935 bye-byes
935 reasons all in a line.
All of them good ones...
All of them lies.
(apologies to Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young)
How should we as citizens react to this?
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
If we react with a yawn, will it mean that we've come to accept an even lower standard from our leaders? Just how badly does a president have to betray the public trust before they're held accountable? How can anyone, even righties, argue that this is no big deal, even if you accept the laughable premise that Bush and the rest were all completely sincere? What kind of message will doing nothing sent to future pols?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 1/24/2008
10 comments
10 Comments:
It means that most citizens think this is another paid for fraud study by the Soros gang...you know kind of like the one where they lied about all the "innocents" killed in Iraq before the 2004 election.
Bush always said that he was relying on intelligence estimates, and while he was doing that, Blair was saying the same thing, Howard was saying the same thing, Chirac was saying the same thing, oh and so was Clinton, Daschle and Kerry.
So basically we're in the same position as before, our intelligence was flawed and wrong.
I don't understand this story - "935 lies." This is such old news and quite dishonest.
This story, from a 'non-for-profit' partisan group, revolves around the old story of WMD's. So, you think that the WMD's story is a lie. Good for you.
This is not 935-lies, this is one 'lie'.
One lie that every intelligence agency in the world agreed with.
One lie that every Congressional leader agreed with.
One lie that every Presidential candidate agreed with.
One lie that former President Clinton and former Secretary of State, Albright, stated many times BEFORE the Bush Administration ever stated this.
If liberals are dumb enough to buy into this story, well, then you are dumb enough to believe that Hillary is 'change.'
Anon and Andrew in particular.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
You're STILL trying to excuse Bush for this bullshit? This gigantic pre-meditated lie that has killed 3000 American troops and brought the country to the brink of economic downfall?
And you're STILL trying to excuse this lying scum and all the rest who CLEARLY ignored all evidence to the contrary and instead exagerated shaky data that supported their views, while deep 6ing reports that didn't, and continued to LIE about them even after it was revealed to not be true??
Wow. Talk about drinking the Kool Ade... you've got it BAD.
And I have no idea what connection Soros has with this group, but even if he did support it financially, this means that the report is made up...... how?
Does this allow you, in your borderline feeble mental proceseses to instantly dismiss it all as if these DOCUMENTED lies simply never happened? As if the fact that every single one of them was uttered by the person the report said it was uttered by, when they say it was uttered, and where?
In other words, the fact that some group actually took the time to count all these lies, lies that are ON THE RECORD, that somehow the lies don't exist because someone you don't like may have provided financial support to the group?
Don't be ridiculous. Facts are facts. If you think Bush and Cheney didn't actually say what they said, then say so. You'd be dead wrong, and provably wrong, but go ahead and dispute the findings if you think they're wrong.
The fact is that you can't. It's got nothing to do with partisanship, it's simply because you don't like the truth.
And to suggest that EVERYONE believed the lies that Bush/Cheney et. al. were spewing is itself simply untrue.
Gee, our only two real allies in this mess produced intel that jived with ours. What a miracle, eh?
Meanwhile, there's evidence all over the place that no one really believed it. Remember the Downing St. memo from a top British intel official which clearly stated that the U.S. was "fixing" it's intel to support the invasion they'd been planning on since before Bush was even in office?
What about the European intel that pointed out that "Curveball", the supposed Iraqi insider that the administration relied on almost entirely for fictitious reports of "mobile chemical labs" and all the rest, that this key source was nothing but a drunken nobody and shouldn't be believed by any sane person?
What about all the phony intel from that crook that we installed as top dog in Iraq, the exile Chelabi or whatever his name was? He was a fraud and felon wanted in Jordan for millions in bank fraud, and we let this guy lead us around by the nose because he was saying crap that BUSH and Co. wanted to peddle to us!
The guy was a complete and utter fraud, and everyone knew it. Now you're trying to say Bush and Cheney were such nitwits and so gullible that they took us to war based on this sort of crap?
Get real. They knew what they wanted to do, which was invade Iraq and topple Sadaam, OK? They were going to do it no matter what the hell WE thought, and no matter what the hell the rest of the world thought.
They only had to game the intel to try to convince us Iraq was a big hairy imminent threat, and that's exactly what they did.
There's dozens of books on the subject written by figures who were INVOLVED in all this, for God's sake! Don't you read?
Ah, I don't know why I even bother. You would try to excuse Bush if he was caught in bed with a dead 10 year old boy.
Dope, talk about 'drinking the kool-aid' -
What about all the comments that Bill Clinton made in 1998-1999-2000and 2001.
And those made by Secretary of State Albright in 1998-1999 and 2000.
These comments were all made far before GW Bush. All had to do with the same WMD's, the Iraqi threat, etc.
Why do you always insist upon looking past facts that do not line up with your line of (thinking?) propoganda?
