imagine that, a president exaggerates the length of a meeting with a foreign leader to comfort his people about Iraq's chances of falling into chaos. Truly, this is the crime of the century.

If he had done this under oath, to save his own *** from a history of sexual harrassment, misconduct charges, maybe you could get people to see Bush as the sleazeball you endlessly try to portray him as.

I'm inclined to agree with Beladonna's take. He's not denying he met the man, he's distancing himself in case the treason charges stick. Its the "Texas Two-Step" and I know of very few politicians who aren't prone to backpedal a bit when someone they associated with may be linked to treason.

I personally believe that they have done far worse than this little disco but time will tell whether much of it can be proven.

Doc

Is a stretched truth a lie? That is the question. I frankly don't see an outright lie but rather the manipulations of the master politician that Bush is supposed to be.

So I'll leave it at that. I don't think President Bush is a master politician. Master politicians get things done and get those things done in ways that they (and hopefully their supporters) want them to get done.

The things that have been getting done aren't exactly making President Bush look like a master at anything. Even the wriggling around certain situations, as brought forth above, are done in clumsy manners. At least that's my perception, and it is admittedly a colored perception.

So the terms to look out for are the subjective notions of "speaking at length" versus "brief conversation." They aren't lies. Just subjective judgements on how much influence one guy had on White House policy.

So how much influence did this guy have? From what I've seen, quite a lot.

Conclusion: President Bush might not be a liar, but he certainly is easy to dupe. If not the President, then his cabinet. Either way, it doesn't look good.

There is no lie here.

The questions were about two separate subjects.

In the first, Bush is asked why he is sure that Iraq will not degenerate into an Islamic extremist regime. He answers by saying he has met with Iraqi leaders from different areas of the country and they all tell him that Iraq's new Constitution will include protections for minorities.

The second question was about being misled about the information given prior to the war:



Conversations were brief. Neither statement says that he had extensive conversations with Chalabi. He had assurances from Chalabi that Iraq would protect minorities, is what was said.

This doesn't even fall into the category of "white lie" or even a "slip up".

There is nothing here (unless I am completely missing something).

This question seems to have about the same answer as when Bush was asked about 'Kenny Boy' of Enron. He has know 'Kenny Boy' for more years than he had let on.

Bush is what people used to call, "a rainy day friend". If the sun was shining and everything was okay then we were the best of friends. But if there was a rainy day and problems were encountered forget the friendship.

Yes I believed he stretched the truth quite a bit or he was lying. Take your choice.

Anyway, I don't think Bush's answer was appropiate for someone in his position or for anyone really.

Everyone by now knows that Chalabi conned the Bush adminstration. In fact that is one of the few times that a con man has been conned. Out done by a con man. How will they ever live that down?

This one got my attention because it fits a pattern for GW- for instance, he was obviously VERY well known and touchy feely with Ken Lay (whose Enron jet was GW on when he was trying to stop the recount in Florida ) then, when the Enron thing broke he "didn't know Kenny Boy that well"

Then, the most telling, is the SCI scandal:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-26-03/...on.cgi.163.html

Almost exactly the same circumstances- denied, under oath, ever meeting the main players, then, caught in the lie, said, "Okay, I met with them for just a second, never had a long conversation with them or anything".

If dems were in office, we would probably have an impeachment hearing on this, righ now.

I call it a lie. He made it appear he was having extensive conversations on constitutional law, no matter how direct his quote about it was, called Challabi out BY NAME, and later, when this was pointed out, back tracked. That would be a lie in most poeple's books, if they were the one lied too!

Quite frankly, this looks more like a desperate search for an issue than anything else. Chalabi has always been a controversial character in many ways, and there is no doubt that there are some serious questions surrounding him and his actions. It is perfectly logical that he could meet with President Bush briefly, tell Bush something and leave. Nothing inconsistant with that at all. So no, it's not a lie by any means. Y'all are gonna have to try harder.

