Bush: a paragon of truth

[sturm und drang]

Since everyone here seems so fixated on what Kerry did or didn't do in 1968 and what he has or hasn't said about it – and holding Bush up as his foil, a veritable paragon of truth – let's take a closer look at "Honest George" Bush and his fibbing attempts to distance himself from the Enron debacle.

"I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the—what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken. …"

—President George W. Bush, answering reporters' questions in the Oval Office Jan. 10, 2002

"When Governor Bush—now President Bush—decided to run for the governor's spot, [there was] a little difficult situation—I 'd worked very closely with Ann Richards also, the four years she was governor. But I was very close to George W. and had a lot of respect for him, had watched him over the years, particularly with reference to dealing with his father when his father was in the White House and some of the things he did to work for his father, and so did support him."

—Interview with Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay for Frontline's 2001 documentary, "Blackout: What Caused the Power Crisis in California? And Who's Profiting?"

[Usually Lurkin]

Is there more to this? I would like to know if Bush was lying about relatinships he might have had. But these two quotes don't necessarily contradict each other. Not in the least like Kerry's recollections contradict those of others (which is the parallel you are trying to draw, isn't it?)

[Evilmav2]

So the governor of Texas actually met, and even "got to know", the CEO of one of the largest corporations in the state? That's pretty darned shocking...

And as far as when that getting to know each other happened... Just like there can be different interpretations of the word "is", there can be different interpretations of the phrase "got to know". Lay and Bush Jr. could well have met each other before but Bush could be justified in saying they didn't really "know" each other if their introduction was just one of many at a business or political gathering. My guess is that it would not have been strange for two of the most prominant men in Texas to have at least been aware of each other, and I am sure it is likely that they met on at least an occasion or two on the cocktail party circuit, but their interaction on the governor's council was probably be the first time they aquainted themselves in a more comprehensive fashion than that encompassed by a simple meet and greet.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
Is there more to this? I would like to know if Bush was lying about relatinships he might have had. But these two quotes don't necessarily contradict each other. Not in the least like Kerry's recollections contradict those of others (which is the parallel you are trying to draw, isn't it?)

I agree. If there's more to this, let's hear about it. These two quotes aren't necessarily incompatible, but who knows? Maybe there is more. The attempted parallel with Kerry is really weak and off-point, though.

[Mavdog]

Fact: Ken Lay and Enron were the largest contributors to Bush's TX Governor campaigns.
Fact: Bush allowed (asked?) the regulators to institute voluntary guidelines, rather than mandatory reductions, for plants such as Enron operated around Houston. (Surprisingly these plants have not reduced their emissions).
Fact: Ken Lay is one of the members of the secretive Cheney Energy Task force and has been a guest of the Bush's at the White House.

How close were they? You decide, here's some of their personal correspondence which clearly shows a warm reciprocal relationship.

Bush/Lay letters

[LRB]

So far from what been presented here, this appears to be a non issue as far as Bush lying. Certainly not anywhere as close to Kerry's blatant lies. However if there is more, then I'm all for hearing it.

[sturm und drang]

Bush's version of his relationship with Lay:
"(After the election)... that's when I first got to know Ken. …"

Lay's version of his relationship with Bush:
"(During the election) "But I was very close to George W..."

Bush's version of who Lay supported in the election:
"He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994"

Lay's version:
"(I) did support him."

So Bush isn't lying? These statements don't contradict? Really? Bush isn't lying, desperately trying to distance himself from Lay and the Enron scandal? And if so, this isn't as important as where Kerry was on Christmas Eve in 1968? Really? I bet those tens of thousands of jobless, savings-less Enron workers might disagree.

My, what partisan glasses you all seem to be wearing.

Here's more from the (emphatically Republican) Dallas Morning News:

"In distancing himself from Enron, President Bush said that CEO Kenneth Lay 'was a supporter' of Democrat Ann Richards in his first race for Texas governor in 1994.

"But records and interviews with people involved in the Richards campaign show that he was a far bigger Bush supporter.

"Mr. Lay and his wife gave Mr. Bush three times more money than Ms. Richards in their gubernatorial contest, according to a computer-assisted review of campaign finance reports by The Dallas Morning News. … Mr. Bush, a Republican, collected $37,500 from the Lays in his successful bid to unseat the Democratic incumbent, state records show. Ms. Richards received $12,500."

—Wayne Slater, "Lay Gave More To Bush," Dallas Morning News, Jan. 12, 2002

[kg_veteran]

Lay was a supporter of Richards. He donated money to her campaign.

As for the relationship between Bush and Lay, and when it actually developed, I think that when Lay says they were "close" and Bush says "I got to know him", they could mean different things.

Still, I'm really trying to see the parallel here. Help me out.

Did Bush make his relationship with Lay the centerpiece of his campaign?

[Usually Lurkin]

Really, Sturm. You have at most here a politician distancing himself from a businessman on the political outs. And that conclusion is a huge stretch given the quotes you provide, and requires placing your own meaning onto a couple of the phrases the two men use. It's nothing like Kerry's memory of Christmas in Cambodia that was "seared" into his mind - a memory that he made repeated and deliberate political use of.

