In the same manner that Kyl, Brownback and Graham lied to the Supreme Court and attempted to lie to three federal appeals courts, it was accepted that Republicans see nothing wrong with lieing.

Kyl’s explanation was that the dumbass voters don’t understand how the Senate works. McCain was head cheerleader in the recent campaign and foound no fault with Party Members that lie.

NBC lost any jounalistic integrity many years ago.

Look, aside from Helen Thomas, David Gregory has been one of the ONLY White House press corps members to actually stand out and ask the tough, scary questions. Believe it or not, he’s actually on our side — the side of average Americans (as opposed to the military-industrial complex). He’s sharp, articulate and gutsy, and consistently does a superb job.

And so what if he pointed out the obvious fact that Bush’s lying is just a-okay with the “shoot a colored for Jay-zuz” set. That 30-odd percent would support him even if he said we needed to invade Canada.

Comment by bobcat_grad

I don’t disagree, but that’s the very problem. Why do they want to protect their access to people who are not going to tell them the truth? If you’re a reporter and you manage to hook up with an inside source who always tells you the truth even when it contradicts the “official line”, you do what you can to protect that source. But the majority of these reporters have been lied to by these inside sources. They should go ahead, ask the tough questions. Why should they care if they lose access to someone who just uses them to support a failure of an administration?

I’m not saying it’s right. It’s WRONG, but it’s the reality. For some reason, the word “liar” is not in the press’ lexicon.

Who could ever believe this last lie? This man and his team would do anything possible to effect the election in their favor. They told lies about opposition candidates, call voters to try to confuse them, and pulled any other dirty tricks that they could conceive. What another outright lie to tell us that he didn’t want to inject politics into the electtion. Since when has Bush ever taken the higher road?

And worst of all, we’ve got David Gregory, Chris Wallace and others accepting those lies without calling into question the liars who are telling those lies.

Bush lies to the press and the American people about his staff — whatever.

Since Bush was apparently aware in the week preceding the election that Rumsfeld was going to be ousted, why did he deliberately lie to the American people? The only possible answer is party politics, but this is not even remotely sufficient justification. It might have been a little different if he had originally intended to keep Rumsfeld on and then changed his mind after the election — say, if he interpreted the election results as a criticism of the situation in Iraq. If Bush lied for purely political reasons, there’s no reason to assume that he won’t do it again — or even that he hasn’t done it before.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/CaughtonFilm.html

This is pretty good still though!

There should be a list of the lies Bush has been caught at so far somewhere on the web.

I have a link somewhere of these 1000 lies…,,,brb

“Bush admitted lying, but said in effect that it was for our own good. I’m sure he has never done that before, and if he does, I’m sure it will also be for the right reasons.”

Bush is not a King he needs to drop that Noble lie crap. Noble lies are not for our own good — Noble lies are pursuants of hidden agendas.