Watch shameless Ted Cruz lie again


The ability of people who are seeking to run for the US presidency to lie so brazenly never ceases to amaze me. At the risk of beating a dead horse, here is another example of how some Republican presidential candidates simply make stuff up and are not at all embarrassed at being called on it. In fact, they have turned the response to being caught lying into an art form.

In this interview, Chris Wallace of Fox News challenges Ted Cruz about two assertions that he made about Obamacare during the debate last Thursday. Wallace produces numbers that show that Cruz’s statements are flat out wrong. Watch Cruz do the usual two-step when confronted with a lie: first say that the people who produced the facts that contradict him are biased and lying, and then try to shift the topic to another one.

But nothing embarrasses Cruz, either being caught in a lie or trying to shame voters into attending the caucuses by accusing them of a fictitious ‘voting violation’ charge because they did not take part in previous caucuses.

Comments

  1. says

    another example of how some Republican presidential candidates simply make stuff up

    I voted for Obama because he said he’d get us out of Afghanistan and close Gitmo. They all lie. They all simply make stuff up.

  2. lorn says

    Evangelical Christians made the difference in Iowa. Figures, evangelicals are quite used to being lied to as long as the lie is what they want to hear. He played them like a fiddle.

  3. Who Cares says

    @Marcus Ranum(#1):
    Did he say he would accomplish both of those objectives or that he would try to accomplish those?
    And yes I know that that is sheer sophistry but knowing how Obama has been going on in his speeches I seriously expect the latter.

  4. Johnny Vector says

    Marcus, do you not see a difference between

    (A) saying “I’ll do x” and then not spending all your political energy on that when the other party blocks every attempt you make, and

    (B) saying “Y’s policies caused Z” when it’s obvious with 30 seconds of checking that Y’s policies can’t possibly have done that because Z is not a true statement?

    For me, failing to achieve your goals is a completely different beast from lying about verifiable reality.

    A closer comparison would be Obama’s promise to be the most transparent administration ever. He had a lot of control over that, and just didn’t do it. So that’s a third type of lie: Promising you’ll do something and then not even trying. I would argue that is still not as bad as lying about objective reality, since the latter undermines the very basis of civilized life.

  5. StevoR says

    Seems the lies have been working for Cruz so far :

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-02/iowa-caucuses-trump-white-house-campaign-faces-first-test/7132486

    Cruz has won the Iowa cork-arse thing ahead of Trump & Rubio.

    Hillary Clinton has narrowly won over Bernie Sanders.

    Huckabee & O’Malley are now both officially out not that either ever stood any chance anyhow.

    Round 1 out of fifty odd rounds done. Wa-aay too many still to go. Yeesh, can’t you Americans have elections like most democratic nations with all your states voting at the same time and in much less than a year? Oh yeah, primaries. pre-election elections. Fuck’s sake. Anyone else got the feeling its going to be an awful long year politics~wise? (Oh & FWIW, I’m calling it now; Hillary vs some disgusting Republican douche and Hillary wins by metaphorical Astronomical Units.)

  6. StevoR says

    @Marcus Ranum : “I voted for Obama because he said he’d get us out of Afghanistan and close Gitmo. They all lie.”

    Er, hang on sec. Pretty sure Obama did get the US out of Afghanistan and end the Iraq war too.

    At least that first one and the second for a while before Da’esh emerged. When the facts change I change my opinion, sir” as the saying goes.

    As for Gitmo, well, firstly I vaguely recall somewhere and somehow that Obama tried to do so or at least wanted to do so but found it wan’t that easy. For the second, what do you do with all the terrorists there? Let e’m go? Try em in the US which has proven problematic? Execute the lot of them? Or what? Thirdly, Obama’s strategy has shifted to one in the main of take no prisoners use those UAVs instead. Not sure you like that better do you? But what else do you do in Obama’s place and with a set in stone first priority (which may not be yours be is the POTUS’es almost by definition -of costing the least in US lives and stopping potential terrorist attacks on Americans.)

    Anyhow, here’s the thing, people choose to be Jihadist terrorists and choose to go down that route in life with ( now – & really back then too) the clear idea of where its gonna lead. Hint : Jihadist terrrorism = not a good career choice nor people that deserve all that much sympathy. Have you ever read or thought about what they’d do to you as well as me and millions of other targets given their chance? These Jihadist terrorists in Gitmo are douchebags exponentionally multiplied many times over.

  7. StevoR says

    Argh. Typos and italics fails and no editing ability; grr ..

    For clarity :

    But what else do you do if you are in Obama’s place and thus have a set in stone first priority (which may not be *_yours_* but which is the _*POTUS’es*_ almost by definition) of choosing the course that costing the least in US – your people and citizens – lives and stopping potential terrorist attacks on Americans. (And others too.)

  8. Reginald Selkirk says

    “historically low growth rate since 2008”

    You don’t suppose that Republicans deciding to cut government spending and impede the stimulus through the “sequester” had anything to do with that?