In these quotes that you provide, Bush does not state he did not know Lay before the election, and Lay does not state that he knew Bush before the election. Either might be true, but neither claim is made here.

"first got to know" does not mean "never knew of", or "never met", or even "did not know before"
For instance, I knew the lady who is now my wife before we started dating. But I "first got to know" her after a few dates.

Lay says: "worked very closely with Ann Richards also, the four years she was governor. But I was very close to George W". Unless you have other quotes to suggest otherwise, you can't assume he's talking about the same time frame. He may be comparing his relationship to Richards while she was in office to his relationship with Bush while Bush was in office. Lay says he had "watched [Bush] over the years". That implies from a distance if anything.

Bush said, "[Lay] was a supporter of Ann Richards". Mavdog's post confirms this. And it explains why Richards would appoint Lay to head of a council.

[LRB]

I may have met my fiancee previous to this year. She has worked at a store that I frequent for over 4 years. Neither she nor I can remember if we did. So we say we first met this year. While we may not be technically correct if later evidence shows up that we did meet. Like for example she being logged on to the cash register that processed a credit card transaction of mine, it doesn't mean it was intentional. However if I was to say that our first date was "seared" into my memory as taking place in Austin, then I would be purposely lying. Our 1st date was in Carrollton. Sure Carrollton is realtively near Austin. Maybe I could revise that when show the credit card records that show I was in Carrollton that night and say that I was in some no man's land between Carrollton and Austin.

Is it possible that Bush lied about his relations with Lay to make himself look better politically. Sure it is. However the evidence is very vague about what Bush meant. It even has interpretations by third parties thrown in with the quotes that from a majority of the context. At best this evidence is ambigious. Plus Bush has not made it a key portion of his campaign strategy that he in no way, shape, form or fashion knew any members of Enron senior managment before running as govenor.

Kerry on the otherhand has made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign. In esscense Kerry is saying, one of the main, if not the main reason, that you should elect me is because of my honorable service in Vietnam. However theres is an extensive public record of direct quotes wheat Kerry says his memory was "seared" with his recollection of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. There is overwhelming evidence that this was not the case. Yet when confronted by these new facts, Kerry trys to say that he didn't say what he did.

At best Bush made some highly ambigious statements that could be taken any number of different ways. Kerry made some explicit statements that any rational person would be hard pressed to take a different way.

I truely don't see any correlation between Kerry's statements on Cambodia and Bush's on Lays. While partisanship can cause one to not see what is there, it can equally cause one to see what is not there.

[sturm und drang]

My, my. Aren't we all good at making excuses for Mr. Bush?

Bush lied to distance himself from Lay. Understandably so. Still, there are two lies contained in his statement. When read as a whole, he is trying to make the case that Lay was no supporter of his, no friend or even acquaintance of his prior to his election. "Hey, I didn't really know the guy – and he was a Richards supporter!" Um, blatantly untrue.

You are all so quick to crucify Kerry for confusing statements that are both affirmed and denied by other people who are there. Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. Frankly, considering the "facts" of the case – and the fact that they are all disputed to various degrees – we'll never know. He's guilty in your court, though.

KG keeps mocking my parallelism of the two cases. To me, it's crystal clear. Interesting that you can't see it.

[kg_veteran]

Sturm - I'm not making any excuses for Bush. If Bush misrepresented how well he knew Lay to try and distance himself from Lay, then shame on him. But you still didn't answer my question.

Did Bush make his relationship with Lay the centerpiece of his campaign?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Sturm - I'm not making any excuses for Bush. If Bush misrepresented how well he knew Lay to try and distance himself from Lay, then shame on him. But you still didn't answer my question.

Did Bush make his relationship with Lay the centerpiece of his campaign?

Frankly it is the opposition that is making Kerry's service the "centerpiece of his campaign."

Does Kerry mention his service? absolutely.

Does Kerry speak as much about the economy, the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq? health care costs? energy independence?

Yes, much, much more than he speaks of Vietnam.

[LRB]

You are all so quick to crucify Kerry for confusing statements that are both affirmed and denied by other people who are there. Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't. Frankly, considering the "facts" of the case – and the fact that they are all disputed to various degrees – we'll never know. He's guilty in your court, though.

I've read of no one who served with or near Kerry confirm that he was every in Cambodia, much less on Christmas Eve 1968. And although my memory is very vague since I was just a todler at the time, I do believe that Richard Nixon was not President of the United States on Christmas Eve 1968. In fact I would challenge you and Kerry to produce any credible proof that he was. Kerry's lies are so overt that even he is trying to rewrite history to where he didn't say what he did.

It's unclear if you interpretation is what Bush actually said. I know Shawn Bradley. However if given the opportunity to work with him much closer, I might not say that I truely got to know him until at that time. Of course Bush could be lying. But in no means does this approach the clear cut case over Kerry's lies about Cambodia. Sure I bet we could find other statements by Kerry that might more closely parallel Bush's statement about Lay and Enron.

