Exclusive: Last week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed his dad had been attacked by President Obama, who “likes to attack fellow Americans.” Yet, Romney’s verbal assault on Obama was itself a multi-layered fabrication that revealed Romney consummate skill as a professional liar, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The guilty pleasure of watching the TV series “The Good Wife” besides the scenes with Kalinda (the private investigator played by Archie Panjabi) rests in the ethical ambiguities at the intersection of law and politics, a place where truth and morality are relative, sometimes useful but at other times sacrificed for profit, power or legal tactics.
Yet, the show recently introduced a new character, a lawyer-politician played by Matthew Perry who tells blatant lies. He coolly makes up conversations and circumstances that are total fabrications but also can’t be easily disproved. Even from the moral fog of her personal and professional life, The Good Wife character played by Julianna Margulies is shocked.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
In Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney is the Matthew Perry character, a politician who cuts through the hazy world of political half-truths with the clarity of strategic lying. Indeed, he lies with a confidence that may be a special right of the well-connected rich who are beyond accountability.
Take for example, Romney’s response to President Barack Obama’s comment last week at a community college in Elyria, Ohio. Obama noted that he wasn’t from a rich family and needed help from others to get the education that allowed him to make his way in the world.
At Lorain County Community College, Obama said: “Somebody gave me an education. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle [Obama] wasn’t. But somebody gave us a chance. Just like these folks up here are looking for a chance.”
Obama made no mention of Mitt Romney or his father, George Romney, who was a successful auto executive before going into politics. But some TV commentators suggested that the “silver spoon” remark created a contrast between Obama and the well-to-do Mitt Romney, who then responded to Obama’s comment on Fox News show, “Fox & Friends.”
“I’m not going to apologize for my dad’s success,” Romney said, looking coolly into the camera. “But I know the president likes to attack fellow Americans. He’s always looking for a scapegoat, particularly those that have been successful like my dad.”
Romney added, “This is not a time for us to be attacking people, we should be attacking problems. And if I am president, I will stop the attack on fellow Americans. I’ll stop the attack on people and start attacking the problems that have been looming over this country.”
In those few sentences, Romney displayed a depth of dishonesty that I have rarely seen in nearly four decades covering politicians at the local, state and national levels. Not only did Romney invent Obama’s attack on George Romney, but extrapolated that non-existent assault into a pattern of behavior and suggested that Obama was some monstrous alien who “likes to attack fellow Americans.”
Then, Romney asserted that the very idea of attacking people was wrong and destructive though he and his backers have just spent millions and millions of dollars in TV ads to attack and destroy his Republican rivals. Plus, Romney’s false claim that Obama’s was disparaging George Romney and was attacking successful people was itself an attack on Obama and Obama’s character.
Speaking with a smile and detached demeanor, Mitt Romney had just revealed why Americans should be alarmed at the prospect of electing such a cold-blooded liar to the Presidency. That skill could be put to any purpose, from demonizing individuals to taking the nation to war.
‘Everybody Does It’
Yes, I know the pushback, the cynical view that all politicians lie. Some people even suggest that it’s a good idea to have someone who’s at least good at it. But it’s not true that all politicians lie, at least not in this thorough and calculating a manner.
There also are qualitative differences in political lying. There are garden-variety lies such as half-empty promises to woo a crowd or half-baked attempts to hide some personal indiscretion and then there are deliberate and premeditated lies that can destroy a rival’s reputation or get lots of people killed. Voters would be wise to differentiate between gradations of lying.
I first came to appreciate that distinction more than three decades ago while working in the Washington bureau of the Associated Press. President Jimmy Carter, for all his faults as a political leader, had done a reasonably good job of living up to his promise never to lie to the American people, a pledge that he made in the wake of Richard Nixon’s historic lying regarding the Vietnam War and Watergate.
In the late 1970s, to puncture Carter’s sanctimony, AP’s White House correspondent Michael Putzel committed himself to proving that Carter had lied about something at least once, but never could make a particularly convincing case.
Our attitude toward presidential truth-telling changed in the early 1980s with the arrival of Ronald Reagan, a former movie actor who had at best a casual relationship with the truth. Much of Reagan’s rhetorical repertoire apparently was drawn from right-wing myths gleaned from Reader’s Digest.
Some of his remarks were simply laughable, like claims that trees caused a large share of the world’s pollution, but others were dangerously misleading, like suggestions that peasants challenging oppressive oligarchs in Central America were somehow a threat to the United States and deserved brutal repression.
At the AP, we had grown so accustomed to Carter’s quaint idea about sticking to the truth that we were taken aback by Reagan’s ease at telling falsehoods.
After his first presidential news conference, there were so many factual errors that we put together a fact-checking round-up to set the record straight. However, we discovered that we were entering a new political world where Reagan’s misstatements and lies were to be given much greater latitude than those of other politicians.
Our fact-checking drew a fierce counterattack not only from Reagan partisans but from many conservative AP-member newspaper publishers who were politically sympathetic to him. They didn’t want AP undermining the new president, and those right-wing publishers had the ear of AP’s general manager Keith Fuller, who shared an enthusiasm for Reagan.
So, after Reagan’s second news conference, which was replete with more mistakes and misstatements, we assembled another fact-checking piece only to be informed by AP brass that the story was being killed and that future endeavors of that sort were not welcome. There also was a school of thought that Reagan wasn’t really lying; he just lived in a world of make-believe, as if that was somehow okay.
However, as the Iran-Contra scandal unfolded in 1986-87 and Reagan was caught in bald-faced lies about trading arms for hostages I sometimes thought back on that earlier decision by AP executives to give Reagan a wide berth in truth-telling and wondered if our tolerance of his earlier deceptions might have been a factor in his later ones.
Tightening the Reins
The U.S. news media’s attitude toward truth-telling changed again after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. One senior news executive at a major U.S. newspaper told me that it was important for the press, which right-wing attack groups had long accused of having a “liberal bias,” to show that we would be tougher on a Democrat than any Republican.
So, top U.S. news outlets led by the Washington Post and the New York Times took off after the Clinton administration over a string of minor “scandals,” like Whitewater, Troopergate, the Travel Office firings, etc. The comments of Clinton administration officials were put under a microscope looking for any contradictions, lies and perjury.
