Which president was/is the most dishonest?

That actually sounds reasonable. Kudos.

 

Lyndon Johnson. When he let the Liberty go down. He should have been taken out an Israel immediately removed from the map. The world would be a different place.

 

I guess bush was uninformed because he apologized because there were no WMD. YOU SHOULD HAVE SHARED YOUR INSIDE KNOWLEDGE,

 

Wow they knew sadam was transferring WMD into Syria and didn't stop them, and didn't tell us......facts are stubborn things, when you make them up. If that were true that would have made bush a little credible, but even he couldn't lie like you are

 

I really wish Liberals were informed citizens... but alas, they just aren't.

Back in 2006, this was reported: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5137

Then, in 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, this was reported via WIRED: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...nt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Round and round we go... now we're hearing reports of Syria transferring WMDs back to Iraq: http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141

It's not a surprise that these anti-American/Israel countries actually help each other out, when it comes to opposing the Western World.

Asking you to become informed would be asking too much, I suppose.

 

I agree with you.

Bill Clinton only lied about his personal habits (ie, his affair). He didn't lie about stuff that affected the whole country.

 

What were all these lies from Nixon? That his election committee paid a million to the burglars to cover their legal cost. What other lies did he tell?

 

It is very curious that many say Bush lied when in fact everything Bush said he believed to be true.

 

Clinton's lies were about his role as Governor and President overseeing government employees and his sexual assault on one of them and trying to hide his illegal behavior. That it didn't "effect the whole country" was of no matter, he violated the law and committed crimes in a federal court violating his oath of office. Then you can add on his violation of the public trust and dishonoring the office to which he was elected and looking the American people and lying about it.
I would have given it to him until Obama came along. You have to admit his lies DO effect the country and in a very bad way.

 

Of the list, King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Liar and Traitor is clearly the worst liar, with the Perjured President coming in after him.

You should have listed LBJ, since his deliberate lies about the Tonkin Gulf incident lead directly to the killing of 53,000 Americans in Vietnam, plus the wounded and disabled. It also promoted the political careers of gigolos like Kerry.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the myth that the people stupid enough to vote for Obama have been given to believe, and they'll continue to believe it until their masters tell them to believe something else.

 

How many Americans died because of Nixon's lies?

LBJ killed half as many as died in the Civil War.

Bush didn't tell real lies.

Obama's lies are going to kill millions.

 

Actually the root cause of those deaths goes back to his father's presidency and the US involvement in the Gulf War and the following interventionism in the sovereign affairs of Iraq after the Gulf War that continued under Clinton (as well as the long-standing US support for Israeli tyranny).

But Bush Jr was responsible for about 7,000 US soldiers dying as well as somewhere between 150,000 to over 1 million innocent people dying because of his deceptions (or lies) related to Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

What "Israeli tyranny"?

 

What a load of crap. The root cause of those 3,000 deaths was the seething hatred that Muslims have for America (and have had since the founding of this country). 9/11 wasn't the first attack we've had on our homeland by Al Qaeda... and it wasn't the first time that the WTC was targeted. Combine that with the complete and unabridged incompetence and negligence of Bill Clinton. He had a chance to get Bin Laden (already a threat and on the most wanted list) on several occasions, but failed to take decisive action.

Bush and an agreeable Congress took us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on Al Qaeda waging war on our homeland and intelligence reports that no one had a reason to disbelieve. We later found that the "lies" actually weren't lies at all and more facts are coming out today, to support the original intelligence data.

 

There's some truth in that but, for purposes of identifying the most dishonest President of all time, the fact that he killed so many people, based on lies, puts him heads above anybody.

 

The ignorance of history and the Islamic international terrorist threat against the United States today is nothing short of AMAZING!!!

 

In a very real sense I'd put President George W Bush in the same category as LBJ. He was a puppet of the Military/Intelligence departments of the US Government as well as being a puppet of VP Cheney. He parroted what he was told and can we really call a parrot a liar?

Of course many, predominately conservatives, misrepresent honesty when it comes to President Obama. President Obama believed it was true that no Americans would lose their current insurance policies that didn't meet the new provisions under Obamacare. His belief was based upon the Grandfather Clause in the PPACA. The problem with the PPACA is that it didn't take into account that Obamacare wouldn't exist until four years after the PPACA was passed into law. The Grandfather Clause had to be effective up until Obamacare became effective. Did President Obama lie when he believed, based upon the provisions of the law as he understood them, when he stated that every American could keep their existing insurance policies? I don't believe that can be considered to be dishonest or a lie.

