Bush Lied, People Died
Jan 23
This seems fairly definitive:
A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
Hundreds of false statements. Hundreds. They were so desperate for their war that they made hundreds of false statements. 935 in a two year period, according the study. That is 1.28 lies per day in the service of the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in American history. None of them were about a blow job, though, so I guess that makes it all right. They are the kind of people that the Villagers admire, so what’s a lie and a quarter a day for two years leading to thousands upon thousands of deaths?
And why, pray tell, should we listen to a thing this Administration says about foreign policy? If they lied almost a thousand times to get their war with Iraq, why would they not lie two thousand times to get their war with Iran? Why would they not lie three thousand times to get their unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity?
#1 by shirt at January 23rd, 2008
This is news? The entire left blogosphere seems to think this means something. I happened to be awake for 2/3 the time of the Dubya adminstration and have observed time after time that they lie only when it serves them well. They speak the truth only when it serves them well. All other times they lie to get the taste of truth out of their mouths.
Oh, and lie everything else they do, they’re not very good at it.
#2 by scotth at January 23rd, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE
Enjoy.
#3 by tgirsch at January 23rd, 2008
scotth:
Ugh. Are you really reduced to regurgitating that old crap? Is that really the best you can do? I only debunked that nearly four years ago. Try to keep up, will ya?
#4 by scotth at January 23rd, 2008
Not much of a debunking. What difference does it make if they were against the war in 2002 when the people you cite made their comments? None. BTW, this little study is done by A George Soros group. The study does not mention Democrats, only Republicans.
The vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said:
“The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans.”
“There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!”
Senator John Rockefeller
He was one of the FEW who actually read the NIE. Were any of his statements in this bogus report?
#5 by tgirsch at January 23rd, 2008
scotth:
It seems that you missed the point entirely, which is not unexpected. The point is that the remarks made by Democrats were stripped of their context in a disingenuous manner, to make it seem as though they were arguing something quite different than what they actually were. In 1998, these Democrats argued for action which was then taken (over “wag the dog” objections by some Republicans, I might add). In 2002, those Democrats were mostly arguing against war, not for it. But the context of those remarks is removed to conceal that fact. That, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty on the part of the makers of that video, plain and pure and simple.
And your later study citation is just an example of more of this same sort of cherry-picking, which probably explains why you don’t cite it in context.
#6 by digglahhh at January 23rd, 2008
The good ole, oxymoronic, preemptive self defense theory
But enough about that, wanna buy some beanstalk beans?
#7 by scotth at January 23rd, 2008
You can read The Senator’s floor speech here. http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
He made factual claims. Why are these claims not in the study.
#8 by tgirsch at January 23rd, 2008
I guess I’m missing the relevance. Sen. Rockefeller is one guy. And in his speech, he argues first and foremost for avoiding war with Iraq. I don’t see how this helps your point.
#9 by scotth at January 23rd, 2008
The point of the study was not about going to war. The study was pointing out “false statements.” They go after only Republicans, when Democrats made some of the same statements in the lead up to the resolution. That is my point.
Using your logic.
Person A - Iraq has WMD, but we should avoid war.
Person B - Iraq has WMD. I support removing Saddam from power with the use of force.
Study
Person A is a liar.
Person B - No comment.
#10 by scotth at January 23rd, 2008
Reverse A and B , sorry.
#11 by tgirsch at January 23rd, 2008
scotth:
There are a couple of important differences you’re missing, The study is focused on the executive administration; the Democrats were given a pass only because there weren’t any Democrats in the administration (and contrary to what you might think, it’s not unheard of or even unusual for an executive to reach across the aisle when putting together an administration). Further, the administration didn’t just make an isolated statement or two, as is the case with most of the Democratic (or Republican) lawmakers.
You’re also ignoring the difference in who these people were talking to. The lawmakers (of both parties) were generally addressing one another, in debates about what to do and whether to do it. The administration was directly addressing the American public, via interviews and press conferences. That’s different in kind.
But to the extent that anyone knowingly propagated false information, they should be held to account for it, irrespective of the letter after their name.
#12 by Mike at January 25th, 2008
“I did not have sexual relations with ….”
Ha Ha….