Though the Clinton “scandals” mostly turned out to be much ado about nothing, President Clinton finally got caught in a personal whopper when under questioning he insisted that he didn’t have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s lie was of the type that a guy tells when cornered by an embarrassing indiscretion and is trying to weasel out of it.
Yet, the media’s war on Democratic honesty continued. When Clinton survived an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Washington press turned its guns on Vice President Al Gore. During Campaign 2000, reporters were determined to substantiate a narrative that “Lyin’ Al” was a “serial exaggerator.”
To make that case, some reporters including at the Washington Post and the New York Times made up quotes for Gore, all the better to clarify his supposed tendency to make things up. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Gore v. the Media” or Neck Deep.]
A very different standard was applied to George W. Bush, who was something of a media darling during Campaign 2000 as he doled out cute nicknames to the reporters on the trail. Bush was treated more like Reagan was, as journalists excused him when he made verbal gaffes or he simply said stuff that wasn’t true. The populist patrician got the benefit of every doubt.
That pattern carried over into Bush’s presidency with major news outlets hesitant to challenge Bush’s dubious claims, even about life-and-death topics such as his bogus assertions that Iraq was hiding WMD stockpiles. Even after that casus belli was debunked following Bush’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq the major news media resisted calling him a liar, preferring to blame faulty U.S. intelligence.
Continued Double Standard
That enduring double standard to be tougher on a Democrat than any Republican persists to this day, as “fact-checkers” go softer on GOP falsehoods than on Democratic distortions. In the face of outright lies by Republicans and questionable comments from Democrats, the media’s frame is that both sides are about equally at fault.
Thus, even as the Republican presidential campaign was littered with prevarications and made-up facts, major “fact-checking” operations sought to protect their own “credibility” by balancing any criticism of Republicans with examples of supposed Democratic “lies.”
For instance, PolitiFact turned the accurate Democratic claim that the Republicans were seeking to “end Medicare as we know it” into the 2011 “lie of the year.” But the fact is that the Republican House plan would have transformed Medicare from a fee-for-service program into a voucher system in which the elderly would be given subsidies for private health insurance.
Though that, indeed, would “end Medicare as we know it,” PolitiFact burnished its “non-partisan” image by making a truth into “the lie of the year.” Apparently, the fact that Republicans were keeping the name “Medicare” for the revamped program was enough for PolitiFact.
Similarly, the Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler got argumentative on Sunday, giving two “Pinocchios” to President Obama’s statement that “the majority of millionaires support” the Buffett Rule, a change in the tax law which would require people earning $1 million or more to pay a rate at least equal to middle-income Americans.
To support Obama’s comment, the White House cited an article in the Wall Street Journal, which, in turn, cited a survey of millionaires undertaken by the Spectrem Group, which does market research on the affluent. Spectrem’s survey found that 68 percent of responding millionaires backed the idea of the Buffett Rule.
Yet, in attacking Obama’s comment, Kessler noted that the Spectrem group surveyed people with $1 million or more in investments. Kessler made a big deal out of the fact that the Buffett Rule would apply to people making more than $1 million a year, not people holding $1 million or more in net worth.
“So Obama, and the Wall Street Journal, are mixing up two different types of millionaires,” Kessler wrote.
But Obama and the Wall Street Journal were not “mixing up” the millionaires. They were simply reporting that a survey of wealthy people, worth more than $1 million, favored the Buffett Rule, which is named after investor Warren Buffett who does make many millions of dollars a year and says it’s unfair to charge him a lower tax rate than his secretary.
In the “two-Pinocchio” condemnation of Obama, Kessler went on to make some technical arguments against Spectrem’s methodology and faulted Obama for not including caveats about the survey in his brief reference to it in his speech.
But is this fair “fact-checking,” when a politician accurately cites a survey by a credible research organization? Or is it just another example of mainstream journalists trying to show phony “balance,” that is, to avoid accusations of the old “liberal bias” canard?
Beyond the question of fairness, the trouble with this style of “journalism” is that it indirectly benefits the politician who tells the most egregious lies. After all if you’re going to get nailed for saying something that’s actually true or just slightly off the mark when PolitiFact or Glenn Kessler is trying to show off some artificial “objectivity” you might as well lie through your teeth.
Accomplished Liar
You might even get some grudging respect, as Romney did from Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, for being a persuasive liar.
“Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie,” Cohen wrote. “If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.”
Cohen cited a Republican debate during which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Romney’s SuperPAC of running dishonest attack ads. Romney claimed that he hadn’t seen the ads but then described and defended the content of one.
Cohen wrote: “Me, I would have confessed and begged for forgiveness. Not Romney, though, and herein is the reason he will be such a formidable general-election candidate. He concedes nothing. He had seen none of the ads, he said. They were done by others, he added. Of course, they are his supporters, but he had no control over them. All this time he was saying this rubbish, he seemed calm, sincere, matter of fact.
“And then he brought up an ad he said he did see. It was about Gingrich’s heretical support for a climate-change bill. He dropped the name of the extremely evil Nancy Pelosi. He accused Gingrich of criticizing Paul Ryan’s first budget plan, an Ayn Randish document. He added that Gingrich had been in ethics trouble in the House and [Romney] ended with a promise to make sure his ads were as truthful as could be. Pow! Pow! Pow! Gingrich was on the canvas.
“I watched, impressed. I admire a smooth liar, and Romney is among the best. His technique is to explain, that bit about not knowing what was in the ads, and then counterattack. He maintains the bulletproof demeanor of a man who is barely suffering fools, in this case Gingrich.
“His [Romney’s] message is not so much what he says, but what he is: You cannot touch me. I have the organization and the money. Especially the money. (Even the hair.) You’re a loser.”
But is such imperious lying really a good thing for a democracy? Should any politician feel that he has the right and the invulnerability to lie at will? Does the country really need a president who might convincingly tell the people that, say, Iran has WMDs justifying another war, or that some unpopular group of Americans represents a grave threat to U.S. security?
