Bush is turning out to be a bad liar: Paul Mulshine

[jbfam4]

Bush is turning out to be a bad liar: Paul Mulshine

http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1133850491202370.xml&coll=1

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

What bothers me is that of late his lies are so obvious that even the boobs can see through them. I allude, of course, to his recent attempts to placate his base with an alleged "crackdown" on illegal immigration.



"When I was first running for the presidency back in 2000, I made a promise to the American people. I promised I wouldn't get our military tied up in nation-building exercises overseas. 'Absolutely not,' I said. I also said, 'I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious.'

"Well, I made a big mistake: I trusted Dick Cheney. What can I say? He sure looked like he knew what he was doing. But I managed to get 2,000 good Americans killed because Cheney and his nutty neocon pals never bothered to draw up that exit strategy I had promised. In fact, they never intended to exit Iraq at all. They thought our troops would be greeted with rose petals and we'd have permanent bases there for nation-building exercises throughout the Mideast.

"Don't worry, though. I've wised up. Cheney's in the doghouse. I'm finally releasing a national strategy for victory in Iraq. Critics may say it's a little late to be coming up with a strategy for Iraq. They're right. It's three years too late. What can I say? Cheney's an idiot. And I'm an idiot for trusting him."


But even the boobs in his political base are starting to look at Bush's speeches on Iraq the same way they look at his speeches on illegal immigration. This is, I suspect, a rare moment when a politician might be better off leveling with the American people. If I were his spin doctor, I'd advise him to take advantage of it.



Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist. He may be reached at [email protected].

[shenmue]

1. "Turning out to be"?

Crimony, we've known that for years.

[Gyre]

2. Nice hypothetical.

problem is there's a "condition precident" which is missing; like some honest and ethical lifeforms in the WH.

Gyre

[cliss]

4. Same here.

I wouldn't expect Bush to tell the truth about anything, even if someone held a loaded gun to his head.

He'd lie one more time. Because that's all he does. He wakes up in the morning and tells some lies. Just for practice. He practices his facial expressions, to make sure he looks believable.

There are only 2 instances that I've seen the facade come down.

1) The instance with the banner that said "Mission Accomplished". There was some controversy about the banner. Karl Rove said that the Navy ordered the banner. Bush said the same thing. "It wasn't us". It only took about 2 hours for people to find out the truth. It was, in fact Rove who had ordered the banner.

Later in the day, there was a photo of Bush. His eyes were burning. He looked like he was simmering. Bush was just about to take off for Crawford. It was SO obvious he was caught in a lie.

2) In Bush's "Major Speech" about Iraq last week, Bush actually came out and told the truth about the Iraqis. THIS IS A FIRST. I couldn't believe it. He said that they did poorly in battle (true!), they single-handedly fought in Mosul (?) (A LIE), and that we have trained Many, Many battalions (A LIE).

He also mentioned that the insurgents are mostly Sunni (TRUE). Up until this point, Bush has always claimed that the insurgents were mostly foreign fighters, and Al-Zarkawi (A LIE).

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I love this guy Mulshine...

he's a libertarian, but an honest one-- not a kneejerk wingnut, as can be seen from his regular criticisms of Shrub lately.

I disagree with him most of the time, but he's consistant and never an apologist or liar. And he doesn't whine much when he doesn't get his way.

A libertarian you can work with.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Yeah, he "TURNED OUT" that way...

sometime before the 2000 Iowa primary. You just now noticed?

The thing that astounded me about the 2000 campaign was how ** could make the MOST unconvincing statements and still be taken seriously. If he managed to finish a sentence the reporters all seemed to smile at each other and agree that he did "better than expected"! Gore could get some teeny-tiny, basically insignificant detail not quite right and the same reporters would parrot the Rovian "he's lying/exagerrating!" spin. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing on the network news -- it was all SO obvious.