posted on August 8, 2003 10:20:30 PM new
Adolf Hitler once observed that it was easier to convince people of a "big lie" repeated often enough than it was to deceive them with a lot of small ones.
In their frenzied bid to displace President Bush in 2004; leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists.
It is ironic that the big lie now being disseminated with increasing frequency from Democratic political podiums across the country is that George W. Bush is a liar. Specifically, the charge is that he dissembled, misled, prevaricated and even lied about the justification for going to war with Iraq earlier this year.
Just yesterday, variations on this theme were pronounced by two prominent Democratic partisans -- the party's 2000 standard-bearer, former Vice President Al Gore, and a leading contender to become its next nominee, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
The former enumerated a list of false "impressions" President Bush and his subordinates used to justify going to war and to allay concerns about the repercussions of doing so.
Mr. Gore contended that the Bush team had misrepresented the danger Saddam posed, exaggerating the imminence of the threat, making false claims of ties between the al Qaeda network that attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 and offering pollyannaish assessments of the welcome we would receive from the Iraqi people and the support we would enjoy from the rest of the world once Iraq was liberated. He told a gathering of the anti-war activist group MoveOn.org , "Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong."
Gov. Dean was even more strident in a speech he delivered last night in Iowa. As part of a wide-ranging critique of the Bush presidency, he enumerated what he described as a number of administration statements concerning the need for military action against Iraq that "turned out not to be true." Then he pledged that, if elected president, he would "never send our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our sisters and our parents to a foreign country to die without being truthful with the American people about why they're going there."
There is just one problem with such charges. They are not true.
President Bush did not lie to the American people about the reasons that prompted him to believe liberating Iraq was a necessary step. Rather, he and his subordinates laid out a compelling case on the basis of what was known at the time -- and, in those areas where we could not be absolutely certain of the facts, what were the best and most prudent judgments available.
Specifically, the Bush administration told the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- a view formally espoused, by the way, by the United Nations, bipartisan majorities in Congress and by then-Vice President Al Gore's superior, President Bill Clinton. The precise whereabouts of those weapons today is still under active investigation by a forensic team led by one of the best experts in the field, David Kay. It may be some time before they are unearthed, perhaps literally, from the sands of Iraq (as have been Saddam's air force and components of his nuclear centrifuge program).
The likelihood that such weapons will be found in due course has prompted few of the president's critics -- even those who contend he misled us about the quality of these weapons and/or their availability for use -- to declare they aren't there.
A particularly egregious example of the big lie is the endlessly repeated contention that President Bush misled the American people in his State of the Union address. In fact, what he said on that occasion was true. There was abundant reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was bent on rebuilding his nuclear weapons program; Iraq was scouring the world for technology, expertise and materials to do just that.
In his annual address, Mr. Bush correctly noted that British intelligence believed -- as it happens, on the basis of myriad sources it deems credible (and not a forged document in U.S. possession) -- that this effort included attempts to buy uranium in Africa. The British government continues to stand by that assessment. It would have been irresponsible to ignore such evidence in assessing the need for preventive action.
The President was also correct in characterizing Saddam's regime as one with long-standing ties to international terrorist organizations. This was similarly a matter of record, as reflected in Iraq's status as an official "state-sponsor of terror" under successive American administrations. Abu Nidal lived for years in Baghdad; Yasser Arafat , his and other Palestinian terror organizations and the families of their suicide bombers garnered millions of dollars in support from Saddam; and individuals and groups linked to al Qaeda were known to have operated from Iraqi territory.
Interestingly, a U.S.federal judge who has been working for the past few months in Iraq told Al Gore's hometown paper, The Tennessean, recently that -- on the basis of his own investigation into the matter -- he was convinced Saddam actually had direct ties as well to Usama bin Laden's organization.
The truth is that, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush felt obliged to prevent a known state-sponsor of terror with access to weapons of mass destruction and an oft-stated desire to exact revenge against this country from acting on that desire, through cut-outs or otherwise, with instruments capable of causing incalculable damage to this country.
As to the question of what would come as and after Iraq was liberated, no one could say for certain. But those who speculated that large numbers of Iraqis would welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's despotic rule and that foreign governments would help in the reconstruction of Iraq have not been wrong. Indeed, it is a gross distortion to suggest otherwise, simply because some of those who benefited from the ancient regime remain loyal to it and a number of countries are withholding assistance to the Iraqi people in the hopes of blackmailing the United States into acceding to a preeminent U.N. role in post-war Iraq.