Shouldn’t convincing lying at least on important matters be a disqualifier to lead a democracy, not something to be admired?
In Romney’s previous career as a corporate raider lying may have been a part of the job, in lulling a company’s long-time owners into complacency or convincing some well-meaning investors that massive layoffs won’t be necessary. Then, wham-o, the company founders are out, their loyal workforce is on the street, and the company can be “reorganized” for a big profit.
Arguably, Romney learned his skill as a liar from those days at Bain Capital and he has put it to good use as a politician, taking opposite sides of issue after issue, from abortion rights to global warming to government mandates that citizens buy health insurance to whether stay-at-home mothers “work” or not.
Indeed, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted on Monday, Romney’s whole campaign is based on a cynical belief that Americans suffer from “amnesia” about what caused the nation’s economic mess and that they will simply blame President Obama for not quickly fixing it.
To illustrate the point last week, Romney staged a campaign event in Ohio at a shuttered drywall factory that closed in 2008, when Bush was still president and was watching the collapse of the housing market which had grown into a bubble under Bush’s low-tax, deregulatory policies.
Krugman wrote: “Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect.
“So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.”
Krugman added that the amnesia factor was relevant, too, because Romney is proposing more tax cuts and more banking deregulation, Bush’s disastrous recipe. In other words, Romney’s campaign is based on the fundamental lie that the cure for Bush’s economic collapse is a larger dose of Bush’s economic policies.
And the jaded retort that “all politicians lie” is not good enough. Nor that lying is somehow an admirable skill for a politician. There is something special about Romney’s lying, distinct even from Reagan’s loose connection to the truth or Clinton’s sleazy lies about his infidelity or Bush’s disregard for facts. Romney’s lying is more calculating. It’s professional.
Just as viewers of “The Good Wife” can distinguish between the corner-cutting of the typical lawyers and pols, from the brazen lying of the Matthew Perry character, American voters should be wary of a skillful, conscience-less liar like Mitt Romney.
[To read more of Robert Parry’s writings, you can now order his last two books, Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep, at the discount price of only $16 for both. For details on the special offer, click here.]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.
I don’t really want to weigh in on this one, I just want to be caller #101. Thanks, Mr. Parry, you are a great journalist and a great American!
Another excellent article by Mr Parry! The only minor quibble I have with it is to even refer to Mitt Romney as having “..consummate skill as a professional liar…” – – – I’m sorry, I don’t see it. Does he TRY to be one? Yes, definitely, but he’s SO transparent, SO obvious, that I can’t think of his words as accomplished lies, just juvenile ATTEMPTS to be one. Anyone with reasonable amount of political knowledge AND a skeptical mind can pretty easily see through the artifical ‘woodeness’ that Romney elicits – – pretty obvious that he’s trying to (at least minimally) consciously keep his lies in order. You can almost hear him thinking “OK, this is the Tea Party convention, I’ve got to lie about the moderate votes I made as governor of Massachusetts”, etc, etc. With any kind of skeptical populace, none of this would ever take place, but too many of the electorate virtually DEMAND to be lied to, and the commercial/corporate media are only too keen on obliging them, as Mr Parry’s Carter/Reagan example excellently affirms. The electorate wants to THINK of themselves as moral and interested in an honest, religious candidate who tells them the truth, but when offered the choice between one (Carter) vs a transparent flim-flam empty suit (Reagan), their choice told the REAL truth.
OF COURSE!! ANOTHER GREAT ARTICLE FROM MR. PERRY! THE LIBERAL WHO TRASHES
conservative beliefs. Mr. Romney is NOT here too defend himself! It’s NOT
fair too call him a liar! COWARD!!
In Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney is the Matthew Perry character, a politician who cuts through the hazy world of political half-truths with the clarity of strategic lying. Indeed, he lies with a confidence that may be a special right of the well-connected rich who are beyond accountability.
How can “We the People†trust a Professional Liar? How can we vote for a Professional Liar? What Foreign Power would ever trust a Professional Liar?
The American body politic requires a certain degree of phoniness from it’s candidates. Nothing gets a politician in trouble any faster than telling the truth. That being said, Willard Romney goes way beyond phony, to totally counterfeit.
Mitt Romney = Gordon Gekko?
Isn’t this like the pot calling the Obama black?
Obama talks just like a Progressive Democrat (even when he threw Howard Dean and the rest of the Progressive Democrats under the bus), but acts further to the right than did Bush.
As long as people keep blaming only the Fascist Republicans or only the Fascist Democrats then they too are part of the fascist problem.
A vote for a false choice between the lesser of two evil fascist political parties is still a vote for an evil fascist politician.
Or is it more like the Obama pot calling the Mittle black?
Studio wrestling politics is all so confusing. I have a hard time telling the difference between two lying fascists.
Bring on the liar D, liar R, pants on fire debates!
I just came from watching Mitt Romney on C-Span and read this article. It is scary how well Mitt Romney distorts the truth. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING he said about Obama was a total distortion of the truth, i.e. that the stimulus did no good, that Obama could have passed legislation the first two years when it is clear that the threat of filibuster in the Senate meant he could not. Could he have stood up more firmly to the Republican determination to block him at every turn? Perhaps. But as to Romney being a skillful liar, I have no doubt Bob Parry is right about that–and if he’s elected the country will become even more the cash cow of the wealthy and the middle class will become even smaller with a huge growth of people below the poverty line. Is that what we want? Apparently most of these commentators do want that. Very sad.
“Apparently most of these commentators do want that. Very sad.”
Yes. It is unbelievable that people who can read and write are led by the nose by a corrupt businessman and wannabe usa president, who just wants to take them to market and get a good price.
republicans = liars. Didn’t used to be that way, now it is their way of life. The failures of the republican party has made lying a necessity to republican success, it’s all they have. I personally hate people who lie, my stock of republican friends has shrunk, these people who tell me how I have to live, but can’t get through the day without advocating a liar. romney is trash, and so are the people who deny his lies. Garbage.
You guys in here blame Romney! You liberals take care of your own debt!
You have too say NO! STOP SPENDING!! FIGURE IT OUT !!
Where were you when we were bailing out the fascist Wall Street Banksters?
