The nature of a man, even a President, is revealed by what he lies about
by Jack GrantI’ve tried to be circumspect and strongly consider, reconsider, and continue to think about things before I react, but the most recent revelation regarding the statements of the Bush administration in the wake of the completely inadequate response to the Katrina disaster, notably the words of the President himself, show that the truth is optional with them when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions and their incompetence.
This
cannot
stand
.
.
.
Many others have already written about the ramifications of the obvious scapegoating of the former administrator of FEMA, Michael Brown, who although completely unqualified for his position did warn the President himself about the scale of the disaster looming before it occurred, a disaster that President George W. Bush later said “no one anticipated.”
Watch the video, then compare it to his later statements on anticipating the disaster.
The man, the President, George W. Bush, lied.
He flat out lied.
Long ago I linked to the Scientific American article that seems eerily prescient for those who refuse to acknowledge the predictive power of science (and as I wrote before, note the God-damned dateline of the article).
Now we have video proof that the disaster was anticipated and presented to the President by the man who was made a scapegoat for governmental failure at all levels, and the warning was delivered from within the same government to the same President that later said no on anticipated the scale of the disaster.
The son of a bitch flat out lied.
President Bill Clinton lied about having sex with an intern (and yes, a blow job is indeed sex).
President George W. Bush lied about the response of his administration to a disaster that was on a national scale.
Whose lies deny responsibility more, the ones made in reply to inappropriate questions about what is arguably a private matter, or the ones made in response to appropriate questions about what is a failure that resulted in many deaths?
What else has this man who calls himself a “leader” and a “war President” lied about along with his minions?
Which liar do you prefer, one who lies about his peccadillos, or one who lies about the failures of his government and his appointees?
Do your own math, but be careful what numbers you plug in, and make sure they are valid and not the product of a spin machine intent upon avoiding any responsibility.
Technorati Tags: commentary, Katrina, hurricane Katrina, Katrina disaster, President Bush
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
New Video Undermines Bush Assertions About Pre-Katrina (UPDATED)
Yet another credibility problem for President George W. Bush — a potentially big one on what the government knew and what he was told before Hurricane Katrina hits:
By The Moderate Voice on 03.02.06 05:49
Jack. He lied.
What are you gonna do about it?
If all you’re gonna do is whine it’s pointless. Will you vote 3rd Party and refuse to demean your participation in the Rep-Dem sham of elections?
Politicians lie. People should not vote for known liars.
Do the math. What are you gonna do?
By Dan Schneider on 03.02.06 13:16
I’m thinking about the myriad of high-level Founding Father quotes that have preceded this post. And then I see the question posed, “which liar do you prefer?” I’m trying to assess how the Founding Fathers would view that question. Would they parse carefully-drawn distinctions about the quality and nature of the lies or liars? Or would they likely reject both? I’d suggest the latter.
By kreiz on 03.02.06 14:41
What completely baffles me and has since the beginning of his career as a president, is the publics digestion of his lies without regurgitating outrage. Then there’s the propaganda that convince the gullible (and there seem to be a massive amount of them) that the president has their best interests in mind, and he’s done all this for the good of the country.
Oh, and when you point out the obvious bullshit coming out of his mouth you are called a whiner, and given the old “What can you do?” copout.
By Oorgo on 03.02.06 17:36
oorgo, I think the main point Dan presents is, What WILL you do? Will you keep on voting for one liar or the other, believing there is no other choice? Or will you vote principle, and put your money on a third party candidate?
By April on 03.02.06 21:32
I just read a comment on Donklephant by a chap named ‘Citizen Duck’. He writes:
“I don’t expect perfection from Bush, nor do I think he’s perfect. But I’m far too old and I’ve seen far too much of the world to be shocked by the revelation that politicians are crooked, or that they cater to the interests of themselves and their friends. The way I see it, I have a choice: I can live in the real world, with all its imperfections, and do my best to make my way in it as best I know how, or I can hold everyone to impossible standards of perfection and feel a sense of constant frustration when reality fails to meet my ideals. I simply choose the former over the latter.”
By kreiz on 03.02.06 22:23
[...] I found this comment by a fellow named “kreiz” at Random Fate: I just read a comment on Donklephant by a chap named ‘Citizen Duck’. He writes: [...]
By Cadillac Tight » Beautifully Said on 03.03.06 01:47
Kreiz and April are right.
It’s phony to feign shock over the manifest, that politicians lie.
The far more cogent ppoint is why do the masses accept it? If all you are gonna do is play the lessser of two evils game, then you are part of the evil and problem.
Blogs, schmogs. The reason most blogs are so damned boring is all they do is whine. It doesn’t matter from which POV. DO SOMETHING! I have not voted for a major party since 1992. And sometimes, I’ve gone in the booth and deliberately left a blank ballot.
Voting is a privilege, and if there are no good candidates, do not vote for ANY! Imagine what the newscasts would do if they knew a hundred million Americans voted, but 90% or more of the ballots were blank. A better indictment of the corrupt and phony shams we now call elections cd not ne proffered.
Expect lies and corruption, for politics is one of the most base of human activities- the divvying up of power over the many by the few. Then, when a good guy (or gal) actually comes along, all you can feel is joy.
By Dan Schneider on 03.03.06 13:22
The only difference I can see between Clinton and Bush, the crux, is who was lied to.
In the case of Billy the Goat it was a Congressional Investigation.
In the case of Dubya it was the electorate.
Now, I wonder, who should have the greater power out of those two groups?
Not voting like Dan suggests? Well, the engineering students at AU when my son was there boycotted the Student Association elections with the result that a small gang of ten more or less elected themselves. They got through some $35,000 of student funds (parties, alchohol and drugs mainly) before the University Council stopped the funding.
Accept the reality - vote for who will do the least damage. Most of all ;
BE HEARD!!
By probligo on 03.07.06 21:59
i agree that that citizen Bush ( he was never legally elected ) did lie and should be held fully accountable for the Katrina Disaster among ither things. he also lied about Iraq hving WMD and was likely involved with 9/11. (look at his reaction to receiving the news about the attacks in Faraheint 911, it looks like someoen whos thinking ‘everything is ok/going to plan’) Bush is the most IMpeachable president in history yet Clinton gets impeachment for a private matter? makes me think of something my father once told me and i think is very true.
the Difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans can screw up all they want and never get blamed for it, Democrats can make jus tone little mistake, no matter how small, and catch al kinds of hell for it
By ken on 03.11.06 14:49