Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Bush Lied ! Thousands died......Follow

#1 Jan 22 2008 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Well I for one wasn't sure but I definately had my suspicions.....

Quote:
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."
Link

Who would of thunk it?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#2 Jan 22 2008 at 11:34 PM Rating: Good
Lying to the public is not against the law, it's simply clever marketing.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#3 Jan 23 2008 at 1:11 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!
#4 Jan 23 2008 at 2:11 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
...and the impeachment will be...
#5 Jan 23 2008 at 3:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Well I for one wasn't sure but I definately had my suspicions.....

Quote:
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."
Link

Who would of thunk it?


Just so long as he doesn't get caught having an affair. I don't hold with no cheatin'.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#6 Jan 23 2008 at 4:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

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."


One could almost say they manufactured consent.

If only we were aware of such devious practices beforehand, we could warn people and they'd ignore it because we're not as appealing to have a beer with. Democracy is a joke.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#7 Jan 23 2008 at 5:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Aripyanfar wrote:
...and the impeachment will be...
I wouldn't hold my breath.
#8 Jan 23 2008 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Many of us have contented our lives to that of the abused spouse. We are lied to, spit upon, and at the cost of our dignity and self respect, as a nation, we sit in a corner and pretend it isn't as bad as it truly is. We have even convinced ourselves that the abuser is on the way out (in less than a year), and that we will start from a clean slate and simply call for a "do-over".

Try convincing each of the thousands (if not millions) that are forever scarred by his lies, even well after he is gone from our lives.
#9 Jan 23 2008 at 6:25 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Seriously,

Quote:
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.


This has been common knowledge for years.

Calindc wrote:
We are lied to, spit upon, and at the cost of our dignity and self respect, as a nation, we sit in a corner and pretend it isn't as bad as it truly is.
Smiley: lol...speak for yourself, eh.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#10 Jan 23 2008 at 6:54 AM Rating: Good
Just throwing a little fact out there: Bush wasn't the only one who thought there were WMD's and a threat. All the Intelligence Agencies around the world thought there were WMD's there to. Same with a lot of congress.

And for some reason I only get the first paragraph on Yahoo news stuff, so this whole thing could be something else.
#11 Jan 23 2008 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
***
3,128 posts
From the press to many pundits and posts, Bush has been portrayed as an idiot and a moron who was clueless about so many things, except of course when it came to pre-war intelligence. When it comes to the pre-war intelligence, he became a super genius that knew the information was flawed and misleading and then he devised an evil super genius plan to start a war, instead of just the exact same alleged idiot jumping to conclusions on too little evidence, and believing in those conclusions. This reminds me of the Saturday Night Live evil genius skit on Ronald Reagan.
#12 Jan 23 2008 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

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."


One could almost say they manufactured consent.

If only we were aware of such devious practices beforehand, we could warn people and they'd ignore it because we're not as appealing to have a beer with. Democracy is a joke.

I would pay good money to be in a bar where you and Dubya were having a beer together. Better yet, you and Cheney.

Even better still, you and O'Rielly.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#13 Jan 23 2008 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
OMG! A couple of liberal funded organizations believe that Bush lied? Say it aint so!!!

Seriously. So if Bill Clinton spends a million dollars to create a non-profit organization and then that organization publishes information against Republicans, this makes it true? Land of the free indeed...


I love this particular bit:

Quote:
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.



Bait and switch? I think so. So, on 532 occasions, Bush administration officials said that Iraq had WMDs *or* was trying to obtain them *or* had links to Al-Qaida.

And that's countered with the statement of fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs, and didn't have meaningful ties to Al-Qaida. Um... How many of those 532 statements were about Iraq trying to produce or obtain WMDs and not about them "having" them? And isn't there a difference between saying Iraq has "links" to Al-Qaida and Iraq having "meaningful ties"?

Odd that, huh? Do they get to change the definitions after the fact to fit their argument? Apparently so...

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jan 23 2008 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
Odd that, huh? Do they get to change the definitions after the fact to fit their argument? Apparently so...



Do semantics really even matter at this point? You're honestly not upset by the fact that we were stirred to war on the pretext of ridding the world of a nuclear-powered evil that didn't exist?

Maybe if you spent less time combing arguments for contextual mistakes and spouting the word 'liberal' like it means something, and more time actually looking at the big picture, you wouldn't appear to be such a pompous, shortsighted ***.
#15 Jan 23 2008 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Odd that, huh? Do they get to change the definitions after the fact to fit their argument? Apparently so...



Do semantics really even matter at this point? You're honestly not upset by the fact that we were stirred to war on the pretext of ridding the world of a nuclear-powered evil that didn't exist?

Maybe if you spent less time combing arguments for contextual mistakes and spouting the word 'liberal' like it means something, and more time actually looking at the big picture, you wouldn't appear to be such a pompous, shortsighted ***.


I'm sorry, but as long as people like you continually twist words around in order to exaggerate things, then yeah, semantics matter.


Did you actually say "nuclear powered evil" in a post where you're trying to convince me not to point out when semantic trickery is being used? Seriously?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Jan 23 2008 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:


I'm sorry, but as long as people like you continually twist words around in order to exaggerate things, then yeah, semantics matter.


