Study: False Statements Preceded War

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY MO' !

Ned Beaty's speech was even more powerful, albeit, in a private session. I paraphrase:

You have interfered with the forces of nature.

This is after the fact, Bush may have stopped a potential Hitler for all we know, Huessain could have gotten the weapons eventually, who the hell could trust him? I think Bush senior convinced Bush junior of alot of things. what would you do in this situation?

What about false actions taken after the war?

No End in Sight provides some talking points!

It's a seed from a TV documentary from yesterday.

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002/

Bush and his people knew there were no WMD in Iraq before the war; anything to the contrary is just outright lies.

At this point, I believe the dems along with members of the MSM will continue to try to impeach GWB long after he has left office.....can they do that? Ha....just kidding---sort of.

Is there a difference between public dialogue and finger pointing?
Either way, open discussion is very healthy.
No more secrets; no more lies. Is that too much to expect from those in positions of public trust who use their positions for private gain?
Pamela, great word, cheesebag. I've never heard it.
Now if I can only work in the term "flying monkeys," I'll be a happy girl.
Great seed,
Sandy

kevinb66: Did they count how many times President Clinton said the same things? Perhaps Hillary? How about most of Congress?

If it resulted in the river of blood Bush's lies have resulted in, maybe they would have done that.

The statements were only false in HINDSIGHT. With the information given at the time President Bush's statements were 100% accurate. Liberals need to MoveOn!

The whole point is that they knew what they were saying, at the time they said it, was a lie.

Now, I get that you don't believe that. But I'm curious about something. If they DID do this -- lie through their teeth about their reasons for going to war because if they told the truth they knew we'd never go for it -- would you be upset about that?

I've posted this before, but it can always be used as a reminder.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and
or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


Joseph Goebbels

So, how often they repeat a lie is directly related to how important it is to them to deceive you, and what the stakes are and consequences would be for them if they are found out. Not that it is the same lie.

Saw this today in an email signature and thought it appropriate to the current situation:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

Finally, we have arrived!

while i can easily and without any money from soros point out many lies from bush and cheney that they knew to be lies, I think you will find a majority of the bush "lies" were simply lies of omission or using NLP to let us lie to ourselves for them.
er sorta like newstations have found you can say outrageous unsupported things as long as you either follow it by a question mark or proceed it by "some say"
like
"can you imagine the devistation if saddam is allowed to transfer a nuclear bomb into the hands of al quada?"
no where do i claim saddam has nukes
no where do i claim he has a relation with al quada or even would give them nukes if he did.
all that happened in your mind without me actually saying "saddam is planning on giving nukes to ossama"
you can see the same thing with iran..some lies.. but mainly lies of omission "it would be devistating to allow a theocracy like iran to obtain the bomb"
"we must stop their nuclear program"
using two statemtns i like the prospect of them havign a secret bomb program while not actually saying that.

it's just we kinda expect on the big issues, not to be spun to, unfortunately this is a very stupid expectation.

Hate to say I told you so, but:

Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations.

Source.

Positively astounding that there's even any controversy left about whether or not George Bush and his mouthpieces lied, lied, lied, and lied again about their reasons for this war. Positively astounding. If anybody can help me see what THAT means, boy will I ever be in their debt.

It's not like we don't know everybody lies. That's so not the point. Here's the point: George Bush is the only one who could have given the order that resulted in war. Only him. It's the difference between a class of children lying about who started a schoolyard fight, and the teacher lying about it so she can have one of the children she especially hates -- one who has done nothing -- expelled. The rest of them are guilty only of lying. She's guilty of lying in order to get away with grotesque injustice.

How hard is this? What is it about a group of people, mostly Republicans, who insist they believe in personal accountability but who are expending large amounts of energy to be sure one of them escapes it?