Bushco made false statements??

L

LurkerintheDark

250+ Posts
Tell me it ain't so!

False statements preceded war

I suppose there aren't very many people with a brain left anymore who don't know that the Iraq war was promoted and promulgated under false pretenses. I guess the only really interesting thing from this study is the quantification of how MANY lies were told to us.

How many? ==> 935 over a two year period
532 times Bushco unequivocally stated that Iraq had WMDs or ties to al-Qaida. The other 403 times they were denying that he ever "had sex with that woman." Oh, wait...
 
popcorn.gif
 
Nothing will ever persuade the loyal 25% that such a story can be true. It's the evil media that lies about the lies told to us by the Bush administration. The adults are in charge, no need to worry. Wave your flag and acquiesce.
 
What a waste of money. Where have they proven that Bush or anyone else made any of these statements with the knowledge they were not true? Most of the world believed and had intelligence to back them up. Turns out the intelligence was faulty.

Great, now we have two journalist who counted things in speeches. Great job there guys.
 
Well...there you go...

Two completely objective organizations have concluded that Bushco lied...

In later news, a completely objective Rush Limbaugh reads an article published in the Weekly Standard that shows that Clinton referred to the Iraqi WMDS in definite terms 176 times....
pirate.gif
 
Surely, Washingtonparkhorn, you are not buying into the semantic argument that the use of the buzzword " regime change" is the same thing as invasion?

Saying that "regime change" is government policy, and then conflating that with a policy of invasion is perhaps one of the most offensive argument used by you Bush apologists to muddy the waters.

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."


You know damn well that saying that the policy of the United States is "regime change" is not at all the same thing as embracing a policy of anticipatory attack, or preemptive attack.
 
This is rather old news, except for maybe the counting. Any number of websites have tracked the erroneous statements. It doesn't change or deal with the fact that we are there now, so what do we do now?

I have not read the study, but I wonder if it addressed the role of the press in playing lapdog to the buildup, which is the real issue that the press ought to be examining. Not to mention the real culprits -- the American public, us -- who blindly swallowed all of it, putting our trust in the government to get it right.

If I fault anything, it is the lack of pushback against such a propaganda campaign, and the ease with which this administration neutered any kind of credible skepticism or opposition to the invasion. Exhbiit A: the Valerie Plame fiasco.

This kind of hindsight fails to address reality right now: where do we go from here?
 
I watched the weather forecast last night and I concluded it was going to rain the next day. I woke up this morning and it was clear skies. I lied.
 
Honestly the only thing news worthy regarding truth and the Bush administration, would be if we could find a week in his Presidency where the statements out of the Whitehouse were examined and found to be truthful and accurate....
 
what's objectionable is how the story of the "study" is reported. no mention of the anti-war credentials of the organization that issued the "study". hiding behind the nomenclature "nonprofit journalism organizations", the reporters figure to hide the biased nature of the press release. the press here isn't reporting news, they're doing pr wprk.

hook'em
 
Whitman saved me a post. I've said the same thing everytime that point is raised about the policies of "regime change" versus the policy of "let's invade them and change the regime."

And, like I said above, you will never convince the hard core loyalists (the dead-enders?) that this administration lied. The biggest lie was the constant implication that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Add that to the Cheney/Rumsfeld lies about verified information about WMDs including their location and it is silly to ignore the dishonesty.

Silly or loyal. You make the call. Sophistry does not change the reality of the dishonesty of this administration.

It's also sort of funny that the dead-enders (I'm going with it) blame the media which was largely complicit in the campaign of dishonesty as they cheerled the run-up to the war.
 
I did get a giggle out of the assertion that Clinton woudl have put us into a trillion dollar war... just like Bush... pretty damn funny if you ask me...
 
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill
 
That's lame. If you want to make a thread, at least make it something newsworthy. Something like, "Bushco Made True Statements."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top