Where were you?
What does this have too do with balance budgets
and job reports?
“romney is trash,”
Definitely. But he does not know it.
The last recorded incidence od a Republican telling the truth was in January of 1961 when Dwight David Eisenhower stated that the military-industrial complex was a threat to the United States.
the mormon religion is not a real religion, it is a false dumb thing
obama is the only one for president, and if that isn’t good enough for these romney jerks then why don’t you just leave the country and live on the moon or somewhere far away.
Yea, book onto the Gingrich Moon Flight … that should be a hoot.
The irony is that one of the more damning criticisms one can make of Mitt Romney is to compare him to his father. Moreover, I don’t understand why Mitt would consider a comparison to his own privileged circumstances- whether it is obvious or implied- would be a knock against his father. George Romney was brought up in humble circumstances, and led a successful and honorable life in the private sector which contributed much to the welfare of his workers and the economy, as well as to his own fortune, and he was as honest and committed a public servant as the best of them. I can still see him pilloried for his epiphany on the War in Vietnam, while his son, and every other major candidate today kowtows to the neocons, generals, and “national security” leaders who in many ways are doing much more damage to the nation than their counterparts did then.
The other is the one you pointed out, namely the cynical strategic lie for political advantage, which, when it succeeds, makes one wonder how stupid we have all become. Anyway, George Bush was the only recent President that was born with a silver foot in his mouth, and one would hope Mitt is not emulating him.
Compared to Romney, Bush was a genius with ethics.
NOT THE TRUTH!! Your Wrong!!
This is what I see when I see Mitt Romney. I see a clone and I see Ervil.
For those of you who do not know Ervil is, I suggest you read what I call the TRUE Book of Mormon. The title of this book is His Favorite Wife written by a courageous beautiful soul whose name is Susan Ray Schmidt.
This book is an eye opener about the Mormon religion. Perhaps some men in the Mormon religion tend to be big fat liars, because they worship Joseph Smith and Brigham Young[both dead], more than they do Jesus Christ.
That said, other politicians of many different faiths are also liars, just like Mittens. Nothing really JUST about their lying a** behavior.
Ervilites come from many different walks of life, many different religions, and many different cultures. Some are tall, some are short, some are black, and some are white. But, an Ervilite is an Ervilite…Barack Obama is one and so is Mittens! They may not look alike but they are the same person in different skins. And, that boys and girls is the absolute TRUTH!
Mitt’s dad was a professional lobbyist for big corporations, who made his money by kissing up to the right people and joining the right clubs.
He became CEO of what became American Motors when the CEO/buddy who hired him to be his assistant (without any previous industrial experience), unexpectedly died in the mid-50s.
Mitt and his wife were little more than Bloomfield Hills snot nosers who were born on third base and think they hit triples.
Why does everyone accept Romney’s claims that his father was such a success story. He became head of an automobile company that was at the time a joke. Its products were of extremely poor quality at a time when American built automobiles had great repect throughout the world. Being the head of a a failing company is hardly the mark of success.
I seem to remember too that George Romney’s presidential aspirations ended when he claimed that on his visit to Vietnam he had been “brainwashed” by the Johnson administration. This excuse was made because he had filp-flopped on support for the war effort.
Im really getting sick of Yahoo posting links to articles such as this one. Our media seems to only advertise articles that have a liberal spin on them. I’m going to get my news from Fox for now on. The utter and complete hypocracy of the left is outrageous and intolerable. I’d rather not be brainwashed anymore. Thank You
Good riddance.
If you would rather not be brainwashed then Fox seems like an unusual place to go.
You know Jesse, that there is brainwashing, and then there is out-and-out brainwashing of the FOX variety.
reality has a “liberal spin” — your not liking that is not someone else’s problem.
So…you’re saying that Fox doesn’t brainwash it’s viewers? Research proves that Fox viewers are less informed on the issues than non-viewers. So my guess is you’d rather stick your head in the sand….your call.
When the liberal Left say DON’T watch Fox news!! WATCH IT!!
You mean the serial liars at fux news? Who would have guessed? Saying ‘from now on’, indicating you haven’t so far, is a obvious lie. You must be a republican, to lie like that.
Wow! The great liberal hope & change for the u.s a !
The article is okay. It means don’t lie all the time to people; they will one day let you know that you have been lying and have just lied, no matter in what context you use words to express yourself.
Parry’s column is ironic in that he ends up spinning his own web of half-truths.
Take for example his claim that President Bush made “assertions that Iraq was hiding WMD stockpiles.” Wouldn’t it be great to have a quotation to back that claim? Bush tended to be circumspect in his statements on the topic. It should be easy to find Bush saying that Iraq has not accounted for WMDs it admitted having and agreed to destroy. Apparently Parry turns that type of (true) statement into a claim that Iraq was hiding stockpiles of WMD. I’d like to see the quotation that unambiguously supports Parry’s version.
Likewise, Parry defends President Obama’s use of a survey of millionaires offering their view of the Buffett rule. Exactly why is such a survey relevant if the survey is dominated by those not affected by the rule? Using the statistic produces the impression that those affected by the rule favor the rule. Otherwise Obama could just stick with a survey of the general population. Glenn Kessler was right to criticize Obama on that point.
The rest of Parry’s column is of a kind with the above. It’s not worth trying to separate the fact from the fictions therein.
You could have just said, “I don’t like Parry criticizing Mitt Romney”, and at least I could have just said, “OK, fine”. ConsortiumNews should charge a fee for lame comments.
You could have said “I don’t like White criticizing Robert Parry.”
I provided two examples of Parry’s inattention to the truth, and I can provide more if needed (the vein is a mother lode). I failed to detect any effort on your part to contest those examples. How would you dodge a fee for lame comments, George?
Gregory, rather. :-)
Uhm, how about these?
http://www.techimo.com/forum/imo-community/97735-bush-admits-misleading-wmd.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156035/did-bush-mislead-us-war
Etc, etc…
Idiot.