    “The rich are getting richer while average people haven’t benefited”

    And the solution to this is to vote in Republicans? Bwa ha ha.

  9. says

    Who Cares@#3:
    Did he say he would accomplish both of those objectives or that he would try to accomplish those?

    Aug 2, 2007:
    “As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”*

    “President Obama responsibly ended the war in Iraq and will end the war in Afghanistan in 2014.”**
    [Obama’s campaign platform document]

    The way you ask that question implies that you’re accepting a certain amount of lying or bending of the words, so I chose the clearest possible statements. There are plenty more, including ones that are a bit more weaselly. Liar Obama knew his audience would wrap their brains around the bill of goods he sold them, once they started to realize that how thoroughly they were played.

    (*http://www.cfr.org/elections/obamas-speech-woodrow-wilson-center/p13974)
    (**https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/557608-issues-an-economy-built-to-last-barack-obama.html#document/p3/a86841)

  10. says

    SteveoR:
    But what else do you do if you are in Obama’s place and thus have a set in stone

    I wouldn’t get in that place, because I wouldn’t lie about what I was going to do. So I don’t really know what I’d do if I woke up and found myself in Obama’s situation. There you go with the presupposition again: Hey, Marcus, assuming you were a lying weasel, would you lie?

  11. says

    Obama did get the US out of Afghanistan and end the Iraq war too

    If you want to be precise about it, the Iraqis ended the war in Iraq, by not renewing the US occupation force’s license to occupy(tm). Obama did not exercise courage getting the US out; he (probably deliberately) fumbled negotiations to trigger the US to be forced to withdraw. Be that as it may, he did get US forces out of Iraq for a year or two… They’re back in, of course:
    http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-us-special-forces-engage-isis-for-first-time-inflict-heavy-casualties/
    Special forces are ‘training’ Iraqi in a “non-combat” role just like they did in Vietnam (i.e.: in a combat role)

    Current US troop levels in Afghanistan are ~10,000 or so. At a minimum. That’s about the size of the Swedish army. But it sure as fuck isn’t a “withdrawal”

    I don’t expect Obama to tell the truth any more than I believe that the US is a democracy. I just find it distasteful that people are pointing and jeering at the republicans for being a bunch of lying fucks, when their guy is also a lying fuck. And, in case you didn’t get the memo, Hillary Clinton’s gonna lie like fuck, when she becomes president, because she’s already demonstrated an amazing propensity for broad-scale lying.

  12. says

    PS –
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-airstrikes-idUSKCN0VB1PZ
    Yes, we are still in Iraq. We’ve just arranged it so that we can bomb with impunity and have special forces run around and kill people, but don’t have any of the responsibility for building a stable society or supporting a government. That was such a headache!! Obama was clever enough not to take that on his plate.

    So, if by “out of Iraq” you mean “shuffled off all responsibility for outcomes in Iraq” yeah, we’re out of Iraq.

  13. Jockaira says

    #7 StevoR says

    Compose your comment in a word-processer file. When satisfied, copy/past, not cut/paste. This commentor interface is unreliable when dealing with long comments or long time intervals after initiation.

    There are few things more frustating than spending 15-20 minutes on composing a gem of a comment complete with finely honed phrasings and biting humour, and then to lose it with the single click on an option key. If you have copied instead of cut, then you can at least try again without a great investment in retyping what might be an entirely different comment after losing your train of thought.

    Good Luck!

  14. says

    Obama as president made me worry about Trudeau as prime minister. Obama’s FISA vote was a signal to many that he wasn’t going to be quite the president that many progressives and liberals seemed to be talking about and expecting him to be, and sure enough he wasn’t (though some of his recent work, like with Iran, seems to him finally living up to those ideals (and maybe it’s because I’m an outsider because I never expected him to be the uniter that many were expecting because I’ve been watching your right wing and no president will likely be able to unite your country again in our lifetimes)).
    When Trudeau voted in favour of Bill C-51 I figured great, now we’re getting Obama 2.0. It’s so much nicer to be pleasantly and happily surprised than disappointed.

  15. sonofrojblake says

    @SteveoR, 6:

    These Jihadist terrorists in Gitmo are douchebags

    How has this “fact” been established? Certainly not by anything approaching due process of law.

  16. Holms says

    I truly believe StevoR’s reasoning is precisely this shallow:
    – People get taken to Guantanamo Bay because they are terrorists.
    – The people that are in Guantanamo Bay are in Guantanamo Bay and are therefore terrorists.

  17. janiceintoronto says

    Yo’ Marcus!

    So if Trump wins (GOD FORBID!) we aren’t going to get a wall?
    Man, that makes me so bummed.
    I was looking forward to that wall.
    It would make Canada a safer place.

  18. lorn says

    Campaign promises are always, at best, statements of intent. To think otherwise is to clearly announce that you really have no idea of how this divided government thing works. The presidency is not a dictatorship, the other two branches have a lot of levers of control and no amount of threat, sweet talk, or appeals to the good of the nation can make a party dead set on obduracy cooperate.