I don't believe the White House statements after the Benghazi attacks can be called dishonest or a lie either. The statements were based upon protecting a secret CIA operation and we can hardly expect a President to reveal secret CIA operations now can we? The CIA, not the State Department, developed the talking points after Benghazi to cover it's ass that it was running a CIA compound (not a diplomatic compound) in Benghazi. Should it have covered it up? I'm not in a position to say but the President certainly shouldn't have intervened the day after the attack to reveal it was a CIA outpost and not a diplomatic facility.

 

Let's not forget that it was the Clinton administration that made thicker and higher the wall the separated the domestic and foreign intelligence services making the stopping of 9/11 even more remote.

- - - Updated - - -

What did Bush know to be true that he lied about and provide the evidence to back it up.

 

What did he "parrot" exactly?

No he didn't, all reports on discussions within the White House are quite clear they knew that there would be millions who would lose their insurance.

Yes and after he was caught the trying to caveat his previous statements. It was quite clear NO one would lose their existing coverage PERIOD.

Are you saying he is quite stupid and was deceived by his own staff?

They were lies on the face, the knew it was not a spontaneous demonstration and they attempted to lie about it for weeks.

Had nothing to do with it and they could have told the truth without disclosing he was lying about supporting the rebel troops.

 

For existing insurance policies that did not change after the PPACA was passed and complied with the Grandfather Clause the PPACA would not result in the cancellation of the policy based upon the PPACA. To read about the "Grandfather Clause" please read the following.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/December/17/grandfathered-plans-faq.aspx

I haven't read any of the "discussion in the White House" that would indicate that there were discussions on millions of people losing their health private or group health insurance that met the conditions of the "Grandfather Clause" so the statement these discussions took place is an unsupported allegation at this point. Now if transcripts of those discussions can be provided then the claim would be supported but I've yet to see those transcripts.

"No one will lose their existing insurance based upon the PPACA" is different than someone losing their private or group health insurance because the employer chooses to cancel a "grandfathered" insurance plan or because the insurance company chooses to withdraw from the market in a state for business reasons even if they are related to the PPACA. Those are "business" choices not driven by the PPACA itself. I have reviewed numerous cases of private insurance policies being canceled and all of them to date related to business decisions as opposed to those policies being canceled because the PPACA required the policies to be canceled.

I've also read of doctors or medical facilities that have decided to not continue to provide services to individuals (Ref the statement "No one will lose their doctor because of the PPACA") but in all of these cases it wasn't that the PPACA wouldn't pay for the providers to treat the person. In every case I've read it was the providers, the for business reasons, decided to not accept the PPACA insurance.

The President cannot control the business decisions of enterprises regardless of whether it's the insurance companies or medical service providers but those business decisions are not specifically because of the PPACA provisions.

The PPACA didn't force the insurance companies to cancel insurance policies or the medical service providers to refuse to treat a person and the President cannot be held accountable for the actions of business. The Presidents statements were based upon the law and not the business decisions in a free enterprise system.

 

Former President Bush was "parroting" the CIA and other US intelligence agencies in falsely claiming that Iraq had WMD's in 2002-2003 as we know that no actual evidence of the WMD's existed in Iraq at that time. These agencies were claiming that they had evidence of the WMD's when they didn't have any evidence at all. All the CIA and other agencies had was evidence from the 1980's and statements from Iraqi expatriates that hadn't lived in Iraq since the 1980's that were blatantly lying to the US intelligence agencies for political reason as they advocated the overthrowing of Saddam.

Bush was duped by the US intelligence agencies (and former VP Cheney) when it came to WMD's in Iraq. Had former President Bush been an "intelligent" president he would have asked the same questions and addressed the same faulty intelligence that those of us opposing the war presented at the time. For example millions of gallons of "chlorine" that is a common household ingredient of laundry bleach is not a "precursor" to WMD (i.e. Chlorine gas used during war). He would have completely discarded the "British intelligence report" that cited a 1991 study done by a post-graduate Berkley student on WMD's in Iraq during the 1980's. He would have addressed the fact that with or without WMD's Iraq did not represent any threat to the United States (a condition of the Iraq Resolution) as it had no means of actually attacking the US and had no intention of ever attacking the United States.