Did you actually say "nuclear powered evil" in a post where you're trying to convince me not to point out when semantic trickery is being used? Seriously?


Again, big picture.

People (or "liberals" if you prefer) resort to using hyperbole when they're faced with mind-numbing opposition from people that refuse to see the truth. Its out of incredulity, not trickery.
#17 Jan 23 2008 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
People (or "liberals" if you prefer) resort to using hyperbole when they're faced with mind-numbing opposition from people that refuse to see the truth. Its out of incredulity, not trickery.


Which is amusing for you to say in a thread titled "Bush lied! Thousands died...".


If Bush's actions and decisions were so bad, why do you need to exaggerate them in order to sway people to your viewpoint? Clearly, your "truth" isn't so true, now is it?...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Jan 23 2008 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If Bush's actions and decisions were so bad, why do you need to exaggerate them in order to sway people to your viewpoint? Clearly, your "truth" isn't so true, now is it?...


The title's not an exaggeration. He did lie. Thousands did die. Hundreds of thousands, actually.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Jan 23 2008 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Friar AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
People (or "liberals" if you prefer) resort to using hyperbole when they're faced with mind-numbing opposition from people that refuse to see the truth. Its out of incredulity, not trickery.
Which is amusing for you to say in a thread titled "Bush lied! Thousands died...".

If Bush's actions and decisions were so bad, why do you need to exaggerate them in order to sway people to your viewpoint? Clearly, your "truth" isn't so true, now is it?...
His mistake was in not saying "Bush lied! Literally, thousands died!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Jan 23 2008 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

If Bush's actions and decisions were so bad, why do you need to exaggerate them in order to sway people to your viewpoint? Clearly, your "truth" isn't so true, now is it?...


The title's not an exaggeration. He did lie. Thousands did die. Hundreds of thousands, actually.



Hah. And here you are with your own unique definition of "lie" again. We've had this debate a dozen times already.


Um... And the exaggeration I was referring to was the use of the phrase "nuclear powered evil". Also, the manner in which the article conflated "Iraq *had* WMDs" with "Iraq tried to obtain WMDs" (and the whole "links" versus "meaningful ties" bit).

The process seems to involve taking something that's true, twisting it semantically to something similar sounding but no longer true, and then pointing it out while jumping up and down and calling the original thing a lie. Exaggeration. Semantic trickery. Call it what you will, but it's dishonest.


Look. We can look at some of Bush's claims about Iraq and point out that they turned out not to be true. We can even speculate that he was deliberately misleading people with his claims. However, there's absolutely no question that the earlier poster with his "nuclear powered evil" comment was lying. He just plain made it up. There's no question that the article linked earlier with it's conflating of multiple facts is a gross exaggeration of the facts is a deliberate falsehood.


Those are "lies". Real ones. Which I found amusing in a thread calling Bush's statements lies, when they actually weren't. In fact, the claim that he lied is itself a lie (making this even more amusing). He didn't lie. He repeated information that he believed was true, that his top advisors told him was true, that his top intelligence told him was true, and that the leaders and intelligence sources of most of the world also believed was true. That's not lying.


Calling those statements lies *is* lying though. You know that his statements weren't lies, yet you call them that. Guess what? That meets the definition of a lie. It's just amusing to me that so many people don't see the ultimate irony in this...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jan 23 2008 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
From this last post. Gbaji is my new hero.

He's absolutely right. All intelligence agency's around the world said Iraq had WMD's. Hussein even used some on his own country! He killed 5,000 people with a chemical weapon!

It's ridiculous.
#22 Jan 23 2008 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
He killed 5,000 people with a chemical weapon!


It was actually weapons, plural, that we had given him to kill Iranians.

Screenshot


Ask Rummy about it, he'll tell ya.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#23 Jan 23 2008 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Hah. And here you are with your own unique definition of "lie" again. We've had this debate a dozen times already.


Right. You think Bush is too stupid and incompetent to have intentionally lied.

A ringing endorsement if ever there was one.

There's no debate, he knowingly lied.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Jan 23 2008 at 5:23 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
There's no debate, he knowingly lied.


Sooooo you're saying that top Intelligence Agency's lied? Congress lied when passing the bill? And a lot of America is telling a lie?
#25 Jan 23 2008 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Sooooo you're saying that top Intelligence Agency's lied?


No, I'm saying they provided accurate information which was then knowingly lied about. That clear enough for you, you fucking drooling simpleton, or shall I etch it on the side of 1993 Dodge Neon for you?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Jan 23 2008 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


Hah. And here you are with your own unique definition of "lie" again. We've had this debate a dozen times already.


Right. You think Bush is too stupid and incompetent to have intentionally lied.

A ringing endorsement if ever there was one.

There's no debate, he knowingly lied.


Really? So all these people lied too?

Quote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly ******* of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Odd that I've never seen a "Clinton lied and our soldiers died!" bumper sticker, despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton was actually in the branch of the government that has the power to send us into war, and voted to do so.

Never seen anyone create a thread about it either. Seen dozens accusing Bush of lying though. But there's no hypocrisy here, right?

Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 317 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)