Last Night on I believe Paula Zahn the leader of the Christian Coalition Pat Robertson stated that prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq that the two had a private conversation. Robertsin states that he had major reservations about Iraq and asked the president if he would prepare the public for expected casualties. According to Robertson Bush said "We wont have any casualties".

I do not like Pat Robertson. I think he is an extremist with illogical beliefs and ideals but I wouldnt call him a blatant or intentional liar. What Pat Robertson is essentially putting forward is that Bush much like the left and most of the world insists is that Bush was unaware of the ramifications of an Iraq invasion.

Once again this is Pat Robertson a man who believes that god is on Bush's side.

The White House released a comment admitting that the two met but the administration denies that it said such a thing. In short the White House is calling Pat Robertson a liar.

My question is who is lying? Did George Bush grossly underestimate Iraq as this comment suggests or is one of Bush's biggest supporter's who feels God has chosen Bush somehow lying?

I'm not certain that the president lied at all. I believe that Robertson took the president's statement:and took it to mean that we wouldn't suffer one casualty in the literal sense. I believe the president made that statement, but he thought he was saying that we wouldn't have that many. What the president thought and what he said were probably two different things. Things like that happen to people all of the time, so we have to consider that both men were right, it's just that a mistaken statement was taken as gospel(no pun intended) by Robertson. It's interesting how people mocked Kerry for the "I voted for the $87 billion before I was against it" and didn't try to understand his statement, I wonder if the president will be given the same treatment or be given the benefit of a doubt.

Yes, he did underestimate how bad Iraq was going to be. At the same time, the CIA made monumental mistakes on this "slamdunk" of an invasion. It should also be pointed out that the administration certainly didn't encourage alternative viewpoints.

Why would Robertson lie about a conversation that puts a president he supports in a negative light?

While Bush may not have meant zero casulties, he most certainly neglected to consider how to win the peace after "shock and awe." For spilling the beans, Robertson gets to stand in the corner for an hour and contemplate how "god" wants him to amend his statement. The White House statement is called damage control. Don't expect to see Robertson at the next White House prayer breakfast if Bush is reelected.

My question is who is lying? Did George Bush grossly underestimate Iraq as this comment suggests or is one of Bush's biggest supporter's who feels God has chosen Bush somehow lying?
I have a feeling that Robertson isn't lying here. He said the exact same thing back on the June 22, 2004 episode of Hardball:


Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that Bush underestimated this conflict. This statement suggests that, as does other information. Knight Ridder has a good article on this:

Feel free to read the whole thing, but this little bit nicely sums it up.

Although I am no fan of Pat Robertson, I do not think that he would lie about what George W. Bush said to him. As has been brought up before, Robertson doesn't seem to have anything to gain from lying, whereas George W. Bush has a lot to lose if he were to own up to saying there would be no casualties.


George W. Bush did not have a realistic view of what a war in Iraq would entail. Part of his problem is that while his family has a relationship with Saudi royalty, it has not helped him understand Muslim culture among everyday people. He has been remarkably well-insulated from a lot of negative experiences in his life, and he doesn't seem to demonstrate an interest in other cultures apart from "making" them into democracies.

I think it's time we stopped trying to interpret all of the stuff that comes out of Bush's mouth, you know, all of the "What he meant to say" stuff. Bush is a grownup and English is supposed to be his first language, so we should take what he says the way it sounds. Why must we be expected to repeatedly give a pass to a man who is supposed to somehow be qualified for the most powerful position in the world?

In addition, what Pat Robertson claimed Bush said ("Oh no, we're not going to have any casualties") was straightforward; there was no awkward mispronunciation, word mixups, or confabulation. It revealed a man with an unrealistic view of how easily the war was going to be won and Iraq was going to be changed to a democratic nation. It was cowboy recklessness and ignorance.

If I were a betting woman, I would bet that Robertson is the one who isn't lying.

Perhaps neither man is “lying.” It might simply be a case of who has the better memory. Did Pat Robertson keep detailed notes of the conversation? Will we find White House tapes such as those kept by the Nixon administration?

I am surprised that W did not use one of his usual blanket denials, such as this one from The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate:


Oh wait, that was debunked immediately after the debates...

Five days after saying we might get killed by using Canadian drugs in the October 8 Debate, he responded in the October 13 debate by saying we were trying to obtain flu vaccine from Canada.

Okay, I’ll concede that Pat Robertson likely has the better memory. He did after all, remember meeting with the President, whereas the White House had to check their records to confirm that the meeting took place.

What I feel the President's reaction should have been was to say, "I guess it's time to get a new spiritual adviser. I thought that what I said to him would be kept in strict confidence. I just can't trust him anymore, and I don't see why you should either."