A. A weasel
B. A liar.
C. Not in control of his own government.
Those are the only reasons that Bush could have denied the big anti-Pelosi pushback campaign his administration orchestrated after the Speaker went to Syria.
» Breaking News
Eva Mendes Promotes The Spirit In Spain
Nadia Styles [Breaking Beauty]
Ex-AOL CEO Jonathan Miller Plots Yahoo Takeover
California Couple Kelly Layne Lau, Michael Luther Schumacher Arrested For Chaining Up Teen Child
Michael Phelps Is Sports Illustrated 2008 Sportsman Of The Year
Umm….What about D. All of the above?
I didn’t do it! It was the State Department!
And Dick Cheney. And the White House press office. And Republicans in Congress. And all our pals at Fox. And the fun-loving fellows over at Redstate.
Well, that’s funny, because the State Department looks just like you.
You forgot:
E. Denying Pelosi’s accusation.
From the WP article linked at Think Progress:
So, there are differing stories about what was said during a private conversation only witnessed by the two parties themselves.
But we know that Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat would ever say anything untrue just to cast Bush in a bad light, so her version simply MUST be true. It’s an open and shut case, alright. Sheesh.
What is this, high school? Why would Pelosi say something like that if it didn’t happen?
What is this, high school? Why would Pelosi say something like that if it didn’t happen?
Well, since it was a private meeting with other Dems, maybe she was telling them what they want to hear? Or maybe trying to make it appear to fellow Dems that Bush worries about not upsetting Pelosi’s or staying on her good side? Who the hell knows?
From that same WP article:
And we’re also hearing all of this second hand. “…two people who were at the meeting”. I believe the legal term is “hearsay”. Has Nancy herself publically made this claim? If the people passing Pelosi’s comments on to the WP are partisan Dems like O-Dub, then I think we have one possible answer right there.
Killings? What killings?
A day without Bush - bashing is like a day without sunshine.
Pelosi: He said it.
Perion: He didn’t.
V-Drone: Anyone can see Pelosi is lying!
Anonymous person
at a private meeting
with Dems who
overheard Pelosi: He said it.
Pelosi:
Perion: He didn’t.
Quaker: Why would anyone think foolishly think that there’s a possibility Bush didn’t say that when the evidence is just so damning?
Why would anyone think foolishly think that there’s a possibility Bush didn’t say that…
It’s not foolish to think that’s a possibility. On the evidence, it is clearly within the realm of the possible. However, you seem eager to discount any other possibilities, based on the same evidence.
Partisan? Not you!
Well, since it was a private meeting with other Dems, maybe she was telling them what they want to hear? Or maybe trying to make it appear to fellow Dems that Bush worries about not upsetting Pelosi’s or staying on her good side?
Seriously doubt it. She has shown too much class so far to stoop to that Rovian level of a whisper campaign.
Who the hell knows?
Obviously, not you.
Perino would be slightly more believable if her job description wasn’t professional liar.
And the occupations of “two people at the meeting” are…?
Here’s a hint: it was a “private meeting among Democratic lawmakers”.
What would a Democratic lawmaker have to gain from spreading a rumor that would make Bush look bad? Hmmm…. that’s a puzzler.
Most people try to prove a crime before working out motivation.
However, you seem eager to discount any other possibilities, based on the same evidence.
I’m perfectly willing to include “Bush said exactly that” or even “Pelosi was misquoted” as some of the possibilities. I’m just trying to point out that since it was a private conversation between two people, neither of whom has personally stated on the record what was said, there are other possibilities than O-Dub’s simplistic “Bush is… a weasel, a liar, or not in control of his own government” in this particular instance.
Partisan? Not you!
No more than anyone else on this blog and far less than some. And I stand by my “partisan Dems like O-Dub” statement regarding the self-confessed “liberal bombthrower”.
Most people try to prove a crime before working out motivation.
Tell it to O-Dub. He considered Bush’s comment to be a proven fact, despite the fact that this was a private conversation no one else heard. Bush’s motivation for making the comment? According to O-Dub he’s either a weasel, a liar, or not in control of his own government.
And based on his previous record, you can honestly say the president is none of those things?
And don’t start, Dugger.
I’m perfectly willing to include “Bush said exactly that” or even “Pelosi was misquoted” as some of the possibilities.
Well, now! There’s progress.
If Pelosi and company did make it all up, then shame on them for not making up a better lie, like “Bush apologized,” or “Bush admitted it was all politics,” or “Bush made a crude, stupid joke about it.”
If this story is invented for the purpose of partisan propaganda, it’s weak stuff.
And based on his previous record, you can honestly say the president is none of those things?
I prefer to base my opinions on facts, not second hand and possibly politically-motivated rumors. And I would give Pelosi the same benefit of the doubt. My sarcastic “But we know that Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat would ever say anything untrue just to cast Bush in a bad light, so her version simply MUST be true” statement was trying to point out that it’s not as cut and dried as O-Dub would like to portray it.
But to directly answer your question, Is Bush a weasel? As an elected official, isn’t that part of the job description? A liar? Sorry, I’m not going to agree to a blanket statement like that. Any more than I would agree to a statement that “Kerry is a liar” or “Gore is a liar”. Give specifics. Do I think he’s told lies in the past? Most likely. He’s a politician AND a human being. However, I don’t subscribe to the definition of a lie as being “saying something that you believe at the time to be true, but turns out later to be untrue”. Not in control of his own government? First, can you explain exactly what that means? If you’re going to define it as “an official in one department of the government not directly hired or appointed by Bush said or did something wrong, so that means the Bush administation is totally at fault”, I have to say I don’t agree.
So where exactly does the buck stop?
Oh, now I have it! If they were going to make it all up, they should have said he was thin-skinned and snippy about it!
Nobody would have doubted that for a second.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
SaveFarris - Get a grip…
“What would a Democratic lawmaker have to gain from spreading a rumor that would make Bush look bad? ”
No one needs to spread rumours… the unraveling of his daily machinations are evident and evidence enough.
Put down the kool-aid, and climb out of the bunker… there’s still time ROFL