Is Bush the biggest Liar in the world ?

Answer 1

yup

Answer 2

I'm not sure about the biggest! But one of them he is!!
What about the Third World countries' presidents??? Those are HUGE liars as well! Now, Bush, the best liar? Without a doubt!!!

Answer 3

I don't know if I would call him a liar but sure as shyt, he is an idiot. He stole the election (only republicans deny this), went after Sadaam for his own personal reasons, oh and not to mention that he admitted that Osama Bin Laden was no longer on his mind.
Wait a minute...you're no longer concerned with a man that killed thousands of people in our country???
Oh and have you watched one of his press conferences??? If that idiot says ummmm one more time!!!!
Did you see him the other night rubbing the shoulders of a female delegate on national television? Or lifting up the shirt of a little boy to...blow on his stomach?
He is a complete idiot!

Yeah, Clinton lied about his PERSONAL business. I could care less who he's f*cking. Clinton was 10 times better at running this country. And why does every knock down Hillary? Yeah I know, you people probably aren't used to seeing a woman that wants power and respect other then being barefoot and pregnant!

Answer 4

Yeah, I would have to agree with the person who said Clinton. He lied under oath, in court. But I don't think even he is the "biggest" liar in the world. It's definitely not Bush.

Answer 5

No, I'd say it was some members of congress.

They made the same kinds of warlike statements about Iraq during the Clinton administration's tenure and before the invasion. And now that the polls say they should change their minds are calling Bush a liar.

Answer 6

Now we know where Bush stands on the dignity of human life. He cares more about frozen embryos than he does about Lebanese civilians.

He has steadfastly refused to join the call from Kofi Annan and European allies for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Bush has decided that he should do nothing to stop the Israeli offensive, hoping that the Israelis will finally take care of Hezbollah. But this policy comes with a cost--which is paid by the Lebanese civilians who are being killed, injured and displaced. But Bush--like the Israelis--is saying, that's a cost worth the benefit. And it's easy for them to say this because they're not bearing the sacrifice.

But if Bush believes--as he said in vetoing the stem cells bill--that every life is precious and valuable, how can he treat the lives of the Lebanese civilians as barter material in a great-game strategy? (By the way, Hezbollah's rockets attack, which target Israeli civilians, are also immoral actions.)

Explaining the president's decision not to urge a halt in the violence, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said, "The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace. He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived."

Yes, this is a moment of clarity. The president will veto a law to protect frozen blastocysts stored in fertility clinic freezers--to preserve the sacredness of life. He won't do anything to stop missiles raining down on men, women and children caught in a war zone. In other words, he's pro-life--except when he's not.

Posted by David Corn at 10:14 AM | Comments (81)

July 20, 2006
What a Pot
Let's stir the pot.

That, in essence, was the neocon-influenced policy of the Bush administration regarding the Middle East. Well, the pot stirreth over. Iraq is a land of chaos and killing, and the Middle East is closer to regional war.

Where is that pro-Western, pro-Israel government in Baghdad that Ahmad Chalabi was supposed to create? That plan didn't quite make it. (Chalabi gathered less than 1 percent of the vote in the last election.) These days, the Shiite-dominated, Iran-friendly Iraqi government--supported and protected by the United States with American lives and dollars--expresses support for Hezbollah. Wasn't it one prewar beef against Saddam Hussein that he supported anti-Israel terrorists?

It's getting harder by the day to argue that the invasion of Iraq (whether justified or not) has been good for the Middle East. Sectarian violence is claiming thousands of civilian lives a month in Iraq. The sectarian attacks are simply horrific--and worsening. Iran has increased its influence in the region. The United States now has diminished sway (and is doing nothing, it seems, to achieve a ceasefire in Lebanon and Israel). The central flash point of the Middle East has erupted into a war. The revived democracy in Lebanon is being blasted away. And with the United States stuck in Iraq, for the foreseeable future, Bush and his key aides avoid any real discussion of the deteriorating situation there.

Today's Washington Post has a front-page piece noting that even--even--a few Republicans are beginning to murmur that the war in Iraq is a mess. Representative Gil Gutknecht. a Minnesota GOPer, recently returned from Baghdad and said what others who have been there recently have told me: conditions are far worse "than we'd been led to believe." And he's now calling for immediate withdrawals of troops. Will Karl Rove and leading GOPers accuse him of being a spineless and defeatist cut-and-runner, as they have with Representative Jack Murtha, Senator John Kerry, and other Democrats who have counseled disengagement?

You can only ignore reality for so long--though Bush and his aides have done a pretty good job pushing the limit. And they're lucky: the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah (and Hamas) is distracting attention from the daily tragedies and dilemmas of Iraq. But some Republicans are worried. (The Post cites a few others.) They might be nervous due to the coming congressional elections. But perhaps they are also troubled by what is happening--and not happening--in Iraq and cannot go along with Rove's political strategy: embrace the war and attack the critics as gutless cowards.

They can see the pot is boiling over--and no one in charge (in Washington or Baghdad) knows how to turn off the stove.

Answer 7

Only if you just started paying attention during the election campaign. He doesn't lie anymore or any less than any other politician in history. It's a constant.

Answer 8

No, but the left wing media sure wants you to think so...

What has he lied about? Don't give me the same lame things about Iraq and terrorism...

Liberty Over Liberalism!

Answer 9

No, I think Bill Clinton holds that title followed closely by his "wife" Hillary.

Answer 10

I'm not sure if he is the biggest but he certainly is the most well known worldwide!!!

Answer 11

No Blair is with him on victory stand