If you use the button “reply” under my post you’re more likely to have your reply noticed, Bob. Neither of your URLs fits the bill. You end up relying on statements like this one:
“intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
There’s nothing about “stockpiles” in there. If the word is automatically understood then surely Parry can do without it. Clearly Bush stated a confident belief that Iraq possessed WMD. But he did not, so far as I’m aware, declare that it possessed “stockpiles” of same (even if he believed it was the case). That being the case, a paraphrase that suggests the reverse is a stretch of the truth.
Forget it, Mr. White. You are arguing about a word that may or may not have been used by George Bush. Regardless of whether he said “stockpiles” or said Hussein possessed large amounts of weapons, the implication was that he had dangerous weapons that he was prepared to use against his enemies, including the United States. He claimed to have knowledge of these WMDs and he used that to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. How about the story of Iraq’s attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger? Despite the fact that the story was de-bunked by our own emissary, it didn’t stop Bush from lying, or from lying to his own representative at the U.N. and only resulted in ruining the career of a CIA operative. No matter what words he used, Bush lied as vigorously as any government official ever has and lots of young military men died and are still dying because of his lies.
cvanbroc wrote:
“Forget it, Mr. White. You are arguing about a word that may or may not have been used by George Bush.”
Yes. Thank you. I know. I don’t think he used it or an equivalent in describing the threat from Iraq. Parry presented Bush otherwise. Not good reporting, is it?
“He claimed to have knowledge of these WMDs and he used that to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.”
Close. What knowledge did he claim, exactly? And how close was it to what Parry claimed?
“How about the story of Iraq’s attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger?”
What about it? You think a former ambassador asking questions of his Nigerian contacts is likely to settle that question? British intelligence continues to stand behind the report. Don’t run too far afoul of the subject, now, but the report was never debunked. Wilson simply claimed to have debunked it.
Parry’s not giving you the facts. Don’t let him get away with it.
2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Cobb Galleria Centre in Atlanta, Georgia, President George W Bush declares: “He’s a threat to America, he’s a threat to our close friends and allies. He’s a man who has said he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but he’s got them… Not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction.”
17 Mar 2003 During an address to the nation, President George W Bush declares: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
You are right, these are easy to find. I have tons. Also, he made these claims with the knowledge that they were destroyed – Bush even quoted the same man, Hussein Kamel, that had them destroy to prove Saddam had them. Maybe Parry didn’t quote these because, except for you it seems, these quotes are prevalent and quite easy to discern.
Tim wrote: “You are right, these are easy to find.”
I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote.
“I have tons.”
Great. Find me one among your tons that has Bush saying that Iraq possessed stockpiles (or a reasonable equivalent) of WMD.
He didn’t need to say it. He had Colin Powell sit in the United Nations and say it for him, and he had many other people do the same thing, even though he and they knew they were telling lies.
5 Oct 2002 Radio Address to the Nation:
“In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”
7 Oct 2002 During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Riner Steinhoff Soccer Complex in Alamogordo, New Mexico, President George W Bush declares: “He’s got weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction.”
28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: “It’s a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations — but he’s got them. See, he’ll lie. He’ll deceive us. And he’ll use them.”
31 Oct 2002 During a speech at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: “This is a guy who’s used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he’s used them.”
1 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Pease International Tradeport Airport in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President George W Bush declares: “Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He’s got them… We know he’s got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons.”
2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the University of South Florida, President George W Bush declares: “He’s a man who has told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does.”
2 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Tri-Cities Regional Tn/Va Airport in Blountville, Tennessee, President George W Bush declares: “He told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction — 11 years ago he said that. He’s got them… We know that this is a man who has chemical weapons, and we know he’s used them.”
3 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Illinois Police Academy in Springfield, Illinois, President George W Bush declares: “Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He’s a threat to our friends. He’s a man who said he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them. He’s a man that not only has weapons of mass destruction, he’s used them.”
3 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, President George W Bush declares: “This is a man who not only has got chemical weapons, I want you to remind your friends and neighbors, that he has used chemical weapons.”
3 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Sioux Falls Convention Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: “Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but he’s got them… It’s a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he’s used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors.”
4 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Family Center in St. Louis, Missouri, President George W Bush declares: “He said he wouldn’t have chemical weapons; he’s got them.”
4 Nov 2002 During a speech at the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, President George W Bush declares: “This is a man who told the world he wouldn’t have weapons of mass destruction, promised he wouldn’t have them. He’s got them… He said he wouldn’t have chemical weapons, he’s got them.”
4 Nov 2002 During a speech at Southern Methodist University, President George W Bush declares: “He has weapons of mass destruction. At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon. Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he’s used chemical weapons.”
7 Nov 2002 During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: “Some people say, ‘Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.’ Well, if we don’t do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat… He’s a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda… And we’re going to deal with him.”
So, besides the first one which was his “Grave and Growing” threat speech, using the exact word “stockpiles” might not be used, I think they are a reasonable equivalent. In the midst of all these quotes you also have Rumsfeld saying things like:
20 Jan 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons… His regime is paying a high price to pursue weapons of mass destruction — giving up billions of dollars in oil revenue. His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox — and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.”
Tim quoth President Bush:
“’In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.’â€
True statement. Note the latter half of the compound sentence: “rebuiding the facilitites used to make more of those weapons.” If they possess a huge stockpile then why make more? The context suggests he referred to Iraq’s past defiance of the U.N.
Quantity doesn’t serve as an adequate substitute for quality. I’ll look for your second-best try …
The rest of your stuff from Bush wasn’t very good. The Rumsfeld quotation was the second best try. But what is an “unaccounted for” stockpile? Maybe it’s a stockpile that Iraq won’t admit having? But if we knew they had it then it wasn’t accounted for, was it? The best understanding of Rumsfeld is that he was referring to Iraq’s past declarations of WMD (usually understated). Weapons it agreed to destroy in a documented and verifiable manner. And didn’t follow through. That’s how you get undocumented stockpiles. Point being, we didn’t know what they had, exactly. And part of that feeds back to the failed intelligence prior to the earlier Gulf War. In that case intelligence agencies far underestimated Iraq’s WMD capability.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/WMD_report_excerpt.pdf
“But if we knew they had it then it wasn’t accounted for, was it?”