Let's look at one lie. You claim that bush lied when he said that Lay "was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994". Yet you provided evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Lay contributed over $12,000 to Ann Richards 1994 campaign. So at least monetarily Lay supported Richards unless it was only his wife who donated the money. I've seen no evidence whether Lay actively campaigned for either or both candidates. Of course Lay did donate to Bush more according to the evidence that you provided. This in no way means that he did not support Richards only that he provided monetary support to both candidates. We do know from your statements that Lay was appointed to a political position and was serving in that position during the election. Perhaps Bush took that to mean that he supported Richards. Maybe Bush didn't consider less than $40,000 contribution by a man of Lay's wealth to be much of a financial contribution and assumed, apparently incorrectly, that Lay gave more to Richards. The point being this is hardly as black and white of an issue as Kerry asserting for 30 years that he was in a different country that he was during Christmas Eve 1968 and that he was serving under a different President than he was.

Now as to Bush's statement that "(After the election)... that's when I first got to know Ken. …" being a lie. First of all the quote is clearly taken out of context as evidenced by the non Bush words inserted into the quote in an attempt to give context. But for the sake of argument let's assume for the momement that the none of the meaning was changed by the insertion of words. Without having seen the original transcript I can't say one way or the other, but I don't feel that it makes Bush a liar per say even if it does hold to contextual meaning. The phrase "got to know" can be taken to mean different things. It could mean the 1st time you meat someone. I have met had my hand shook and my picture taken with Bill and Hillary Clinton ( much to my every dieing shame), but in no way do I know them on a personal level the way I know my friends, family, and coworkers. I've often heard of people who said that they didn't get to know their parents until they were adults even when they were raised from infantsy to adulthood by those same parents. In this case "know" is connoting the level on intimacyin the relationship. Just me there is and never will be any intimacy between me and either Bill or Hillary.

Is it possibly that Bush intentionally tried to decieve Americans? Yes, it is possible I will concede. Is it certain that Bush tried to decieve in the instances that you cite? No, it is far from certain.

Now is it certain that Kerry tried to decieved Americans about his Christmas Eve 1968 Cambodia experience? I would say that it was highly certain. Certainly there is a little, but precious little, room for doubt. Still I can't concieve of how he could have unknowingly repeated the untruth about Nixon being president in 1968 under any reasonable circumstances.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Frankly it is the opposition that is making Kerry's service the "centerpiece of his campaign."

Does Kerry mention his service? absolutely.

Does Kerry speak as much about the economy, the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq? health care costs? energy independence?

Yes, much, much more than he speaks of Vietnam.

So all the talks at the DNC about Kerry's military record, Kerry's salute, Kerry's parade of veterans, etc., etc. all of that; was less time that Kerry spent during the DNC on talking on the economy? All of that was less time that Kerry spent talking on Bush tax cuts? All of that was less that time spent talking about Iraq? All of that was less time spent than talking aobut energy independence? Not only more but much, much, much more? Care to back that up with facts?

Any nonpartisan idiot knows that Kerry made a huge deal out of his military service and it occupied a supstantial part of not only his time on stage but the time others spent on stage talking specifically about Kerry. This is what has been reported by every major media outlet. Of course I believe that the media isn't always right. However I do like to have at least a smidgen of evidence before I go and crucify them yet once a gain. So cough it up if you can.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Frankly it is the opposition that is making Kerry's service the "centerpiece of his campaign."

That's a load of crap, and you know it. Here's a good piece from Zev Chafets on the Cambodia issue:

Kerry's Cambodia question

He says he served there, critics say not so.
The answer's crucial



John Edwards is supposed to be a great lawyer but at the recent Democratic convention he made a rookie mistake: He raised a question without knowing the answer. "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him," he said.

Edwards meant Kerry's "band of brothers" - the small entourage of vets who served under him in Vietnam and now strongly support him for President.

Evidently, Edwards did not know at the time that almost every officer who commanded Kerry or served alongside him opposes his candidacy. Worse, they have formed a group, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, that claims more than 250 members.

Their case against Kerry is set forth in a new book, "Unfit for Command," co-written by longtime Kerry critic John O'Neill, and in a TV ad from the group.

Kerry's critics in arms allege that he didn't deserve one of his Purple Hearts and his Bronze Star. They make these claims on the basis of firsthand knowledge. But combat is notoriously confusing, and soldiers in the heat of battle make poor witnesses. Kerry deserves the benefit of the doubt. If the Navy says he won his medals fair and square, that's good enough for me.

What Kerry did (or didn't do) in Cambodia is a different matter.

On March 27, 1986, Kerry told his fellow senators: "I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia.

"I have that memory, which is seared - seared - in me."

Here's the problem: Kerry's commanding officers and some of his crew members reportedly deny that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968. They say he was stationed near the town of Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border.

