The Height Of Lying?
by sarabeth at 9:13 am on September 21st, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Podium SpinPresident Bush routinely lies to the American people several times a month. Those who can still muster up the necessary outrage routinely call him out on it. And nothing changes at all.
But when George Bush makes a categorical statement and Orrin Hatch declares it to “flatly untrue”, that might make a lot of people sit up and take notice. How egregious does a presidential lie have to be before Orrin Hatch will publicly denounce it as a lie?
Republicans reacted angrily yesterday to President Bush’s promise to veto a bill that would renew and expand the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program, raising the likelihood of significant GOP defections when the package comes to a vote next week.
[...]
With the program about to expire on Sept. 30, Bush said in a news conference that he will reject the $35 billion funding expansion being cobbled together by House and Senate negotiators. He said the bill would inappropriately extend coverage to children in families with incomes of as much as $83,000 a year, prompting many parents to drop private insurance. He urged Congress to pass, instead, a temporary extension of the program until a more lasting compromise can be worked out.“Members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington,” Bush said. …
But members of both parties countered that it is the president who is putting children’s health in jeopardy. They said most Americans, including many GOP governors and groups such as AARP, support the expansion of the program’s enrollment to about 10 million children from 6.6 million now.
[...]
Asked whether he would vote to override a veto, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a staunch conservative, said, “You bet your sweet bippy I will.”Hatch, who helped negotiate the compromise, said it is flatly untrue that the bill would cover children in households with incomes of as much as $83,000.
JimC wrote:
At first I thought you were being facetious as in “boy, how bad of a lie does it have to be so that even Orin Hatch calls you on it, nudge nudge” but then remembering all of the fruitless arguments back and forth about what I thought you said and what you said, I’d thought I’ll ask for clarification.
Are you saying that even now, Orin Hatch still cannot call the Prez on a lie or are you saying that in fact it was so bad that even Orin Hatch called him on a lie?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 11:04 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
if you can’t figure that out yourself, you should definitely stop reading my posts
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 11:25 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, were you being facetious or not? Is that really too much to ask? Basing on the tone, I’m guessing not and therefore this was basically a slam on Orin Hatch for not going so far as to calling the President a liar. Is that correct?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 11:44 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You are condemned to seeing the world through your own eyes. That’s what makes everything so confusing to you.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 12:17 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
For crying out loud, I was trying to avoid a painful protracted argument on the meaning of words and just cut to the chase and ask for clarification and what do I get? Nothing. It is as if you want 58 comments of arguing over the meaning of “is”…
Fine then, I’ll just assume you were slamming Orin Hatch and if anyone else is reading and wasn’t sure of that then maybe I helped them make up their mind (even if it is to go opposite of me).
Thanks much, you’re a peach.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 1:34 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You apparently didn’t notice, but I resigned not only from the business of conducting painful protracted arguments with you over the meaning of things, but also from tutoring you in your ongoing “reading comprehension” project.
And that’s consistent with your “I’ll try to be nicer in the future” how?
In any case, let me repeat:
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 1:52 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s as nice as I could possibly be and still express my frustration over a simply yes or no acknowledgment.
This is what I find wrong in America right now, no one wants to talk or be civil to the other side. I’m trying, even in this hostile environment (for me at least), I’m trying….
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 2:16 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Jim, Hatch said Bush’s statement was untrue, therefore SB is saying that the lie was so egregious that even someone like Hatch can’t stand silently by.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 3:13 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Jesus!
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 3:14 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
what was uncivil about 2 or 4 or 6?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 3:16 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Just very condescending and dismissive when I’m trying to find a way to communicate with you without provoking you to wrath.
Sarabeth is sac’s assessment correct?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 6:15 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It is the height of childish petulance to expect that you will always get what you ask for.
I declined perfectly politely. If that drives you to frustration and impoliteness, all I can say is your behavior doesn’t come close to matching your oft-expressed self-image.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 7:03 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
In that case, I will have to assume sac’s response was the correct assessment.
Sac, do you think Orin Hatch was calling Bush on a lie? Meaning, that Orin Hatch’s own word’s reveal, that Bush was given bad advice and that “untrue” does not equal a lie, is it accurate to characterize Orin Hatch’s response in such a way?
This is why I believed that Sarabeth was in fact slamming Orin Hatch for not going so far as to calling it a lie (which is fine), but simply untrue and given “bad advice”. What do you think, sac?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 7:53 pm ¶