Bush was also a "parrot" when the repeated the false statements of his attorney general (Alberto Gonzales) in stating that the "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" weren't torture. Clearly all of them are under the definition of "Torture" as established by Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113C › § 2340.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340

Bush "parroted" the US military or the AG in denying Geneva Conventions protections to prisoners captured on the battlefield, The Geneva Conventions apply to anyone taken captive on the battlefield regardless of possible criminal violations such as acts of terrorism and/or war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Bush was an idiot but I wouldn't call him dishonest simply because he was an idiot and never used common sense in performing his duties of office and instead followed the advice of organizations that clearly disregarded the facts and the laws of the United States and the treaties to which the United States is a party.

 

Obama, hands down.

 

"You can keep your healthplan PERIOD" The grandfather clause was designed to keep as many as possible from being grandfathered in and that is exactly what we are finding. The White House knew that even with the grandfather clause millions, upwards of 60% would lose their existing coverage.

I'm not surprised you generally have very lacking news sources.

 

What evidence proved Saddam had destroyed ALL the WMD that UNSCOM had cataloged and was in the process of destroying when they were kicked out? What intelligence agency said he had no WMD in his possession and no proscribed materials with which he could rearm himself?

What was UNSCOM in the process of collecting and destroying in 1998?

The so was Clinton and Gore and the entire Congress. But do show me the formal investigation that state the CIA purposed duped anyone. Who at the CIA knew for a fact that Saddam was in compliance with the UN sanctions and had completely eliminated ALL WMD stocks and the material to create new ones.

Actually it is and he was required to account for all his inventory.

So how about the hidden cache's of highly concerntrated organophosphates we found in underground camoflauged bunkers along with new chemical weapons shells? All undeclared hidden from the weapons inspectors?

He accepted the reports from UNSCOM which had cataloged the WMD he had and was in the process of eliminating them when they were kicked out. So provide me the evidence that was given to Bush that all those WMD had been destroyed or accounted for.

No he would not since that would have been a faulty analysis.

No he would not since that would have been a faulty analysis.

I am getting the impression that anytime a President listens to his advisers whether legal or military or whatever you deem that "parroting", so Obama has been parroting his health care advisors, he was parroting the IRS, he has been parroting the CIA on Iran's nuclear capability?

Not nearly the idiot Obama has proven to be.

ROFL on the one had you say he is parroting because he did follow the advice of the the organizations which advised him but then say he should have done so.

And nothing was disregarded and nothing violated.

 

There were basically only three of the provisions of the PPACA that were applied to existing to private insurance:

1) the plans cannot impose lifetime limits on how much health care coverage people may receive.

2) they must offer dependent coverage for young adults until age 26 (although until 2014, a grandfathered group plan does not have to offer such coverage if a young adult is eligible for coverage elsewhere).

3) They also cannot retroactively cancel your coverage because of a mistake you made when applying, a practice known as a rescission.

None of these provisions were of significant importance to the degree that they would result in the cancelation of a private or group health insurance policy as they did not impose a significant financial burden on the insurance company.

So, in what manner was the PPACA crafted so that it would cause millions, upwards of 60% of those with private or group health insurance, to lose their existing coverage?

We can note that in 2009 (when Obama took office) the number of Americans covered by private health insurance (group and individual coverage) was about 195 million but as a percentage of the population that number had been decreasing annually since about 2001 (when Bush took office). That percentage was expected to continue to decline and there is no evidence that it has declined at a greater rate than prior to the passage of the PPACA.

The actual decline in the number and percentage of Americans that will have private insurance is going to increase dramatically under the provisions of the PPACA. We, and Obama couldn't, couldn't "stop" the termination of private insurance prior to the PPACA from continuing under the PPACA prior to it becoming effective in 2014 but the PPACA in 2014 stops the decline and increases the number of those privately insured in the United States.

What continues to amaze me is that "Republicans" oppose the expansion of private health insurance to cover millions of more Americans under the PPACA. The proposal to use private insurance was actually promoted by the very conservative Heritage Foundation years ago and the "Republicans" pulling a 180 degree "about-face" on private insurance is very puzzling to the outside observer.

Sorry, but I can't read news stories that don't exist and no one has pointed out any news stories that I've missed where in private meetings at the White House in 2009 the President discussed millions of American were going to lose their private insurance because of the PPACA. If these news stories (not OP pieces) exist then I'd love to read them but simply referring to mythical news stories is not something I place any credence with.