    In the old days there were earmarks and executive control over the military, along with a few other mechanism, that might be used to raise the cost of non-cooperation, if not actually force compliance.

    As far as the decision to withdrawal went, Obama didn’t bungle anything in Iraq. He didn’t have anything to do with it. W presented the Iraqi government with a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) and the Iraqi government refused to sign. This was done entirely under the W administration and the decision to leave was entirely a W administration move. When Obama took office the move was well under way and Obama simply allowed the evolution to proceed unimpeded.

    The SOFA is considered the cornerstone of any military action undertaken in a friendly nation. It establishes that the US forces are there at the request of the nation and defines the limits to their presence in terms of size and composition of the force and defines the limits of permissible actions in terms of actions, weapons, locations. It also establishes the legal basis for US forces in country in terms of command, legal liability, mechanisms for prosecution and/or compensation for any damages or crimes.

    Typical provisions establish that US forces are not under command of the Iraqi military. That US forces operate under the US military justice system instead of Iraqi law and that prosecution, punishment or compensation will be through the existing US military justice system.

    Without a SOFA the US forces are essentially aliens with undefined legal status. Think, tourists with guns.

    Second, Gitmo – Obama had a plan to close the detention center down. As many people as possible would be shipped to cooperative nations. Some, those seeming to pose no threat, would be release to country of origin. Those not yet convicted would be give a trial. those convicted would be shipped off to third party nations or moved to the US military prison system.

    Congress went out of their way to prevent closure of Gitmo detention. They told the administration they couldn’t negotiate with certain states, that non could be released without a personal guarantee and onerous screening process, and transfers into the US, in many cases anywhere else, were systematically and comprehensively blocked. This is primarily politics designed to embarrass Obama by not allowing him to fulfill his promise, and based upon the people here willing to cite it as a lie, the propaganda tactic worked.

    The bottom line here is that Obama can’t close the detention center at Gitmo because the congress won’t let him.

    Most of this comes down to sheer ignorance as to how the three branches of government work, or fail to work, together. The presidency is not a Green Lantern ring or power:

    http://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/the-green-lantern-theory-of-the-presidency-explained

  19. StevoR says

    @ Jockaira : Thanks. That’s certainly a good idea and a wise way to post comments.

    @15. sonofrojblake : “How has this “fact” (These Jihadist terrorists in Gitmo are douchebags -ed.) been established? Certainly not by anything approaching due process of law.”

    Being a Jihadist terrorist by definition makes you a douchebag because a terrorist is someone who seeks to terrify innocent people and entire populations into to achieve political aims and Jihadists are waging a holy war specifically for Islam. These – deliberately targeting innocent non-military people and seeking to frighten others into giving you what you want and waging any sort of war to impose any religion against the wishes of others – are both incredibly douchey things to do being unfair and evil by definition.

    Also there have indeed been some successful trials and judgments from Gitmo such as the conviction of Australian Jihadist David Hicks. The problem has come in some court judgments and the actions of some lawyers who have made trials harder to hold elsewhere e.g. on US soil and courts than they need to be.

    @16. Holms :

    I truly believe StevoR’s reasoning is precisely this shallow:
    – People get taken to Guantanamo Bay because they are terrorists.
    – The people that are in Guantanamo Bay are in Guantanamo Bay and are therefore terrorists.

    There’s more to it than that although both those premises there would be correct. I also understand unlike some here that the US (& other) military and counter-terrorist agencies are NOT complete idiots and so do know who they are doing and holding and that exhaustive interrogations have actually revealed facts and identities and have shown that those being held are indeed terrorists.

    If you wish to argue the extraordinary case to the contrary and suggest the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammad etc ..are actually not terrorists when for instance that individual has proudly boasted of being the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks and the deaths of three thousand or so innocent people then the burden of proof -and coming up with the required extraordinary evidence to support your claims is on you, Holms.

    Also, Holms, what would you do with those currently in Gitmo who are clearly known to be the worst of the worst terrorist scumbags? Would you just let them out to go onto kill more people? If not what -assuming lawyers have made it impossible for them to get usual US trials which seems to be the case.

    Again, remember here that the Jihadist terrorists in Gitmo are there by their own choice – that own choice being their earlier decision to become Jihadist terrorists rather than doing something better with their lives.

    Incidentally, Holms, why is it that you keep taking the side of and speaking in support of these known Jihadist terrorists like you’ve done here for the ones in Gitmo? Why too do you keep insisting that you know better than properly briefed, trained and experienced military and counter-terrorist experts in this area?

  20. John Morales says

    Being a Jihadist terrorist by definition makes you a douchebag because a terrorist is someone who seeks to terrify innocent people and entire populations into to achieve political aims and Jihadists are waging a holy war specifically for Islam.

    […]

    Also, Holms, what would you do with those currently in Gitmo who are clearly known to be the worst of the worst terrorist scumbags?

    Look upon what you write, StevoR.

    (I’m sure that Ted Cruz would entirely endorse your claims)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *