BUSH IS A KNOWN LIAR SO WHY SHOULD WE THINK HE ISN'T LYING NOW?

Joe Burchard

I think you need to proof-read this article ...

I'm afraid Paul I is right...

"If the report is true, Bush may have lied. And if the report is true, Bush may have lied."

One of those report is trues has to be "report is false"

No big.

Those people are so self-deluded I believe they have lost the boundary between truth and fantasy.

Gee, Bush lie? What a leap that is to make. Unfortunately, I have a feeling when Fitzgerald goes public, the names won't be the ones we'd like to see, like W., Turd Blossum or Cheney. Maybe not even Libby. They'll be names most people have never heard of and the spin will go into high gear about what an overblown witch hunt this has been. Just sayin...

I assume you mean if the report is true, Bush may have lied. If the report is true, Rove may have lied

above, it reads Bush and Bush...

A small point, but isn't it, If the report is true, then Bush lied?

There's really no "may" about it.

I just hope this doesn�t go like the Oliver North indictment, trial, conviction and then thrown out on a technically by a Republican Appellate Judge. Actually I think there will be Pardons at the end of the tunnel. Am I a cynic or a realist?

Everybody sing...

MERRY LITTLE FITZMAS

Have ourselves A Merry Little Fitzmas,

Make our nation right,

From now on

The WHIGs will all be in plain sight.

Have ourselves a Merry Little Fitzmas,

Make those bastards pay.

From now on

Indictments will have made our day.

Here we are, charges coming soon,

The Grand Jury's tune will roar.

Rule of law once so dear to us

Gathers near to us once more.

Through the years

They all will be together,

If Club Fed allows.

We could hang them all from just the highest boughs.

But have ourselves A Merry Little Fitzmas now.

The original article talked about Bush not knowing who leaked Rove's identity! That has already been corrected.

Far be it from me to complain about the MSM finally dishing the truth out to the masses, who might not have otherwise read all the Cheney/Bush Administration Part I expose's on the bookshelves. However, I'm already wondering about who the NY Daily News' source is for their exclusives this week.

I find it especially interesting that they chose to squeal to a tabloid, from the same city as the suspect "paper of record."

5 to 1 it's George "Presidential Medal of Freedom" Tenet

6 to 1 it's Ari "Watch what you say" Fleischer

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002492.html#002492

Perhaps as many as 18 indictments, sadly they don't mention Bush as being one of them

To quote the article: "If the report is true, Bush may have lied. And if the report is true, Bush may have lied." One of these two sentences is wrong...

Nobody that matters will pay the price. Unfortunately, these things are setup so that insignificant subordinates take the fall. Generals in the military are generals because they are intelligent. They rig the system so that their chain of command is their buffer. Do you really think some low-wage-earning enlisted person in the Army is going to conduct themselves the way they did at Abu Ghraib on their own? There is never a direct way to connect the dots from bottom to top. That's not a deficiency in investigative technique; that's innocence by design.

Bush, Rove, Libby, et. al., will suffer no consequences. However, the guy who gets all those guys coffee in the morning is going to have a very bad week next week.

The nerve of those hypocrites in Congress, who impeached Clinton for Monica Lewinsky.

Bush has lied to a special prosecutor and sent nearly 2000 soldiers to their deaths based on lies.

Do you think those are grounds for impeachment?!?!?!

Several of you have questioned the words, "If the report is true, Bush may have lied. And if the report is true, Bush may have lied." I plead guilty to making a joke that didn't work, but not to getting it wrong. What I meant was that the New York Daily News report, if true, poses two problems for Bush. The first is that he may have lied, and the second is that . . . he may have lied. Sorry I didn't make that more clear the first time around.

And as for saying he "may have lied" rather than he "did lie," I think that's the right call. He "may" have lied at that October 2003 Cabinet meeting because it's not clear whether the Rove conversations happened -- if they happened -- before or after that meeting. And he "may" have lied to Fitzgerald because we're relying here on what Murray Waas says his sources say about what Bush said in his interview with Fitzgerald. That's sufficiently removed from first-hand knowledge that I'm uncomfortable saying "Bush lied" on this one, even if we assume that the Daily News story is correct.

As for typos and errors in War Room items more generally. . .

We obviously strive for perfection, but typos and other errors inevitably get through in this sort of medium. A copy editor backreads most items right after they're posted, and most things are caught then. If you spot something that doesn't seem right, the quickest and surest way to let us know is through an email to warroom@salon.com. I'll be reading comments as often as I can, but I'll generally get an email message much more quickly.

Thanks, and keep writing.

Interesting, the way bubbles of unintended honesty will often surface on Dubya's odd stream of consciousness.

"That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out." So in the Bush lexicon, "full disclosure" consists of telling investigators those things they are sure to find out, and withholding everything else. And he wasn't ashamed to say so.