Kerry's people are trying hard to discredit his discreditors. They call "Unfit for Command" co-author O'Neill a Republican hack with a decades-long grudge against Kerry. They say Texas moneymen close to Karl Rove are behind the TV spots and are warning TV stations, in writing, not to air them. They maintain that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are motivated by jealousy of Kerry or anger at his post-Vietnam anti-war activities. They want to dismiss all questions about Kerry's war record as sleazy slander.

Sorry, but that's not going to wash. The issue is not whether the charges against Kerry are politically motivated (they obviously are) or who is paying for them. There's just one relevant question: Are the allegations true? Specifically, is it true he lied about being in Cambodia.

(NOTE: This guy gets it.)

Unlike the debate over Kerry's medals, this is a matter that can be checked and verified. If it turns out Kerry was there, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are liars and their charges are, in the words of Kerry's friend John McCain, "dishonest and dishonorable." But if he wasn't there, the Kerry campaign is saddled with a problem it can't solve by calling Republicans names, threatening TV stations or even bringing up President Bush's less than stellar war record.

Kerry has staked his candidacy on Vietnam. His running mate has publicly invited the country to judge Kerry by listening to his comrades in arms. A lot of them, to Edwards' obvious chagrin, are saying that John Kerry is unfit for command.

If it turns out he made up the story of Christmas in Cambodia, they could very well be right.

Originally published on August 11, 2004

link

Chafets, who is not a conservative, acknowledges that Kerry has "staked his candidacy on Vietnam". It's too bad you want to be an obstructionist rather than acknowledge the obvious.

[Usually Lurkin]

" Well, first of all, Ken Lay is a supporter. And I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the -- what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy.

This is -- what anybody's going to find, if -- is that this administration will fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy, to make sure we can learn from the past, and make sure that workers are protected. "
link

That's the quote. Bush says twice that Ken Lay supported the Bush candidacy.
Either you deliberately left that out in order to mischaracterize the presidents intentions or you irresponsibly used a quote you found at some left wing website where someone else deliberately left that out.

Kerry gets caught red handed in a lie that he's repeatedly used for political gain, and this is the best you can come up with for a Kerry's-not-the-only-lier defense?

[LRB]

Beautiful post UL. Amazing what a little context can do to change words around sometimes. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

well if you and Zev say so...

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

How many times does he mention his service in Vietnam? 3 times. total. one of those is an allusion when he says he "defended the country as a young man" and will do so as President.

Terrorism? 5 times
Family? 6 times
Patriotism? 5 times
Environment? 3 times
taxes? 3 times
Education? 3 times
Foeign relations? 4 times
Healthcare? 5 times
Economy? 9 times
Iraq? 3 times
His time as a prosecutor? 2 times
His time as a Senator? 4 times

Yeah, those 3 times he brought up his service is Vietnam sure dominate his message and is the central theme to his candidacy.
At least for those who aren't listening....

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
" Well, first of all, Ken Lay is a supporter. And I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the -- what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy.

This is -- what anybody's going to find, if -- is that this administration will fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy, to make sure we can learn from the past, and make sure that workers are protected. "
link

That's the quote. Bush says twice that Ken Lay supported the Bush candidacy.
Either you deliberately left that out in order to mischaracterize the presidents intentions or you irresponsibly used a quote you found at some left wing website where someone else deliberately left that out.

Kerry gets caught red handed in a lie that he's repeatedly used for political gain, and this is the best you can come up with for a Kerry's-not-the-only-lier defense?

It was impossible that George Bush "first got to know Ken" after he became Governor, he and Lay were business partners as far back as 1986. Lay's company and Bush's company Spectrum 7/Harken were partners in multiple oil drilling ventures.

Ken Lay was also the chairman of the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston, where George H. Bush was the headliner (re-nominated) and George W. Bush spoke. Ken Lay was a frequent guest at the George H. Bush White House as well as at their home in Houston.

Of course, that is also without being able to prove that Ken Lay was a leading member of the Cheney Energy Task Force meetings, which most truly believe is the case. You see, Cheney refuses to disclose who attended these super secret meetings that shaped the Bush Administration's energy policies.
BTW, have you seen the price of oil? Seems like the Task Force did a whale of a job, at least for the energy producers that is.

[LRB]

It was impossible that George Bush "first got to know Ken" after he became Governor, he and Lay were business partners as far back as 1986. Lay's company and Bush's company Spectrum 7/Harken were partners in multiple oil drilling ventures.

Ok 1st define know Mavdog before you make such an ignorant statement. BTW one of the definitions of know is to have sexual relations with. I'm supposing that even you aren't dense and partisan enough to try and imply something that ridiculous. Another definition means that they would be able to recognize one another. Well, I'm sure that they could do that well before the 1994 election. It certainly wouldn't surprise me at all. However I seriously doubt that this is what Bush is implying. The contextual evidence doesn't seem to point to it. Bush appears to be speaking of a level of familiarity with his use of know. Of course this isn't 100% certain, but it certainly seems the most logical. What would know entail. I would say having a great deal of interaction, attending intimate meetings together, having personal conversations above the standard how are you and how's the weather talk. There has been no proof shown to disprove this notion. Also what would Bush have to gain by this? By Bush's own admission he knew Lay before Lay was involved in the worst of the Enron scandal. It would bring no political benefit that I can see for Bush to lie and would only leave him a political liability. And it's not like this was a planned speech, rather it was an inpromptu answer to an apparently hostile question from a reporter. But I see that you're dead set on making a mountain out of this imaginary molehill. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
well if you and Zev say so...

