Bush haters, apologists and just interested citizens should find this interactive tool useful in understanding how we got into the war.
The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we’ve assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project.
I have no desire to waste my time reading the opinions of others when their use of the word “lie” doesn’t match any definition found in The American Heritage Dictionary.
Just stick your fingers in your ears and go, “la la la la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la la”.
They really should take this forward beyond March 2003.
I have to reflect upon who deserves the most contempt in this scenario:
Corrupt lying politicians. Our gullible electorate who sit around with their TV remotes and believe the dumbest crap — because it’s on the snooze. Or the Quislings who work their butts off defending neo-con ideology that springs like rot from the garden of deceit.
#1, know any good books on denial?
Just stick your fingers in your ears and go, “la la la la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la la”.
Thats what Carter and Clinton did to get us to this point.
#5
There really is no good answer to your question. If he answers yes, then it must not have been a good book. If he answer no, then you’ll never know if there was a good book or not. ;->
I agree with #1, there is nothing in that post that shows evidence of a lie. Alleged deception, miscommunication, mistakes, change of circumstance etc. yes. Perhaps I missed it, but where in that listing does he show evidence of Bush actually intentionally saying a falsehood? Even the legend does not provide a section for “lie.”
I’ll give it this however, it is definitely an aethetically appealing and effective use of AJAX.
Once again another unbiased political comment, there should be a graph for the last 3 presidents
“Just stick your fingers in your ears and go, “la la la la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la la”.
Exactly what Bush and Condi did when the Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US” came across their desk August 6, 2001 (see it here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html )
Funny how you can blame two guys out of office and not the one at the controls. Where was the stepped up security? Why was this ignored?
National security is not a matter of politics as so many play it, especially VP Cheney who gave a speech yesterday and said “Tuesday the world faces “a new type of fascism” and likened critics of the Bush administration’s war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s.” http://tinyurl.com/rystm
Sick. Just plain sick. As i remember it was the Nazis who would arrest and persecute those who talked against them. They even had their Hitler Youth turning their own parents in, all in the name of Patriotism. Being patriotic without thought. That is Fascism, and that is the echo of Cheney’s words yesterday.
Alright. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that none of what is listed is technically a lie. Does that excuse the actions of the White House and others? Should we ignore it all, allowing them to do as they please in such a nefarious and underhanded way to get what they want simply because they didn’t “lie”?
#2, I take it that this is a tactic that works for you? I don’t see how, my ears have nothing to do with reading. But maybe for you it is sufficient distraction to disengage the logic centers of your brain.
#4, do you actually think your hyperbole should be taken seriously by anyone with an once of common sense?
#5, actually I do. “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,” by Al Gore. Ok, so the ramblings of an idiot doesn’t really qualify as a book on denial. Perhaps one of Howard Dean’s books?
I have no problem discussing mistakes made by the Bush administration. But I have yet to see proof from anyone that he lied. But then most posters to this blog have difficulty understanding the difference between “mistake” and “lie,” which greatly diminishes the value of your opions. It is really pointless to debate issues with people who cannot assign the proper meaning to words.
History is written by the winners.
Q: When’s the last time the left won anything in this country?
A: Vietnam, a war we “lost”.
History also tends to repeat itself. We’ll see if it does in this case.
#12: Which is worse: a president who lies continuously or one who continuously makes mistakes? To my mind, one who lies knows what he wants and what he’s doing, rightly or wrongly. One who continuously makes mistakes is a bumbling idiot who has no business in a position of authority.
A link called “Lie by Lie”? Ok, I’m SURE this is an OBJECTIVE source of information. Come on, John. Is this really what you want to advertise?
Bush didn’t lie…he’s too fricken stupid to know how to lie. He’s just a bumbling moron that shouldn’t even be the president of a 4H club.
But so what, he didn’t techniqually lie. You do know that people that resort to arguing about semantics and proper definitions of words instead of the actual issues means they have a losing position to start with, so they try to divert the argument away from their weakness.
My wager is that history will see Irag as an impotent, contained, sleeping dog that was better off sleeping and being contained.
FWIW, history already repeated….it was a Texan who turned Viet Nam into a mess. And again, some other president will have to make the hard decisions to get out.
Does that mean that our next president is going to be a Nixon clone? I know there are plenty of Republicans that are as slimy as Nixon but are there any Republicans as smart as Nixon? I can’t think of any.
lie 2 (l) KEY
NOUN:
1.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
VERB:
lied , ly·ing (lng) KEY , lies
VERB:
intr.
1.To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2.To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
American Heritage Dictionary
http://tinyurl.com/e89jp
lie2 (lī)
n.
1.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v., lied, ly·ing (lī’ĭng), lies.
v.intr.
1.To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2.To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
answers.com
http://tinyurl.com/kxsde
So if the President and Vice-President told the American people that Iraq had WMDs, knowing that they didn’t, isn’t that a lie?
If the Secratary of State was told unequivocally that Iraq had WMDs and mobile manufacturing vehicles when the Administration knew there was only shakey evidence there was and much evidence there wasn’t, isn’t that a lie?
If the Vice-President told the intelligence community he wanted evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq and then re-iterated that as fact, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, isn’t that a lie?
And on and on and on…
Smith and Thomas, you don’t believe the Administration lied. You are in denial. There is NO evidence that the American people were told the truth and every indication they were misled.
Oopps, didn’t close my tag, I’m busy doing half a dozen things at once.
#13.
No, it was lost by another asshole from Texas.
Being patriotic without thought. That is Fascism, and that is the echo of Cheney’s words yesterday.
Actually, that is chauvinism, which is often a demand extracted as part of fascism. Fascism is the dictatorial control of the state for the sake of the state. Right track though.
Uncle Dave
How do you find so many articles that get your readers so riled up?
Fusion, for a mere $50,000, I will enlighten you.
Pissing off people is EASY…
So, is letting you sit in your home, and meditate in front of the TV, Tivo, Xbox…
Its when those items are interrupted that we can program you to be ANGRY.
#22: You do get my point though. Here is a definition of facism. Its amazing how easily it can apply to both Geroge W., Adolph and Benito:
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
any argument that relies on the “truthiness” of any number of previous presidents to evaluate the current president is an outright fallacy
When the fiction (lie) becomes fact, print the fiction.
-Robert Wuhl
#19, Mr. Fusion, that really is the problem with debating this issue with you. You seem to have access to information that could only exist in the minds of Bush and his staff. NO ONE has found any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD before we invaded. Calling Bush a liar only devalues your opinion.
Personally, I had serious doubts about us invading Iraq. The fact that Hans Blick’s team couldn’t find any WMD was troubling. But ultimately, as I told a co-worker at the time, you have to assume that the President had access to intelligence reports that we are not privy too. Well, we now know the danger of a President making decisions based upon CIA briefs. But being wrong is not the same as being a liar.
(By the way, how is a President supposed to make national security decisions if he can’t trust information from his Intelligence network?)
How about this:
Richard Clarke, former advisor to GWBush (from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml )
“Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq,” Clarke said to Stahl. “And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
“Initially, I thought when he said, ‘There aren’t enough targets in– in Afghanistan,’ I thought he was joking.
“I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we’ve looked at this issue for years. For years we’ve looked and there’s just no connection.” …
Clarke continued, “It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again.’
I guess it isn’t a lie when you have a malleable realty. Say it enough and it becomes truth. Is that what I am supposed to believe?