In short, far from lying about Iraq, President Bush has done an admirable job not only of characterizing what was at stake, but in acting accordingly. The partisan motives of those who must discredit his wartime leadership if they are to have any chance of removing him from office are clear. But it is they who are guilty of serial distortion and misrepresentation -- yes, a big lie -- about Iraq, not this President.
Frank J. Geffen Jr. held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department. He is currently president of the Center for Security Policy.
posted on August 9, 2003 04:44:46 AM new
It will all be just another b*tch session after the President is reelected next year... I say let'em if it keeps 'em happy...
Besides this is the round table, a place to share a joke now and again.... what better laugh material than to keep reading "How bad President Bush is"...
posted on August 9, 2003 05:50:59 AM new
Dean lying really should be no surprise. On some issues, he is as far right as Bush or even more so. Believe it, Democrats, if Bush can't get back in Dean is the Republican's choice replacement. Hate Dennis all you want but, he called Dean and the rest of them on some issues at the AFL-CIO debate. He caught them in lies and confronted them all. They didn't have much to say when he pushed the issue of NAFTA and the WTO. Way to go, Dennis!
All politicians lie. That's nothing new. Bush's lies just happen to be bigger and far more dangerous than the rest of them. Would you rather have an apology like, "Sorry I lied. Monica did blow me." or "Sorry I lied. I blew up an entire country based on facts that weren't entirely true." I wonder which is the bigger, more dangerous lie? Bush has yet to admit the facts were wrong.
There is a constant struggle in my house. My boyfriend and I both support Dennis Kucinich. We've met him, we've attended all the meetings and rallys. He (my boyfriend) supports the war. I do not. He brought that up at the meetup held recently and know what? He wasn't blasted by any of Dennis's supporters. They listened to his reasons for supporting the sham. Goes to show you can agree with the war, but disagree with all the rest of the president's actions.
Bush has yet to finish what he's started. Where is Osama? What of Afghanistan? Again, we blew it to bits and left. Hmmm, has a familiar ring. We left because Saddam was going to blow us to bits in 15 minutes. Personally, it's too late to apologize for any lies he told. The time to apologize has come and gone. Nothing he says or does will make any difference anymore. Like it or not, he's labeled not only as a liar, but as a dangerous and unstable man.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 9, 2003 08:31:14 AM new
TXPROUD - That's one of the biggest reasons, imo, those on the 'right' don't even bother to repond to all the nonsense Helen, skylite, etc. post.
There is just one problem with such charges. They are not true.
Their negative copy and pastes are endless, and usually an incorrect spin on what really happened....so why bother? People see through all this....just politics as usual.
posted on August 9, 2003 08:39:23 AM new
Cheryl - Would you rather have an apology like, "Sorry I lied. Monica did blow me." or "Sorry I lied. I blew up an entire country based on facts that weren't entirely true." I wonder which is the bigger, more dangerous lie? Bush has yet to admit the facts were wrong.
To me, no matter the reason behind the 'why' of lying, when a President of the US is under oath and lies....that's worse. When he tries to get people to give false testimony....that's worse. It makes a mockery of our whole system.
In the issue YOU bring up, Clinton has been proven a liar. You democrats just accuse Bush lying about the war, but that doesn't make it true. There are many in our country who disagree that he has been PROVEN a liar.
There are many who believe we need a president who is willing to put his neck on the line in the best interests of our country. Bush has...and no anti-war presidential candidate is going to be elected.
posted on August 9, 2003 08:50:15 AM newand no anti-war presidential candidate is going to be elected
I wouldn't count on that statement to be true. Although Dennis disagreed with the reasons we went to war and the lack of hard evidence to support war, he did support it once started. He supported Afghanistan as a result of 9/11 as well. Like I said, my boyfriend was for the war. However, he does not agree with the way it was started. And, if you will notice Dennis does not berate, belittle or bash the president. He may say he believes that Bush lied. But, that's the extent of it. And, that's as far as he wants us (his supporters) to go. I have to admire him for that.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 9, 2003 08:59:06 AM new
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., the titular head of The Center for Secrity Policy, a Washington propaganda mill that includes Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in its membership, is a political whore whose opinions and beliefs have always been for sale to the highest bidder. He has held many minor positions in Republican administrations and has consistently performed his assignments and duties with unerring ineptness. His resume would be more accurately characterized as a rap sheet.