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

How many times does he mention his service in Vietnam? 3 times. total. one of those is an allusion when he says he "defended the country as a young man" and will do so as President.

Terrorism? 5 times
Family? 6 times
Patriotism? 5 times
Environment? 3 times
taxes? 3 times
Education? 3 times
Foeign relations? 4 times
Healthcare? 5 times
Economy? 9 times
Iraq? 3 times
His time as a prosecutor? 2 times
His time as a Senator? 4 times

Yeah, those 3 times he brought up his service is Vietnam sure dominate his message and is the central theme to his candidacy.
At least for those who aren't listening....

I didn't say he made it the most often-mentioned topic in his convention speech. I said the centerpiece of his campaign. Nice try, but no cigar.

[chumdawg]

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

Ohhhh...myyyy...goodness, Mavdog. How about those who were watching?? That one salute said more than all the rest of his words combined. Cleland and his band of brothers introducing him said it all.

I take your point that he does in fact have a number of other issues. But to suggest that his convention speech didn't place his service squarely at the center of his campaign is to ignore the obvious.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
well if you and Zev say so...

Look at his acceptance speech at the convention.

How many times does he mention his service in Vietnam? 3 times. total. one of those is an allusion when he says he "defended the country as a young man" and will do so as President.

Terrorism? 5 times
Family? 6 times
Patriotism? 5 times
Environment? 3 times
taxes? 3 times
Education? 3 times
Foeign relations? 4 times
Healthcare? 5 times
Economy? 9 times
Iraq? 3 times
His time as a prosecutor? 2 times
His time as a Senator? 4 times

Yeah, those 3 times he brought up his service is Vietnam sure dominate his message and is the central theme to his candidacy.
At least for those who aren't listening....

#of lengthy salutes to the flag in homage to his Vietnam service - 1
#of lengthy salutes to the flag in homage of all other issues - 0

but on 2nd thought forget it Mavdog. I just don't belive it will ever be possible for you admit the simpliest of truths in a political argument. Of course even by your own admission Kerry gave his Vietnam service equal references as other "nonissues" of Iraq, education, and the environment. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Ok 1st define know Mavdog before you make such an ignorant statement.

nothing "ignorant" in a valid, informed statement.

Your attempt to grammatically explain the Bush statement is very, very much like when we were all talking about the definition of "is". eerily much like it.

We can all take from the context of the Bush statement that it is to be familiar with, to know on a personal level.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I didn't say he made it the most often-mentioned topic in his convention speech. I said the centerpiece of his campaign. Nice try, but no cigar.

yeah, what was termed "the most important speech of the campaign" was in reality nothing, it didn't frame his whole campaign.
yeah, right.
"centerpiece"?
barely mentioning it?
hardly.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog



nothing "ignorant" in a valid, informed statement.

And it would be great if you would make one occasionally. However I've yet to see you post on in this thread.

Now back to the subject, there is a world of difference between Clintons obstructionist defense of define "is" and defining "know". Know has several meanings, as I pointed out. But this is just another red herring as you are infamous for throwing out to try and distract from the real thread of the conversation.

Let's recap. You said:

It was impossible that George Bush "first got to know Ken" after he became Governor, he and Lay were business partners as far back as 1986. Lay's company and Bush's company Spectrum 7/Harken were partners in multiple oil drilling ventures.

Which is an incredibly ignorant statement. Why? Well I have demonstrated several ways that it is completely true for Bush to say that he "first got to know Ken" after he became governor. You throw out irrelevant proof that their companies did business together on a few projects. That doesn't even prove that they ever met face to face even if true. And even if they had met face to face that still didn't mean that Bush considered himself very familiar with Lay. What's utterly moronic is how you persist in such blindly obtuse arguments when any semirational person would have conceded they were wrong and went on to bigger and better activities. However I honestly believe that if a Republican said the sky was blue you would argue to your dieing day that it was red. No amount of factual and scientific evidence coudl convince you. No amount of nonpartison witnesses could convince you. Only a democrat speaking would have a shot, and then I'd still wonder. In fact I highly doubt that you'd even concede the possibility that the sky could have been or ever could be blue.

