Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe leading activists of the left, who have any logic, know this to be true. Only their mindless minions are caught up it the hype. The whole ruse (that seems to be working very well) is a political tactic to influence voters and win power.
The claim that Bush lied is itself a lie, says Dinesh D'Souza:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/28/actually_bush_didnt_lie
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOh yeah, great analogy comparing Bush's advisors to Einstein.
The claim that Bush lied is itself a lie, says Dinesh D'Souza:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/28/actually_bush_didnt_lie
Can you see the problem here, can you?
And anyway, there's a huge difference between building a weapon
and using it.
Bush didn't lie, no- he really believed the intelligence and had to make a difficult descision, right? Here's a quote from that article:
"Acting against the somber backdrop of 9/11, Bush made a hard call based on an assessment of the intelligence provided to him."
the report that claims 935 lies matches each statement with known intelligence at the time of the statement, noting when Bush admin statements directly contradict with known intel. This townhall apologist would like to believe that Bush just acted on bad intel, which is the company line... The inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting and finding nothing when Bush had them pulled out so the US could attack. how is this "making a hard call based on an assessment of the intelligence provided to him?" Iraq was clearly not even close to having a nuke, and yet Bush told Americans that "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
honestly, this is pointless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not a threat to the US when the US invaded. the Bush admin made it up. The "Bush is Our infallible Leader" crowd would buy anything this admin is selling- and continue to buy it after it's been clearly shown to be a steaming pile of bs.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeTo be fair, he might not have lied. He might just be extremely stupid. Either seems entirely possible to me.
honestly, this is pointless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not a threat to the US when the US invaded. the Bush admin made it up. The "Bush is Our infallible Leader" crowd would buy anything this admin is selling- and continue to buy it after it's been clearly shown to be a steaming pile of bs.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell... the CIA said they didn't have the weapons.
The claim that Bush lied is itself a lie, says Dinesh D'Souza:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/28/actually_bush_didnt_lie
MI6 said they didn't have the weapons.
The UN weapons inspectors said they didn't have the weapons.
So, tell me, just because I'm feigning interest, HOW THE HELL DID BUSH THINK THEY DID HAVE WEAPONS???
Because the tooth fairy told him so? Or would that be the WEAPONS-LOBBY FAIRY???
Yeah.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOnly Americans could still be debating this thing.
The claim that Bush lied is itself a lie, says Dinesh D'Souza:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/28/actually_bush_didnt_lie
"Our government lied to us? No..no..no. NOOOOOOOOOO! I won't believe it, I don't believe it. You guys are the liars, you guys are! Leave me alone. Don't say these things. We killed people for good reasons. GOOD REASONS! Ya, they were good reasons. They must have been good reasons. They keep me safe..."
Bunch of wackos.
D'Souza's argument is not convincing. Admittedly, that doesn't mean that he's wrong.
The author says that "If Bush actually knew that Iraq didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, and yet repeatedly told the American people that Iraq had them, didn't Bush expect that following the Iraq invasion his deception would be found out?"
This argument, if it is to be thought as such, is weak even by inductive standards. One can easily imagine possible scenarios in which a President might lie about such a thing even knowing that he/she is likely to get caught. There are two that come to mind in this instance, and I have little reason to think that they are implausible.
1. Perhaps said president thought that the end he/she had in mind (in this case regime change in Iraq) was so historically important that it was worth being caught in the lie. "Even if I am impeached," he/she might say, "history will remember that I accomplished this great act."
2. Perhaps said president thought that the end was historically vital enough to sacrifice his/her reputation and he/she thought that the opposition would be too impotent to do away with him or her. This might well be the case with Bush. And if he had in fact thought this he would have been right. After all he was re-elected even after the inability to find WMD's threatened his credibility.
In the end, I think what is more interesting is the way that the President et al. avoided telling outright lies. Consider the famous State of the Union speech when he refers to faulty British intelligence about Hussein and African Uranium. His statement was not a "lie." The intelligence did exist. The "lie" was that the implication that the intelligence was good enough to include in the State of the Union speech. It was faulty and it was well known in the intelligence community that it was faulty. This is close enough to lying for me to be appalled.