Unaccounted for, rather.
Talk about parsing words – you wanted proof that Bush said stockpiles in order to affirm Parry’s assertion, then you deny it is what it is…and the latter half, “rebuilding the facilities to make more of those weapons” (see, “making more” infers he has them and is “making more” OR that he had them and is going to make more, but that is not what they were saying at the time) turned out to be lies as well. You are a perfect example of what this article was about. (For some reason your last comment did not have a reply button)
“Talk about parsing words – you wanted proof that Bush said stockpiles in order to affirm Parry’s assertion, then you deny it is what it is”
Context is important, Tim. Iraq possessed stockpiles following the Gulf War and admitted as much. So Bush can refer to those stockpiles truthfully (obviously). You need a quotation indicating certainty that Iraq possesses stockpiles of WMD in 2002 or later. That’s the kind of parsing a truth-teller should love. So love it.
“…and the latter half, “rebuilding the facilities to make more of those weapons†(see, “making more†infers he has them and is “making more†OR that he had them and is going to make more, but that is not what they were saying at the time)”
Right, because they didn’t know which it was so they didn’t say.
“turned out to be lies as well.”
Did they? The final Duelfer Report indicated that Iraq was positioning itself to pick up with WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted and attention diverted from its activities. If you can prove what you say then give the evidence. If not, are you any better than Bush, saying things are true when you don’t really know?
“You are a perfect example of what this article was about.”
If you say that with the level of proof you’ve got (none that’s reasonable) then I don’t see where you have any room to criticize Bush.
“Take for example his claim that President Bush made “assertions that Iraq was hiding WMD stockpiles.†Wouldn’t it be great to have a quotation to back that claim? Bush tended to be circumspect in his statements on the topic.”
Find the quote yourself. It is common knowledge…
And are that dumb for real?
From the following: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0309d.asp
“In his January 28, 2003, state of the Union address, Bush denounced Saddam as “the dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons†and listed vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons that few independent experts believed Saddam possessed. Bush concluded, “A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.â€
In that same speech, Bush declared that “the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…. Under [UN] Resolutions 678 and 687 — both still in effect — the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.”
Bush warned, “In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.”
Bush lied and all of the Republican apologists here are lying too. It took me less than one minute with Google to find these quotes.
Green Eagle wrote:
“Bush lied and all of the Republican apologists here are lying too. It took me less than one minute with Google to find these quotes.”
You must be tired after all that quote-mining.
Bush’s statements (the ones you quote above) are in line with the intelligence estimates he received from U.S. intelligence. You’re saying he knew better than U.S. intelligence agencies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/WMD_report_excerpt.pdf
Clearly you think Bush is a very smart man, yes?
Mr White – Your attempts at sophistry would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that SO many lives were lost – – – US & Iraqis – – – in service of the many lies that Bush told in support of the Iraq invasion. It would have been a lot more helpful if people like yourself — who were/are supposedly quite concerned about precise wording — were more concerned during the runup to the Iraq War… back when a close examination of basic facts might have prevented numerous tragedies. But apparently you were instead watching Southpark and modeling your persona after Eric Cartman… how appropos. Have a nice life trying to reconcile that within yourself.
“Big Em” wrote:
“Mr White – Your attempts at sophistry would be amusing if it weren’t for the fact that SO many lives were lost – – – US & Iraqis – – – in service of the many lies that Bush told in support of the Iraq invasion.”
Making the point an issue a premise in your reply results in a fallacy of begging the question.
Americans and Iraqis died whether or not Bush’s statements were lies. You’re not addressing the issue. You’re indulging yourself in personal attacks.
what kind of racist is Kirby to call the President “obozo” when there are plenty of policy issues to confront him on without bigoted clown epithets…. I fight government corruption in the state of Nimrata Haley & gangster Speaker Bobby Harrell who never failed to deliver more & more greedy laws to help his rich friends http://www.hireLarryFireBobby.com 843-926-1750 we have incompetent Congressmember Tim Scott who told Alcoa workers “to pray” instead of propose wind & solar electric power on site generation cheaper for the beleaguered aluminum plant threatened with closure due to 3 million dollars per week over priced nuke electric rates…. we need GREEN politicians not red or blue liars of any skin color
LIES… LIES….. AND MORE LIES……
OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES
Audacity of Hypocrisy ^ | 4/3/08
Posted on Thu Apr 3 22:10:03 2008 by freespirited
1.) Selma Got Me Born – LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 – Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder – LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter – LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom – LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian – LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili – LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’ (from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
7.) I Never Practiced Islam – LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian – LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian – LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience – LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs – LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion – LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify – your classmates said you were just fine.
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office – LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life – LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won’t Run On A National Ticket In ‘08 – LIAR, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Present Votes Are Common In Illinois – LIAR, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted – LIAR, only when caught by church groups and democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law – LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer – LIAR, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill – LIAR, you didn’t write it,introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass – LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill – LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation – mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records – LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess – LIAR, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America – LIAR, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois – LIAR, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year – LIAR, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA – LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism – LIAR, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.
30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet – LIAR, after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how you and he were working together on getting FARC recognized officially.
31.) I Didn’t Run Ads In Florida – LIAR, you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks – and you still lost.
32.) I Won Michigan – LIAR, no you didn’t.
33.) I won Nevada – LIAR, no you did not.
34.) I Want All Votes To Count – LIAR, you said let the delegates decide.
35.) I Want Americans To Decide – LIAR, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
36.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate – LIAR, you passed 26, most of which you didn’t write yourself.
37.) My Campaign Was Extorted By A Friend – LIAR, that friend is threatening to sue if you do not stop saying this. Obama has stopped saying this.
38.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics – LIAR, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
39.) I Don’t Take PAC Money – LIAR, you take loads of it.
40.) I don’t Have Lobbysists – LIAR, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
41.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad – LIAR, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace – LIAR, Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.
43.) I Inspire People With My Words – LIAR, you inspire people with other people’s words.
44.) I Have Passed Bills In The U.S. Senate – LIAR, you have passed A BILL in the U.S. Senate – for Africa, which shows YOUR priorities.