The huge difference in Bush's statement versus Kerry's statement on Cambodia is that Kerry's statement is an objective fact. Either he was in a place or he wasn't at the time in question. It is fairly easily verified. Now with Bush it is very much a subjective issue. What one person might consider familiarity another might not. Some might consider it being familiar if you know the first and last names of a person and have shaken their hand at least once. But many would not consider that familiar. Further more the phrase "get to know" is a southern colloquial expression. Bush is well known for using these expressions. Getting to know would connote spending a good deal of time with and communicating with another. It would also mean learning what they are all about. How can you possibly prove that this took place prior to Bush taking office when it is such a subjective judgement? Certainly you can argue your opinion, but again that is really another red herring altogether. Because even if Bush was lying, it still is not equivalent to Kerry's lies. For lying about not having got to known Lay before 1994 would do nothing visible to enhance Bush's political position as Kerry's lie did. Kerry's lie promoted both his political standing and was used as evidence to promote legislation and legislative activities that he was promoting at the time. Further more Bush's statements about Lay are not related to any major piece of his campaign. Kerry has made his Vietnam service a key piece, most would say the centerpiece, of his campaign. But just for you, I'll simply say key. Key means important BTW. After all by your own admission in his important convention speech, he mention his Vietnam service equally with Iraq, education, and the environment.

[Mavdog]

It is fascinating to read your accusations of "red herring" while you are the one fishing out on the boat, but without a paddle or an oar, as your boat is sinking.

Not only did Lay and Bush do business together, they socialized. Not only did Lay become the largest single contributor to Bush's TX governor campaigns, he was a guest at the Governors Mansion and after becoming President a guest at the White House.

Of course, you may be "ignorant" and have people that you don't know stay at your house, or take tens of thousands of dollars from them without "knowing" them, have them become chairman of your father's orchestrated nomination convention which you spoke at, all without knowing them.

But all that history means nothing, while you pontificate about the varieties of how Dubya could have meant with his use of the word "know".

"is" redux indeed.

Red herring? sure, a red herring, facts in your eyes are the red herring while questions on how to define "know" are substance.

I am setting the record straight on the relationship between Lay and Bush, I never attempted to compare what Kerry did say to what Bush did say. That was Sturm as you seem to have failed to notice.

Did Bush lie? At the very least it was an attempt to minimize and cloak his relationship, an apparent loss of memory by George Bush when asked about his friend ken Lay. But of course george doesn't do that...just like he doesn't flip flop either.

One can hide from the facts such as you insist on doing, or one can see that George W. Bush had a relationship, knew from both a business and personal basis, the infamous Ken Lay. He knew him as a business partner, knew him as a family friend, knew him as a campaign contributor, knew him as a guest in his home, and later knew him as a consultant on this administration's energy policies.

Unfortunately for your attempts to place George Bush above this, knew Lay as an accused corporate thief who will soon stand before the judicial system to face the law for his apparent misdeeds. The largest bankruptcy in the history of the US, billions of billions of dollars stolen from people throughout America, empowered with the tools to accomplish this larceny by the republicans on FERC.

without a doubt George Bush knew Ken Lay. You can act like an ostrich and say it isn't so, but the facts are there nonetheless.

[LRB]

without a doubt George Bush knew Ken Lay. You can act like an ostrich and say it isn't so, but the facts are there nonetheless.

Mavdog, get a clue please. Just one is all I'm asking for. Bush said that he knew Lay. I concurred with that point. Bush explained when he 1st became familar with Lay, which was when Bush 1st became govenor. This would account for the times Lay visited Bush at the govenors mansion that you bring up. I don't know that this did occur, but since it contradicts nothing that Bush has said it would be pointless for me to verify you facts for the context of this argument. Of course it was pointless of you to add this in the 1st place.

As to Bush knowing Lay before he was govenor as more than a casual acquaintance at best has yet to be shown. Bush admits that as govenor that he came to know Lay better than as a mere acquaintance. Anything else is extremely loose conjecture at best and outright fabrication at worst on your part. That their companies did business together does not prove that the men ever met in person or even on the phone in relation to those joint business ventures. Your argument here has been stretched so thin as to be transparent.

So what dates, times, and places did Bush and Lay supposedly spend together in individual or small group intimate settings prior to Bush being elected govenor? You've yet to show any evidence approaching this level of detail. Until you do, you have nothing more than innuendo and gross conjecture.

[sturm und drang]

" Well, first of all, Ken Lay is a supporter. And I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the -- what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy.
This is -- what anybody's going to find, if -- is that this administration will fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy, to make sure we can learn from the past, and make sure that workers are protected. "

Nice try, but Bush is clearly referencing Lay's support for his PRESIDENTIAL candidacy. Which was undeniable.

He's still lying about who Lay supported in the 1994 gubernatorial race, still lying about when he got to know Ken Lay. He is doing everything within his grasp to distance himself from Lay – including lying.

It may not be the "centerpiece" of his campaign but a lie is a lie nevertheless. In fact, it's been all of you Kerry-crucifiers who are justifying your rabid excitement over Kerry's geographic location on a night in 1968 that use the "if he lies about small things like this, can we trust him to not lie on the larger issues?" rubric.