In the initial paragraph of his menu of warmed over hash, he reveals his and his organizations unfettered zeal to deviously contort the truth if not ignore it entirely.
"....big lie repeated often enough....." is a quote from Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister for the Nazi Party, not from Hitler himself. Mr. Gaffney understands that most people are not familiar with the name Goebbels but everyone knows Adolph. Thereby the nexus between Democrats and Hitler is set with his disingenuous line "....leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists."
-----
"The precise whereabouts of those weapons today is still under active investigation by a forensic team led by one of the best experts in the field, David Kay. It may be some time before they are unearthed, perhaps literally, from the sands of Iraq"
Dr. David Kay has been disowned by the scientific community since the day he firmly pressed his nose between the collective butt-cheeks of George Bush and all other members of his compassionate cesspool. David Kay Does what he is told to do and says what he is told to say.
David Kay is [i]not[/] looking for WMD in Iraq, there are none, he is looking for paper and verbal evidence that Iraq had a program to develop WMD. He has been in Iraq a long time and has spent a lot of your money in his quixotic search for something we already know.
Iraq did indeed, at one time, have a program to develop WMD, but that is a far cry from actually possessing WMD.
That is the big lie, that Iraq had functional WMD, means to deliver them and was prepared to use them. This self-perpetuating lie has been
repeated endlessly by both Democrats and Republicans and anyone else with a forum.
However, it was the unholy trio at the head of the satanic serpent in Washington D.C. that used these malevolent lies to diabolically beat the drums of a sinful, iniquitous war that has killed and maimed thousands of innocent souls and torn asunder the Biblical Garden of Eden, the birthplace of humankind.
Mr. Bush is an accomplished liar and an evil sinner. If any comparisons to Adolph Hitler are to be made, Bush is your man.
posted on August 9, 2003 09:20:16 AM new
Cheryl - [me] "No anti-war president will be elected."
[you] I wouldn't count on that statement to be true.
I'm not counting on it, I KNOW it's true. No doubt in my mind.
The majority of Americans will only support a candidate IF he shows no hesitation about protecting this country. 'The proof is in the pudding'. All one needs to do is look back to any of the polls taken when the war was being discussed to see that close to 80% [some of them even Democrats ] supported the administrations actions in the war on terrorism.
Now the democrats, playing politics as usual, are doing their best to convince American's we've been lied to.
posted on August 9, 2003 09:55:05 AM new
Are you still unaware that America was in no danger fron Iraq? Check those polls again, Linda. How do you explain the steady decline in American support for this president. I doubt that Americans will be so gullible the next time this president wants to go to war.
You should know by now that Bush was not motivated by a need to protect this country. His goal was to secure a strategic military base in the mid east.
I really cringe when I think of the number of dead people sacrificed to the whims of this awful administration hell bent on achieving power.
posted on August 9, 2003 10:38:39 AM new
"There is little we can do about the infantile Leftist, but at least we can deprive him of the once-honorable designation of 'liberal.' He is as liberal as a boa constrictor." --Ralph de Toledano
posted on August 9, 2003 10:43:08 AM new
Helen - How do you explain the steady decline? His numbers are [currently] about where they were before 9-11. My point was when push came to shove, the American people supported his administration's willingness to do what was necessary, and the polls proved that.
Helen - Sometimes your posts really give me some great laughs. Othertimes I feel sorry for you. You are consumed with hatred of Bush....almost obsessively. You're whole day, day in day out, 24/7 appears to revolve around every internet article that's filled with negativity. There's so much good in this world, so much to be thankful for.
posted on August 9, 2003 10:56:30 AM newAre you still unaware that America was in no danger from Iraq?
I suppose the LIBERATION of the Iraqi people from a murderous leader is not enough reason. Or the fact that the U.S. & Brittan were legally enforcing a U.N. declaration. How easy it is to have a selective memory.
posted on August 9, 2003 11:18:02 AM new"I suppose the LIBERATION of the Iraqi people from a murderous leader is not enough reason. Or the fact that the U.S. & Brittan were legally enforcing a U.N. declaration. How easy it is to have a selective memory."
No, TX
The liberation of the Iraqi people was another myth used to justify the war to the American people. It was just another manuever to gain support that would otherwise not be forthcoming. The country would not vote for war on the basis of that goal alone. As you know, there are ruthless leaders with oppressed people all over the world. This was an unjustified, illegal invasion without UN approval, of a soverign country...a country without military power to match that of the US.