Well, even I'll admit, the 'rope-line' bit was silly. I remember distinctly seeing Chalabi in the balcony seats, and Bush making comments about the promise of new Iraqi leadership, the camera pointing at Chalabi as he nods...etc.

Now, was he lying about having 'extensive conversations' with him? I doubt it. He probably exchanged ideas with him, as he did with many other Iraqi leaders, and went back to trying to figure a way to keep Iraq from going further down the drain than it already is.

Not to mention, anyone would backpedal if they were asked about their favorite in the race to be the leader of the new Iraq was a traitorous scumbag. I'll back the GOP and the right, but let's just say I wouldn't take Bush to Vegas with me. I mean, I'll support him over Kerry, but for the love of God, take some lessons from Slick Willy in wordspeak Dubya.

Did Bush lie about this? I'd say "no".

Is Bush being 100% truthful? I'd say "doubtful".

Bush is embarrassed (or should be). The past two years of his Administration have been the spent falling for an elaborate con job. That's not something Bush would readily admit. So he tries to distance himself, since he's not likely to admit he'd been conned.

And I agree with Aquilla (stunned silence follows): if you're looking for a "gotcha", this isn't it. It's so much semantics and not enough activity.

Look for your "gotchas" with Val Plame, the Cheney Energy Task Force, the "torture can be our friend" memos floating around the Justice and Defense departments, or something else stupid that Bush will do between now and November. The night is young and you can still be hopeful.

Hmmm- I think Titus and AMF hit closest to home here- for all the repubs hate of Clinton and his "Clintonisms"- they sure give a pass when GW does the same thing LOL (not saying AMF or Titus gives him a "pass"- I just see the glaring similarities)

And yes, AMF- this isn't as big as a "gotcha" as the ones you mentioned.

But, if I were selling you a car, and said "I looked it over, looked pretty good to me- probably rust free"

And you got there and THEN I said "well, I just looked it over for a sec" when you found a bunch of rust- YOU would think I lied, wouldn't you?

I certainly GAVE you the impression that I looked the car over for rust, didn't I? Perhaps not a DIRECT lie- but certainly a con job!

Why do we spin this different for politicians? I thought we WANTED a plain spoken politician that says what he means and means what he says?

Or would this be a "flip flop"- but wait, I thought repubs didn't like that either?

Man, this whole relative morality thing really has me confused about asking myself WWGWD

Overall, I'd say "Bush IS that kind of plain-spoken politician". His cadence is tuned to using short sentences and short words. For better or worse, he says things simply and (diction notwithstanding) clearly.

Until he turns out to be wrong about something or has to answer a tough question without a script. Then he turns into a mumbling bumbling politician. And that's what happened here (and his other lame attempts to explain the ever-changing Iraq story). He did a poor job of finessing the problem, but that's because he's really not programmed internally to finesse a problem.

And I gave Clinton passes on semantics, too I don't really care about "plain speaking" as long as I can understand the politician; I just want them to be able to be great enough to hold the office that they seek.


WWGWD? My brain is going to slow to process this just now. Please advise.

Sorry- a off-handed slap to the religious right- "What would GW Do"- from thier slogan "what would Jesus do"

This doesn't seem like a lie to me, not even a white lie. Probably no more than a slip up, although CR does have a point with his analogy. Bush needs to be more conscience about his relations with everything, not just people. He seems to do or say whatever is convenient at the time with no regard to what he has done or will do on that same subject. He seems very incongruent with a lot of things.

Just like when he answered questions for the 9/11 commission but didn't allow transcripts or recordings. :wha?:

I can see it now, free WWGWD bands will sweep the nation in October just before the election.

Edited for spelling.

I really don't understand. He makes two statements: one says he met with Chalabi, and another said he met with Chalabi briefly. Do we have any external evidence that he did not meet with Chalabi? If not, where's the lie, or slip-up, or whatever it is?