By that standard, you have to question good ol' George W. as well.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

As to Bush knowing Lay before he was govenor as more than a casual acquaintance at best has yet to be shown. Bush admits that as govenor that he came to know Lay better than as a mere acquaintance. Anything else is extremely loose conjecture at best and outright fabrication at worst on your part. That their companies did business together does not prove that the men ever met in person or even on the phone in relation to those joint business ventures. Your argument here has been stretched so thin as to be transparent.

So what dates, times, and places did Bush and Lay supposedly spend together in individual or small group intimate settings prior to Bush being elected govenor? You've yet to show any evidence approaching this level of detail. Until you do, you have nothing more than innuendo and gross conjecture.

I posted the link above to the corresponance while Bush was Governor.
To throw out a claim that I've not shown "any evidence" after detailing their business links, their working together on the Houston Convention, that Lay wa a guest in not only Dubya's home but also his father's and while his father was in the White House, well, you just don't listen.

Here, take a look at this. As Dubya calls Lay an "old friend" in April, 1997, ends with "your younger friend", clearly there's a long relationship. Can't wait to see how you dismiss this like everything else,,,

I sure don't call someone I don't "know" an "old friend." Do you?

Bush letter to Lay

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
" Well, first of all, Ken Lay is a supporter. And I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the -- what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy.
This is -- what anybody's going to find, if -- is that this administration will fully investigate issues such as the Enron bankruptcy, to make sure we can learn from the past, and make sure that workers are protected. "

Nice try, but Bush is clearly referencing Lay's support for his PRESIDENTIAL candidacy. Which was undeniable.

He's still lying about who Lay supported in the 1994 gubernatorial race, still lying about when he got to know Ken Lay. He is doing everything within his grasp to distance himself from Lay – including lying.

It may not be the "centerpiece" of his campaign but a lie is a lie nevertheless. In fact, it's been all of you Kerry-crucifiers who are justifying your rabid excitement over Kerry's geographic location on a night in 1968 that use the "if he lies about small things like this, can we trust him to not lie on the larger issues?" rubric.

By that standard, you have to question good ol' George W. as well.

Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

1st of all Bush had a reelection campaign in 1998 before his run for the presidency. I'm sure Lay supported him in that campaign which is what I took Bush's reference to mean. Of course it could mean that Lay supported him in his presidential campaign or both. Either way I don't see where Bush is lying there, unless you can prove that Lay DIDN'T support Bush.

Again, financial records show that Lay and/or his wife did support Ann Richards with a 5 figure financial contribution for the 1994 gubernatorial campaign. That alone meets the definition that he supported Richards. However Lay was appointed to a position in Richards administration and serving therein during the 1994 election. This too could be construed as support. Who did Lay publicly give his endorsement to or did he publicly endorse either candidate? I've seen nothing to indicate either way. Still Bush was speaking of his perception of who Lay supported. I don't see how Bush would be distancing himself for Lay by announcing that Lay supported him for political office. Maybe because he said Lay also supported a democrat, Ann Richards for public office? But evidence has been posted which points to the strong, actually much more than strong, probability that Lay did contribute financially to Richards campaign. We do know for a fact of public record that Richards did appoint Lay to a position in her administration and Bush admits to continuing that appointment.

Apparently your partisanship is causing you to add on to Bush's words, instead of taking them at face value. You have the assumption that he made this statement to distance himself from Ken Lay and therefore he lied to enhance his position. However you have to read in a lot of implied statements and narrow interpretations while ignoring other interpretations to arrive at any semblance of a lie. And still you don't account for any honest misrecollection on Bush's part when answers an impromptu question by an appartently argumentative reporter. This contracts highly with Kerry's planned statement about his location being seared into his memory.

Now it is quite possible that Bush has told an obvious lie on public record. This however is not an obvious lie and can only be viewed as such under the fine microscopic view of democratic partisanship.

[LRB]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: LRB

I posted the link above to the corresponance while Bush was Governor.
To throw out a claim that I've not shown "any evidence" after detailing their business links, their working together on the Houston Convention, that Lay wa a guest in not only Dubya's home but also his father's and while his father was in the White House, well, you just don't listen.

Here, take a look at this. As Dubya calls Lay an "old friend" in April, 1997, ends with "your younger friend", clearly there's a long relationship. Can't wait to see how you dismiss this like everything else,,,

I sure don't call someone I don't "know" an "old friend." Do you?

Bush letter to Lay

Mavdog are you really this stupid or are you just trying to be a jerk? Did you read that letter that you posted the link about? Did you seen when it was dated? It was dated April 14th, 1997. That was well into Bush's tenure as govenor and after the time frame where he claimed to have got to know Lay. So it confirms that they had a friendly and cordial relationship as Bush declared. Perhaps if it was dated April 14th, 1987, you might have something there. As it is now all you have is egg on your face.

[Mavdog]

LMAO. just who is "stupid" and who is the "jerk"? my view says that it's you.

Sure, Bush was 1 year into his first term as guv....that's why "old friend" means so much. hmm, he says that he "got to know" Lay after he became governor, yet here a personal letter is with the phrase "old friend". A months long relationship isn't called "old" by any stretch of one's imagination. Bush even references his familiarity with Lay's wife, another clear example of their close relationship.