None of those people advocated a military invasion, and none of them stated catagorically over and over, as did this gang, that Iraq possessed WMDs.
Get over it. You're on the wrong side of history.
WHAT????
Please, lose the revisionist history buddy.
Clinton and Albright were all over the WMD issue. They threatened military action continually - specifically February 1998.
Check the record partner. I know that you really want to believe the 'Bush-lied' rant, but the Clinton Administration was all over that long before.
In addition, check the 60-minutes website. There is a story about the agent that interviewed Sadam 5-hours a day, for 7-months. Sadam admitted to him that the WMD-issue was a 'smokescreen' that he overexagerated to his own benefit.
He admits that he had limited WMD's, but that he exagerated from that point - and the world bought into it.
Talk about a Kool-Aid drinker. You hear, "Bush lied" and every piece of real information just leaves your mind.
Thanks for proving my point.
There was never any intention to launch an invasion to take out Saddaam without any solid evidence of any threat. Period.
Secondly, you point out that Sadaaam wasn't going to go out of his way to disabuse anyone of the notion that he had WMDs. Well DUH!
But the fact remains that the UN inspectors were doing a thorough and complete job of determining whether or not he did, and were already signalling that there simply weren't the amount or scope of WMDs that Bush and Cheney were constantly trumpeting.
They were already releasing their findings, and it went directly against the lies that Bush was pimping, so Bush simply short-circuited the entire process, forced them out of Iraq, and started bombing.
To sit there and believe like some child that Bush truly thought he was defending this country and had no choice but to invade a country that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9-11 is just that, child-like.
But you stick with it. History and facts are already showing how wrong you are.
Sorry bud, but we attacked Iraq because Sadam would not let in the inspectors. We were unable to prove the intelligence right or wrong, because he did not allow inspection - in VIOLATION of UN SANCTIONS.
I'd love to debate this with you further, but DEMOCRATS even voted to attack Iraq because we were not allowed to inspect.
I am quite certain that you will debate that somehow.
And the fact that the Bush Administration said the same things that the Clinton Administration said about WMD's - means that the Bush Administration 'lied' - yet, (I suspect) the Clinton Administration did not?
Well Andrew, I'd just like to send you along with the fact that you're flat out wrong about the inspectors. You really ought to read some contemporary accounts... or even better yet, read some of what members of the inspection team themselves have documented.
Sadaam did NOT "kick out" the inspectors. That was yet another Bush lie and twisting of facts.
They were in Iraq for many months and were making good progress. The Iraqis suddenly raised a complaint that the inspection team were actually U.S. spies and tried to deny them access to some sites.
Unfortunately, as is documented, the CIA HAD placed agents into the U.N. team, which jeopardized the entire operation.
But the inspection team continued and were working and making progress, though not finding what Bush wanted them to find.
The inspectors did not leave Iraq until they were ordered to leave in advance of the U.S. invasion.
Get your history straight. And here's a tip. DO NOT rely on Bush administration spin for your historical facts. Any fool knows that's not exactly a reliable source.
Well Andrew, I'd just like to send you along with the fact that you're flat out wrong about the inspectors. You really ought to read some contemporary accounts... or even better yet, read some of what members of the inspection team themselves have documented.
Sadaam did NOT "kick out" the inspectors. That was yet another Bush lie and twisting of facts.
They were in Iraq for many months and were making good progress. The Iraqis suddenly raised a complaint that the inspection team were actually U.S. spies and tried to deny them access to some sites.
Unfortunately, as is documented, the CIA HAD placed agents into the U.N. team, which jeopardized the entire operation.
But the inspection team continued and were working and making progress, though not finding what Bush wanted them to find.
The inspectors did not leave Iraq until they were ordered to leave in advance of the U.S. invasion.
Get your history straight. And here's a tip. DO NOT rely on Bush administration spin for your historical facts. Any fool knows that's not exactly a reliable source.
The idea that Clinton said the exact same thing as Bush is yet another complete myth that apparently you and many others have swallowed.
Clinton talked tough about Sadaam, and was keeping a close eye on him, as he should have.
But beyond some sabre-rattling, that was it.
He wasn't brazenly stupid and reckless enough to just charge in and take over a soverign country without a shred of proof that they posed any threat whatsoever.
Even Colin Powell had clearly stated not long before Bush got hot for war that Sadaam was clearly "contained", and didn't pose a threat.
I could even quote a certain Dick Cheney as saying, in discussing why he and Bush Sr. hadn't gone all the way and taken down Sadaam that to do so would be incredibly stupid and destabilizing.
So, cling to your revisionist version of events if it still allows you to delude yourself into thinking Bush is anything but a shallow and arrogant punk who presided over one of the most precipitous nose-dives in our countries history, economically, globally, and socially.
The sad and difficult truth is, that yes, Bush in fact WAS and IS just as bad as it seems.
Go ahead and believe your lying eyes. It's ok now.
Post a Comment
<< Home