The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

so...in response to factual evidence that Dubya lied about WMD's, your response is: "so what? Obama lied about healthcare" Have I got that about right?

 

Only when responding to your question as follows:
"if someone claims there is absolute certainty about something... and, even as they make the claim, they KNOW that varying levels of uncertainty surround the topic, isn't that, in and of itself, a lie"?

Obviously you didn't take into account the absolutes in Obama lies when you made the above statement.

 

WTF are you talking about? What I said has absolutely nothing to do with what Obama may or may not have said. Are you suggesting that some future pronouncements by some future president have the magical power to make what some past president said something other than a lie?

 

Funny the discussion was about presumed Bush "Lies" and the "Lies" perpetrated by the Progressive Democratic Party and Obama himself, both before and after being elected POTUS.

 

Funny how we keep hearing that the "intelligence" was telling Bush and company that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However there were many of us in the intellectual elite community that were telling everyone that the so-called "intelligence" was bull excrement with 100% confidence. You see the so-called weapons of mass destruction give off signatures. If they were around we would have readily found them before the war began. How do you think that we know so much about North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs without actually having access to them?

 

Aah yes, the "Intellectual Elite Community" Progressive Elitists that tell us all what to do and what to say. They revise their results in every way. Please post those sage "Elitists" by name and their proof positive counter claims.

 

again.... did you not understand my statement and my question? President Bush and his minions lied when they repeatedly stated that there was absolute certainty regarding the existence of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's. That isn't even up for interpretation.

 

Only if you also claim that the Clinton Administration started the lie of Saddam's supposed WMD to wag the dog. Just how many times did Bubba accuse Saddam of hiding WMD and attempting to hide nuclear technology and manufacture, or was that different? Just how many times must it be pointed out that Clinton and his Democratic Party disciples claimed that Saddam was the bad actor developing Weapons of Mass Destruction? Claiming that Bush lied is like calling the pot black while exclaiming the well used Kettle is not.

 

The party of personal responsibility appears to avoid personal responsibility. The neo-cons and Bush 2 wanted a war with Saddam and they did everything in their power to get it sold to the public including lying and manipulating the intelligence to sell it. Even if everything had been true, Iraq was not a party to 9-11, they had no direct involvement with Al Queda, they had no long range missiles, were not threatening anyone at the time and were suffering horribly due to the sanctions. They never posed a threat to anyone let alone America even if all the lies were true. Bush 2 owns this war. The sad fact that some on the left went along tells us more about the politics than it does any shared responsibility. The sad truth is that America wanted to kill Arabs and kill Arabs is what we did, by the tens of thousands. I was against it from the start and knew that Saddam was a paper tiger. Bush 2 wanted revenge for his daddy and by God, the media and some allies let him get it. Now the whole region is a giant clusterfrack and the party of personal responsibility is trying to tell us that Johnny did it.

 

So you believe the spewing lies of the Center for Media & Democracy claim, while negating the fact that they are funded by Progressive Marxists?

 

The Neocons were on record as believing that Saddam Hussein had become expendable. Their pipe dream of establishing a large, influential, permanent US military presence in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region and next door to Iran made the fiasco irresistible to them. The disparate matter of the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 allowed them to conflate the two, and thereby contrive a marketable pretext.

Why else would one erect the world's largest, Vatican City-sized "embassy" in a third-rate nation unless in anticipation of one's hubristic regional ambitions being satisfied?

​

.

IF YOU BUILD IT, YOUR FANTASY WILL COME.​

As Bush Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill revealed, the Bushie national security team had, inexplicably, obsessed over Iraq from the day they assumed power, and as soon as the price for ignoring the growing threat from al Qaeda was exacted, Rumsfeld immediately called for attacking Saddam, regardless of whether he was in any way involved.

Years of daily low-level reconnaissance photography would have gone a long, long way to destroying the myths of wmd stockpiles, an active nuclear programme, mobile bio-labs, terrorist training camps, etc., but that and other intelligence that contradicted their agenda were ignored.

​

.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north - somewhat."​

Whether the Bush duped naïve Americans or was duped himself into a trillion dollar, bloody fiasco is a difficult question to answer. I give him the benefit of the doubt and opt for the latter.

He know nothing. nothing

 

absolute certainty. stockpiles. it was a lie. I don't care who ELSE may have stretched the truth about Saddam in the past. NONE of them ordered our ground troops into battle. None of them decided to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq. To claim that Bush did NOT lie about the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles literally requires changing the meaning of words in our language.

 

What does the Center for Media and Democracy have to do with anything?

I knew who the Project for a New American Century was in 2000.