45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq – LIAR, you weren’t in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date – AGAIN.
46.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care – LIAR, your plan leaves us all to pay the 15,000,000 who don’t have to buy it.
47.) I Only Found Out About My Investment Conflicts Via Mail – LIAR, both companies you site as having sent you letters about this conflict have no record of any such letter ever being created or sent.
48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone – LIAR, you won’t wear a flag pin and you don’t put your hand over your heart during the Anthem.
49.) My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country – LIAR, your wife’s words follow lock-step in the vein of Wright and Farrahkan, in relation to their contempt and hatred of America.
50.) Wal-Mart Is A Company I Wouldn’t Support – LIAR, your wife has received nearly a quater of a million dollars through Treehouse, which is connected to Wal-Mart.
51.) Treehouse Is A Small Company – LIAR, the CEO of Treehouse last year, made more than the CEO of Wal-Mart, according to public records.
52.) University Of Chicago Hospital Pay Is Fair – LIAR, your wife’s pay raise was nearly 150% her already bloated rate and the hospital is a Non-Profit Hospital, which made $100,000,000 in the last 3 years. They overcharge blacks VS whites for services, and overcharge everyone in general by 538%!
53.)I Barely Know Rezko – Only 5 Billed Hours – LIAR, you have known him for 17 years, and decided to do a real estate deal with him during a time when he was proven to be under investigation. Despite this, you divided your property and had them take off $300K before the mortgage problems started. Then Rezko’s wife buys the lot beside it that you can’t afford, saving you $625,000.
54.) My Donations Have Been Checked Thoroughly – LIAR, you only gave back Hsu ($72K) and Rezko (first $66K, then when caught lying $86K, then when caught lying again $150K and now caught lying YET AGAIN OBAMA, it’s $250k) their money when publically called on their involvement in your campaigns.
55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church – LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year.
56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time – LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message – hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone, $22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK – that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama.
57.) I Have Clean Connections Despite Rezko – LIAR, you are not only connected to Exelon and Rezko, you are also connected to Hillary PAC supporter Mr. Hsu, AND an Iraqi Billionaire of ill repute, Nadhmi Auchi, who ripped off people in the Food For Oil, Iraqi deal. Seems Mr. Auchi may have helped Obama buy his million dollar property long before Obama had millions of dollars. Wonder what favors Mr. Auchi expects, when Obama leaves Iraq free to be taken over by special interests such as him.
58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright’s, that have been in videos all day, You Tube – LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said “Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did.â€
59.) The Passport Invasion is a conspiracy to find dirt on me! – LIAR. Your own Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor is the CEO of the company that looked into your records. PS – You had them look into yours to hide the fact you looked into Clinton’s and McCain’s more than a year before!
60.) Rev. Meeks has nothing to do with my campaigning – LIAR. Rev. Meeks appeared in ads for your Senate Campaign, donated to you, and helped raise money, then AND NOW. PS – He also seems to despise America.
61.) My wife didn’t mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase – LIAR. Again, MicHELLe’s comments perfectly sync with Wright’s, Meeks’, and Farrakhans, both in language, anger, and direction.
62.) I am very Anti-Terror – LIAR. [03/30/2008] One of your good pals is long time radical and terrorist William Ayers, with whom you have been seen in the last 12 months and who has helped the now jailed khalidi, Professor at Columbia who invited Ahmadinejad to the University, to raise money for Palestinian terrorism attacks against Israel. PS – Your church published a pro Hamas Manifesto – guess you weren’t there on THAT Sunday either? How lucky for you.
63.) I have the best plan to cure the Mortgage Crisis – LIAR. [03/30/2008] You and your campaign buddy Penny SubPrime Bank Collapse Prizker have had your little fingers full of subprime cash – Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans: Obama received $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston, $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex, and last but certainly NOT LEAST – Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. I am sure that cash all came from folks who knew the subprime loan they had was a dream, eh?
64) I played greater role in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion – LIAR – [03/31/2008] It was found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer. Read Obama had greater role on liberal survey
65) I did NOT play the race card: – LIAR – [03/31/2008] Obama was the first to play the race card. According to Phialdelphia Inquirer, Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the “black†candidate. Read more here
66) I did not take money from oil companies: – LIAR – [03/31/2008]
THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn’t take money from PACs. He also doesn’t take money from lobbyists.
But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama’s presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center’s totals.
Two of Obama’s fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. Source: Associated press via Yahoo News
67) “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial,†Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month. – LIAR – But yesterday, he told a different story. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,†he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.
68) Look at my education record in Illinois – LIAR – In reality, Obama never really championed the local councils. He supported them behind the scenes and only eventually came out publicly on their behalf. When he did weigh in, he came down on the wrong side of the debate—against protecting principals from unwarranted dismissals and in favor of keeping councils independent, no matter what. In the end, the resolution of the conflict between the two sides didn’t alleviate anyone’s concerns. Instead, it prolonged a turf battle that seems to have dragged down academic progress in the years since. Read more here http://www.slate.com/id/2188010?wpisrc=newsletter
I haven’t gone through all 68 claims yet, but every one of these claims that I have investigated have been thoroughly debunked or explained YEARS ago. It doesn’t take more than a couple of minutes to look these up. Why are you so interested in promoting LIES?
Because the haters don’t care about truth…. that such bull was posted in a “response” to an article about lying seems ironically appropriate.
OBAMATRON?
Hey BarbbFF are you a politician? Because just about everything you just listed there is a big, fat lie. Fact: Just because Fox says it doesn’t make it true. And you have the GALL to list that the President’s patriotism is based on his flag pin? You’re a joke.
ONE OF OBAMA’S PAID BLOGGERS?
barbbf is a dumb jerk asshole
and a big liar.
and an idiot butt head
WHY THE PROFANITY? PATHETIC!
Nutcase.
Liar, liar pants on fire. The list of lies that you have listed, makes you the BIGGEST liar of all. Nothing you have listed is true.
TURN OFF FOX
List is not from FoxNews ..but from Slate..a so-called liberal website. Guess they even got sick of Obama lies.