"Eyes wide shut" starring LRB in the lead role....wearing that egg he speaks about.

Clearly when presented with the evidence you are going to continue with you denial. deny on, but you're wrong.

Any rational person can see that the relationship betwen Lay and Bush was warm and existed before he became governor.

[LRB]

Bush even references his familiarity with Lay's wife, another clear example of their close relationship.

Gosh Mavdog I guess you're right. Bush couldn't have possibly learned the name of Lay's wife in a couple of years or so. Any one know that takes decades to do that. I mean honestly have you ever heard of any friends who learned the names of each other's wifes in such a short time. It's like a good friend of mine that I know probably for a oh 3 or 4 minutes before he told me his wife's names. In fact I learn the name of people's wife's names all the time, many who I don't even know that well.

Now as to the use of the word "old", Bush wasn't given a factual description of his realationship with Lay. He was writing a brief birthday greeting and using a play on words. You're straing at a knat Mavdog. And any rationale person with any intellect at all would clearly see this as no proof at all as to whether a deep releationship had existed before Bush became govenor.

BTW thanks for showing your intellectual capacity in determing that Bush was in his 1st year of office in April of 1997. Let's see Bush was elected in Novemeber of 1994. Took office in January 1995 I believe. That would make it his 3rd year in office, having recently completed his 2nd. Even if Bush didn't take office until later in April of 1995 it would still be almost to the end of his second year in office and much closer to the 3rd year than the 2nd.

Reeds you don't have a leg to stand on and yet you persist with this asinine argument. Surely you can find something of more substance to criticize Bush on that this contrived crap that fails to hold the smallest drop of water. I mean Bush isn't perfect. But making up this sensely garbage is juvenille and quite frankly stupid. All you do is shoot yourself in the foot with every post. 1st you post a letter as proof that occured more than 2 years into Bush's 1st term as govenor and say it shows proof that Bush knew Lay. Then I call you on it and you say because Bush knew Lay's wife's name that it's proof. But any idiot knows it only takes a minute or less to learn the name of a man's wife. Of and Bush tries to make a funny, and not a great one IMO ( maybe you should criticize him on not being funny here), on a play of words and you jump on that play as proof. Even if Bush was descibing the relaitonship between him and Lay, certainly 2 years is more than enough for some people, maybe not you, but some people to characterize someone as an old as in longtime friend. Hell I recently lost a good friend to death who I knew less than 2 years and I would have characterized as an old friend. You have nothing along this line to show that Bush lied. Bush freely admits that he got to know Lay and that they had a relationship closer than mere acquatiences. This is a pathetic line of arguement on your part.

[Mavdog]

Your excuses are just that, excuses.

Arguing the meaning of the word "old" after attempts to define "know".

yawn.

The Emporer has no clothes...

[Murphy3]

As someone that IS undecided as to who I will be voting for, I must say that the democrats, in general, do an embarrassingly poor job on this site of backing up their opinions with few exceptions. I must say that much of that probably has to do with how difficult it is to back up much of what Kerry has said and done.

Yes, there's a couple of posters that do have an exception when it comes to my last statement...

[sturm und drang]

If you simply can't admit that Bush told two little white lies here to distance himself from Ken Lay and the Enron debacle... sigh.

The evidence is right in front of you. Even the Dallas Morning News – a staunchly, staunchly Republican paper – called him out on it. Fer chrissakes.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
If you simply can't admit that Bush told two little white lies here to distance himself from Ken Lay and the Enron debacle... sigh.

The evidence is right in front of you. Even the Dallas Morning News – a staunchly, staunchly Republican paper – called him out on it. Fer chrissakes.

The evidence is hardly compelling. I see nothing to show that Lay did not support Richards in the 1994 elections. In fact I see evidence that he did. I see nothing but highly ambigious references to show that Bush and Lay's level of relationship was not in harmony with the characterization that Bush described it as. Sure there are some narrow interpretations which would result in viewing Bush as lying, but there are just as many if not much more that would result in him telling the truth. It all boils down to subjective interpretations of statemtents made by Bush. And since you yourself term them as "white" or harmless lies, if they are indeed lies, I don't even see the point of making an issue of something so trivial. But if this is the best that can be found by the Democrats of Bush lying in official communications, speachs, pronouncements, etc. during his political career; then Bush must be the most honest politician that I've ever heard of. This accusation speaks more against Bush's opponents than against Bush. To but it mildly, this is one of the weakest political accusations that I have ever heard of. If this is all you got, then you've got nothing.

[sturm und drang]

LRB wrote:

"And since you yourself term them as "white" or harmless lies, if they are indeed lies, I don't even see the point of making an issue of something so trivial."

Oh, so where John Kerry was on Christmas Eve in 1968 is critical, but Bush's relationship to the villanous mastermind behind the biggest corporate scandal in American history isn't.

Okey dokey.