[I'm not sure I've got this quotation thing working right, so in case it isn't...this is me responding to the call to show ONE Bush lie]
I have no illusions that my response will satisfy anyone who thinks Bush is God's perfect little angel who never lies or makes a mistake. We can play semantic games until we are blue in the face about whether something is a "lie," a "slant" or merely "misleading." But here goes. Foregoing the obvious choices of WMD or Iraq-Al Queda connections; sidestepping more politically acceptable (but no less reprehensible) manipulations of statistics; avoiding the usual failed delivery on a campaign promise or twenty, here's ONE lie for Bush:
In pushing Congress to pass its controversial Medicare bill, President Bush promised that "corporations have no intention to what they call 'dump retirees'"[Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 10/29/03] from their existing prescription drug coverage. But Bush's own health officials estimate that millions will be cut off from their existing drug coverage because of the new Medicare law. According to government documents obtained by the New York Times, the Bush Administration now estimates "that employers will reduce or eliminate prescription drug benefits for 3.8 million retirees when Medicare offers such coverage in 2006." That represents one-third of all the retirees with employer-sponsored drug coverage. Medicare's new benefits are often less comprehensive than those offered by employers. ["Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees," New York Times]
Arguably, the President is also responsible for the lies of his administration, so here's TWO that go to Cheney and his relationship with Halliburton:
Vice President Dick Cheney has repeatedly assured Americans that he has positively no involvement in directing billions of taxpayer dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton, his former employer. In September of 2003, he told NBC's Meet the Press that his office has "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts."["Cheney denies role in Iraq deal", The Boston Globe, 9/15/2003] In January of 2004, he told Fox News Radio, "I don't have anything to do with the contracting process, and I wouldn't know how to manipulate the process if I wanted to." ["Cheney faults 'desperate' attacks on Halliburton", CNN.com, 1/23/2004] But, according to new evidence, Cheney's office "coordinated"["Cheney Coordinated Halliburton Iraq Contract: Report", Common Dreams News Center, 5/31/2004] the Halliburton contracts and had the Pentagon specifically seek its input in constructing what ultimately became a multi-billion-dollar contract. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon discussed a $1.9 million planning contract with "senior Bush administration officials, including the Vice President's Chief of Staff"["White House Officials and Cheney Aide Approved Halliburton Contract in Iraq, Pentagon Says", The New York Times, 6/14/2004] before inking the deal. According to the Los Angeles Times, three companies were vying for the lucrative contract which was seen as the precursor to a much larger, $7 billion contract. But instead of following the normal competitive civil service contracting process, the Times reports that Bush administration political appointees overruled the advice of Army lawyers and simply gave Halliburton the contract.["Appointee's Role in Halliburton Pact Told", Los Angeles Times,6/14/2004] That decision was then brought to Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who reviewed the contract and raised no objections to the non-competitive process.
Cheney has denied having any financial stake in Halliburton receiving massive government contracts, claiming, "I severed my ties nearly four years ago when I ran for Vice President."["VP Interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN", WhiteHouse.gov, 3/2/2004] But Cheney still receives about $150,000 a year in deferred compensation from Halliburton["Contract Sport", The New Yorker, 2/9/2004] and still owns about 433,000 company stock options["Halliburton asks employees to help defend company", CNN.com, 10/25/2003]; options which could become more valuable as the company's revenues rise. That fact was enough to lead the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to bill Cheney's continued financial ties a "potential conflict of interest."["Cheney may still have Halliburton ties", CNNmoney.com, 9/25/2003] And yet despite all these questions, the Bush administration's allies formally blocked any testimony from Halliburton employees about the matter.["Whistle-blowers say Halliburton rife with waste", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/15/2004] Specifically, when Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) presented a slate of witnesses to the House Government Reform Committee, they were prevented from appearing by Republicans. That move led Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to demand the appointment of a special counsel to independently investigate the situation. ["Senator Seeks Halliburton Special Counsel", Reuters, 6/14/2004]
Have at it, then. I am sure this is all just liberal bias or opinion masked as journalism or partisan bickering. I only ask that when you newspeak these lies into "innocent misunderstandings" or "liberal spin" you test your alleged "Kerry Lies" with the same bulls**t detector.