My god! Someone who read . . . and apparently believed . . . all of the anonymous, completely de-bunked e-mails circulating around the internet. I didn’t believe that anyone could be so ignorant. And someone who would waste all that effort and take up so much space for so much bullshit. Get back on your medications before you go out and injure yourself or another person.
ANOTHER OBAMATRON?
It seems Barb just cut&pasted someone elses lengthy rant. Did she even read it, or at least the Cliffs Notes?
Nothing like a personal attack when you can’t refute what people have to say. It is true that Romney loves to lie. Should you haev any doubt, Mr. Kirby, ask Romney and Paul Ryan to prove the “Secular” religion Obama is trying to impose. Tell Romney to show us press accounts or one iota of proof to support the lie he is telling:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/23969/
The man lies and changes his positions the way most of us change our underwear. I look forward to your cogent response to yet another lie from Governor Romney. Oh, BTW, I live here in the US and my family has served in the armed forces. So don’t try your second GOP strategy “they don’t care about the US”
all this back & forth between Mittless & Obomber WHY NOT REPORT real solutions & real GREEN NEW DEAL proposals of DR Jill Stein, Green Party Presidential candidate? Consortium wants my subscription but plays along with duopoly so far. It’s not journalism at it’s finest when writers only handicap two horses. DR Jill Stein bested Governor Romney in early debates. Massachusetts then barred her from final debates to ensure Duval Patrick his “victory” by voters? When writers report how close DR Stein is getting towards Federal Campaign Matching dollars & Secret Service protection she deserves, I’ll think journalism is not dead & democracy rising from the corporation fascist grave. 843-926-1750
I agree with Larry: Let’s see some coverage of the non-corporate-funded parties, like the Green Party!
This comment above makes NO sense !! liberal Robby Parry..
you know alot of people in america who fall for romney bullshit are just plain jerks and if romney becomes president then those same jerks can then go back to all their own stupid lives, people are assholes.
I don’t think you guys get it?? Do you know what the hell is going on out here? Do you liberals have a clue?
Yes, the liberals do have a clue. Imagine if Romney were to be elected how many people would cry “why did the republicans privatize medicare (voucher system)and social security? I no longer have enough money for medical care and groceries…..will it be possible for my children to help me?” Of course, their children are up to their eye balls with debt of their own, and can`t afford to take care of mama and papa.
Think ahead people!
Romney NOT even President yet! It’s funny that you NEVER
TALK ABOUT OBAMA AND HIS 4 YEARS IN OFFICE. High debt..
Big spending! $17 trillion debt and higher!!
And more thing too add here!! WHAT IS THIS BIG HOPE
AND CHANGE FROM OBAMA? TELL US WHAT HE HAS DONE?
-19 IN THE POLLS THIS MORNING FROM RASMUSSEN.
And one more thing too add here!! What is this Big
Hope And change From OBAMA? Tell Us what he has Done?
-19 In the polls this Morning From Rasmussen.
“It is true that Romney loves to lie.”
He can’t do otherwise. He invents because he has nothing of his own to say.
He is a complete moron.
Why does a grown man keep talking about his “dad”?
Whatever happened to the word “father”. Or is that his god?
He is a dimwit, no matter how much “success” he has had screwing other people over, to get rich. He is nothing but a scumbag without knowledge of anything valuable.
Talking about yourself again?
It is very plain to see that Robby Parry is up obozo’s butt. Where in the hell does these obozo lovers live, certainly not in the USA.
What is plain to see is that your head is up your butt.
“Obozo”?
Did you come up with that on your own?
Come now, Bob, William has a point here, even if playfully insulting our Commander over Indonesia, I mean in Chief. The fact this article does not mention Ron Paul as the prime example of an honest politician is a scandal greater than a few insulting names. Romney would lie more than Obama, I am sure, since he is a gutless flip-flopper who thinks is wallet and plastic hair insures we should believe him. Yet, you like the NDAA?
When Ron Paul tells the truth about his Nazi sympathies, and the many Aryan Supremacists with whom he has worked over the years, maybe we will believe he is an honest man.
Not bloody likely, huh?
Oh goody, more illiteracy from the far-wrong.
Maybe they live in Mexico, where the remnants of Rmoney’s family from the Mormon cult compound still live?
Mitt Is not a professional Liar!! Robby? How much did the OBUMMER
pay you off?? for this above!! I don’t think Ronald Reagan liked Parry!!
Write things are NOT TRUE!!
You sir are absolutely correct, Rmoney is NOT a professional liar only a poor excuse fro a liar!
Were are all the jobs ?? Pick up your local newspaper my
friend!! Once Where it was classified help Wanted!!
All foreclosures! We don’t want too hear any more from the
left!! How great the job numbers are!! Great hope and change!!
You people! It is hard to imagine that there are still folks relying on Fox news for the truth. Sure You repeat these ridiculous comments, still blaming Pres. Obama, because you are too lazy to find out the real facts. No other president came in to office with so many things to fix and a suffering economy that was like a run away train, and trying to work with republican/tea party people that want nothing more than for Obama`s presidency to fail. His success in office has been in spite of the right, never with their help.
There YOU GO AGAIN! Tell us how what real change will
be for next 4 years! Is it the HOPE? or the Change?
Another Republican illiterate moron =>
“Were are all the jobs ??” Can you spell WHERE??
Did you even read this article??
I know it was really long for you Jethros who can barely read at all, but it CLEARLY made the point that the job losses, as Paul Krugman stated, happened BEFORE Obama’s policies took effect – on BUSH’s watch!!! How dumb can you people be???
Yea !! Where are the Jobs!! Did you pick up
your local Newspaper?? I guess WE SHOULD BLAME THIS ALL ON ROMNEY!
i CAN SPELL THE WORD WHERE JUST FINE! Just CHANGED
KEYBOARDS!
I can also type the word Where? with a decent keyboard! honest mistake!
You have nothing to say, yet you need to blab, just like Romney, who is the classic psychopath. A dull contender, if there ever was one.
JOBS!! JOBS!! HELP WANTED!! WHERE??????
Well they’re not here in Hades, FL.
Florida has the highest unemployment!!