The UN only approved lifting of sanctions after the battle was declared over.
~
The latest polls
down to 58% Bush approval Rating, per Gallup
down to 50% "state of the Country" Satisfaction Rating per Gallup
down to 24% Economic Confidence Rating. per Gallup.
Released: July 18, 2003 by Zogby
Bush Job Performance Slips to 53% Positive, 46% Negative; More Voters (47%) Say It's Time for Someone New Than Say He Deserves Re-election; Two-in-Three Say it Makes No Difference if WMDs Are Never Found, According to Newest Zogby America Poll
President George W. Bush's job performance rating has slipped to 53% positive, his lowest since the terrorist attacks in 2001, according to a poll of 1,004 likely U.S. voters by Zogby International. His negative rating reached 46%, just under his pre-9/11 unfavorable of 49%:
posted on August 9, 2003 11:21:55 AM new
Just curious, the UN does not seem to think the US was enforcing a UN declaration. I didn't notice any Blue Helmets among the troops. The people of this nation have paid in blood for the neo-imperialistic tendencies of this administration and their lust for the two p's Power and Petroleum.
posted on August 9, 2003 12:04:07 PM new
No again, TX. I live in a real world in which I know what role the UN played in the Iraq war. I can also distinguish between BS and truth.
posted on August 9, 2003 01:16:44 PM newIn the issue YOU bring up, Clinton has been proven a liar. You democrats just accuse Bush lying about the war, but that doesn't make it true. There are many in our country who disagree that he has been PROVEN a liar.
And when they crawl out from under their rock and get off their knuckles to hobble upright their minds will change.....
posted on August 9, 2003 01:43:03 PM new
So, Linda, are you implying that all the democrats running would do nothing to protect this country? If so, that is not true at all. What I am hopeful they would NOT do is base their decisions to go to war on a hidden agenda. Yes, that's right. I don't believe for one minute that Bush led us into this war to protect this country. He had and has other things in mind. One day I am hopeful that everyone walking around with blinders on will take them off. But, I won't hold my breath. The truth will come out eventually. It always does. I just hope it doesn't hit too many people over the head.
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 9, 2003 01:43:28 PM new
S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11
BY DAVID KIEFER
Of The Examiner Staff
Stanley Hilton now figures his case is stronger because of a coalition of attorneys, victims' families and bipartisan legislators who gathered in Washington on Monday to condemn the government's lack of action in preventing the Sept. 11 attacks.
Hilton is the San Francisco attorney who filed a $7 billion lawsuit in U.S. District Court on June 3 against President Bush and other government officials for "allowing" the terrorist attacks to occur.
Among Hilton's allegations: Bush conspired to create the Sept. 11 attacks for his own political gain and has been using Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat.
Hilton said he has information that bin Laden died several years ago of kidney failure.
"I hope it will expose the fact that there are numbers of people in the government, including Bush and his top assistants, who wanted this to happen," Hilton said.
His class-action suit named 10 defendants, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Hilton said he represents the families of 14 victims and that 400 plaintiffs are involved nationwide.
White House spokesman Ken Macias and Department of Justice public affairs officer Charles Miller each said their departments were unaware of the lawsuit.
Hilton, Sen. Bob Dole's former aide, has been publicly critical of conservatives in books he has written about Dole and the Clinton sex scandal. Hilton, who said he has sources within the FBI, CIA, the National Security Agency and Naval intelligence, demands Bush's impeachment and believes the truth will come out in trial.
Hilton claims the Bush administration ignored intelligence information, refused to round up suspected terrorists beforehand, and during the hijackings refused to disable pilot controls and switch to a ground-based remote system.
He claims the government benefited from installing a puppet Afghan government friendly to U.S. oil interests.
Hilton also says Bush used bin Laden's antagonist image to create a public frenzy, which allowed the Bush administration to tighten its political grip.
posted on August 9, 2003 02:06:02 PM newSo, Linda, are you implying that all the democrats running would do nothing to protect this country? If so, that is not true at all. What I am hopeful they would NOT do is base their decisions to go to war on a hidden agenda.
No, Cheryl, I've said many times here before that I also supported clinton's bombing in Iraq. He saw the same threat from Saddam's regime. I only stated, [please don't read anything into my posts that I don't say], that NO anti-war candidate will win the presidency.
And now I'll add, for clarification, "be they democratic, republican, independent, etc."