Taht they wanted a war in Iraq was not in question. They said so, loud and often. The wove imperialistic fantasies around it.

Of course, you'll have trouble finding much of it now. When their dream of war in Iraq faded into civil war and quagmire, they quietly exited. You really have to dig now to find the writings of Kagan, Feith, Lutti, Wolfowitz, Pearle and the rest of them.

You can try and dismiss history by attacking the source of the link in one post, but the history is still there.

You're the one trying to make things up here.

Iraq was Bush's war. He, and his team wanted it. They sold it, bungled it, and lost it.

All you Bush dead enders are pathetic with your cheesy attempts at denial.

 

In the lead up to the war I was writing on every forum and message board system I could find, sending letters to newspapers, magazines, radio stations and news programs. I was sending letters and making phone calls to my congressmen. All to no avail. It seems once the stampede starts voices of reason become lost in the roar of the crowd.

Jacques Chirac knew there were no so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as I'm sure someone in the US government also had to know. Chirac gave Bush a face saving way out of the conflict with the inspection regime. Yet Bush didn't want a way out. He wanted to go to war. A war with a country led by a bad guy that couldn't possibly defeat the US was apparently part of Bush's governing plan.

I've heard it broken down this way. The president and his publicity team are out there speaking to about 80 million people - most of whom, if they side with the president will nod in affirmation without thinking it thorough. Yet there will be a small but substantial group, perhaps 80 thousand, who are aware enough to see though what is being said. Often times that small minority can do little but step aside as the herd rumbles on to their ruin. Seems to me a reasonable person would want to check their facts, make sure that they're not running off on a fools errand. Seems the herd runners don't think that way.

The intellectual elite quip was a reference to the Republicans push, in the Reagan/Bush era, to denigrate intellectualism. Part of the marketing effort to draw in the easily led. About the time that Bush the elder was buying crack in front of the white house and saying, unconstitutionally, that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens, he was also complaining about the intellectual elite sitting up in their ivy towers....

Let's not forget that in the lead up to the attack on Iraq that around 2/3rds of Americans thought that Iraqis were among the hijackers of 2001 September 11. The fact is none of them came from Iraq. Obviously someone was leading the herd astray - the herd that had no problem killing as many as a million Iraqis.

 

The fact of Bush lying or not does nothing for the cause of liberalism. The way I see it, he either lied or was incompetent. Either one seems to be typical conservative behavior.

 

There isn't any question that when George W Bush uttered those famous "sixteen words",. that he, and his advisors knew they were not true. This is not in dipute, despite the denials from the Bush dead enders.

That Bush was incompetent is also pretty obvious. What else would you call someone who starts an unprovoked and unnecessary war in the wrong country and then bungles it?

 

Center for Media and Democracy
www.groupsnoop.org/Center for Media and DemocracyCached
Center for American Progress; ... The Center for Media and Democracy admits its own left ... that purports to show the Heartland Institute’s ties to the tobacco ...

~~~~~~​

Center for Media and Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_DemocracyCached
... CMD describes itself as an investigative research and reporting group ...

Just another George Soros funded Progressive group. So you are CMD as "left-wing ... Center for Media and Democracy was a ...
saying that they are not a Progressive Liberal front funded by Leftists and biased toward anything Bush did? Open Society Institute (OSI), a grant making network founded by George Soros, aimed to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. According to the conservative news website Watchdog.org, the Tides Foundation, a foundation known to donate primarily to liberal organizations, reported giving CMD $160,000 in 2011. In June 2014, Politico reported that the Center for Media and Democracy was a recipient of funding through the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors

 

Why are you still blathering on about the Center for Media and Democracy.

There are plenty of other sources for documentation of the fact taht Bush's case for war was phoney.

 

Check out this new history lesson from Prager University.

[video=youtube;T2tbpUqNwRU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2tbpUqNwRU&t=32[/video]​

 

Who cares what the progressive cabal believed? They didn't shock 'n awe anybody. Bush and the neocons DID.

 

That's funny. I was thinking "WTF is Prager University?" Turns out it's some BS a right wing radio host started! What a joke!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...iberal-bias-and-teach-judeo-christian-values/

Always check your sources people.

 

Prager University
www.prageruniversity.comCached
Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas. But it is a place where you are free to learn.


How unprogressive a university that freely gives it's knowledge to the people. Hmm.....

 

It's a university in the same way that I can create a website and call it a university. I could also call a book full of blank pages a dictionary if I wanted, but that doesn't make it so. Maybe I'll start grabbing bricks and calling them gold, that'll make me rich quick!