Where I part company with those who feel Bush lied to us is I've always believed, we the people, don't have all the information that our government intelligence agencies give to our presidents. And if ANY president tells this country that there is a threat from another country/terrorist I will support them in their actions to so something about it. I believe for better or worse our Intel and the intelligence of our allies are all we have to depend on to know what's a threat and what's not.
I also believe our government cannot tell the common citizen every little detail about what they've learned or who has told them what. It would breech security, be harmful to our 'spies', etc.
I truly believe if Bush had done nothing and we'd experience another 9-11 type hit, you'd all be yelling he should have listen to this intel and done something. Just like many here are still doing ... trying to prove he knew exactly when and how 9-11 was going to happen and did absolutely nothing to prevent. Which, imo, is absolute rubbish as there were hundreds of reports a day given to both Clinton and Bush....all lacking the needed evidence to take action. Which is exactly what you're all blaming him for now. Taking action without the needed evidence, in your opinions.
Helen - Sometimes your posts really give me some great laughs. Othertimes I feel sorry for you. You are consumed with hatred of Bush....almost obsessively. You're whole day, day in day out, 24/7 appears to revolve around every internet article that's filled with negativity. There's so much good in this world, so much to be thankful for.
I know very well, Linda, that you feel sorry for anyone who doesn't support your distorted, conservative viewpoint. Fortunately, I do see that there is good in this world and much to appreciate. Mr. Bush and all that he stands for has absolutely no redeeming quality in my opinion. In fact, I see him and his agenda as dangerous to our country and to the world.
I am not obsessed 24/7. I check here during the day and you are usually here too. LOL!
posted on August 9, 2003 02:17:23 PM new
AND....I want to add....as of today we have had no subsequent terrorist attacks in the US, while countries around the world have.
I give full credit to the Bush administration, that many condemn here, for the changes made in the status-quo that have prevented any further attacks.
I you act weak...you're seen as cowardly. Bush is not cowardly and his actions as president have made other world leaders listen. Sure surprised Uday etc. Even ol' jong ill has backed off his "I want to ONLY deal with Bush" stance. It's worked.
posted on August 9, 2003 02:23:40 PM new
And about those articles filled with, as you call it, "negativity".....When you find one with "positivity", let us know...if and only if there is truth involved.
posted on August 9, 2003 02:39:27 PM newas of today we have had no subsequent terrorist attacks in the US, while countries around the world have.
As it was prior to 9/11. Don't get to feeling too safe. We've no clue where Osama is or Saddam. Your enemy is more dangerous when you don't know where he is at. There have been terror attacks around the country as far back as I can remember (we won't get into how many years that is) and not here. We never thought 9/11 could happen. I'm not at all comfortable thinking it won't happen again. Bush has nothing to do with the fact that we haven't been attacked again. Who do you give credit to for 200+ years prior to 9/11?
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 9, 2003 02:46:30 PM new
Bush has only increased the possibility that we will be attacked by terrorists. I expect another attack any day now. Remember, Linda, we are not fighting terrorists right now. We are fighting Iraqis.
Al Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan and they are thoroughly pissed.
posted on August 9, 2003 02:51:10 PM new
Ah, but Cheryl you're forgetting....the first WTC bombing...the USS Cole...the bombing of our military installations in other countries. Right then and there those 'attacks' on American interests, our military etc. should have been dealt with. They weren't....and I believe that led the terrorists to preceive us weak. Heck. .. Osama even made a similiar statement to that....that American's were weak. Now they know better.
Safe? No one is really ever safe. And no one can predict what the future has in store, but you are, imo, overlooking all the national security changes, etc. that have been changed since 9-11. These are all the things you guys complain about taking away our rights....forcing us into more decifit spending.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 9, 2003 02:55 PM ]
posted on August 9, 2003 02:53:09 PM new
Thats the plan. The Bush regime wants us to be attacked so they can expand their power in the name of terrorist pre vention.
It will happen if Bush has a second term. They will do whatever they can to pass the secret PATRIOT ACT 2.
Note John Ashcroft has ordered the building a concentration camp in Pensylvania.
They have also added BIG BROTHER High Tech cameras in the neighborhood streets in Chicago.
posted on August 9, 2003 02:55:26 PM new
Linda dont you find it odd that George Bush senior is a business partner of the Carlyle Group owned by Osama Bin Laden and the Saudis?
No doubt in my mind.
