More Big Lies from the Dubya Administration

First Dubya and his pals launch an unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation, in violation of international law, based on the premise that Saddam possesses WMDs that pose a threat to the world. Turns out that was a lie.

Then the goverment claims they are winning the war against terrorism and the number of terrorist attacks has declined. What do you know – that was a lie too.

[quote]Terror report’s ‘good news’ turns bad
June 11, 2004

The US state department today retracted a report that claimed terrorist attacks were on the decline, after it turned out they had actually increased. The Bush administration hailed the initial annual assessment as proof of the success of the war on terror when it was published in April, but officials have now been forced to concede the revised figures for 2003 will show a sharp upturn in the number of attacks.

. . . the writers of the report appeared to have made a series of mistakes including failing to count attacks for the full year and possibly misinterpreting the definition of such attacks. One US official, who asked not to be named, told the Reuters news agency that the report failed to count “international terrorist attacks” after November 11, 2003.

. . . When the report was released, Mr Powell’s deputy, Richard Armitage, said it provided “clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight” while the state department’s counterterrorism coordinator, Cofer Black, hailed its “good news”. [/quote]
guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 … 20,00.html

Why should one believe anything from these bozos?

Does anyone really believe it was an honest mistake?

Oops, when tallying the figures for 2003 we inadvertently left out a month and a half. :unamused:

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]

Now another big doozie. The goverment claims they are winning the war against terrorism and the number of terrorist attacks has declined. What do you know – that was a lie too.

Why should one believe anything from these bozos?[/quote]

MT,

Excellent point. Bush and his inner circle have told lie after lie to such a degree that almost every piece of “official” news from the White House has to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
However, as you have pointed out, Bush got the job under questionable circumstances so I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone when we find out that this is not the most honest person around.
The good news is that the American people and the world only have to put up with this guy for a little while longer and then he gets to retire while we welcome in a new and, hopefully, much better world leader.

[quote=“cableguy”]
Excellent point. Bush and his inner circle have told lie after lie to such a degree that almost every piece of “official” news from the White House has to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
However, as you have pointed out, Bush got the job under questionable circumstances so I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone when we find out that this is not the most honest person around.
The good news is that the American people and the world only have to put up with this guy for a little while longer and then he gets to retire while we welcome in a new and, hopefully, much better world leader.[/quote]

Absolute scumbag that Bush bloke. He should have been buried with Reagan last week. Alive.

[quote]. . .data in the report was gathered by the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, an office launched just last year combining staff from the CIA, FBI. Homeland Security and Pentagon

. . . State Department counterterrorism chief Ambassador Cofer Black said in April. “We also saw the lowest number of international terrorist attacks since 1969, and that’s a 34-year low.”

. . .the department says now revised figures could be “up sharply” from those first reported

Because I Say So, That’s Why

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) – Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had “long-established ties” with al Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

The vice president offered no details backing up his claim of a link between Saddam and al Qaida.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/14/cheney.terrorism.ap/index.html

[color=blue]Argumentum Ad Nauseam Logical Fallacy:

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. This logical fallacy tends to be convincing to people because, as Joseph Goebbels discovered, if something is repeated as true often enough, people will eventually come to accept it.[/color]

[quote=“spook”]Because I say So, That’s Why

[,]

[color=blue]Argumentum Ad Nauseam Logical Fallacy:

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. This logical fallacy tends to be convincing to people because, as Joseph Goebbels discovered, if something is repeated as true often enough, people will eventually come to accept it.[/color][/quote]

Rumsfeld said it best: in order to maximize the effects of disinformation, begin with a false premise. Proceed to build a valid argument, resulting in the desired conclusion (which, of course, must be false).

It’s the validity of the argument, rather than the truth of the conclusion, that clinches the deal for most Republicans (indeed, such a conclusion is guaranteed to be false if it validly rests on a false premise). For them, the effects of disinformation can only be maximized via a valid argument.

Truth? Uh, who cares? What matters more than truth is which side you’re on. As Cheney (falsely) observed to Bush’s former Treasury Secretary O’Neill, “Reagan ‘proved’ that deficits don’t matter.”

“Slowly, and in spite of systematic stonewalling by the Bush administration, it is becoming clearer why a group of military guards at Abu Ghraib prison tortured Iraqis in the ways depicted in those infamous photographs. [color=blue]President Bush and his spokesmen shamefully cling to the myth that the guards were rogues acting on their own.[/color] Yet over the past month we have learned that much of what the guards did – from threatening prisoners with dogs, to stripping them naked, to forcing them to wear women’s underwear – had been practiced at U.S. military prisons elsewhere in the world. Moreover, most of these techniques were sanctioned by senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Iraqi theater command under Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez. Many were imported to Iraq by another senior officer, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44849-2004Jun15.html

[b]
Prominent DC Shrink Diagnoses Bush to be a Paranoid, Sadistic Meglomaniac

[/b]

“Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, also says the President has a ‘lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions … [and] pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad.’”

capitolhillblue.com/artman/p … 4687.shtml

what you get with dial up. sorry tm! :blush:

No problem.

[quote]The Bush administration on Tuesday more than doubled its count of people killed and injured by international terrorism in 2003 as it revised a faulty report used to argue it was winning the war on terror. . .

U.S. officials said the number of “significant” terrorist attacks. . . rose to 175 last year, the most since 1982.[/quote]

reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ID=5487284

Well, your definition of “lie” could be used at any time to make any politician and/or YOU and ME a liar at any time.

The reality is that you are more and more in the minority … as far as polls go concerning the war in Iraq. People do think the war is necessary and more and more think that we need to start taking international thugs seriously.

And of course, as usual, the liberals insult the American people as being dumb cows. BTW, this is why Reagan was great by most peoples’ standards. He didn’t insult his ‘customers’ … I can’t imagine treating my cusotmers the way liberals treat the Amecian people. I can’t imagine telling them they are ‘greedy’ (like when Reagan was elected in a landslide) or now with this election as ‘dumb’. Some day Dems will get it that politicians get elected by making people feel good about themselves (i.e. Reagan/Clinton).

The reality is that this is an amazing election. Democrats and the willing media have thrown EVERYTHING at Bush, day by day. AWOL, conspiracy books, Bill’s book, “My Lie”, 9/11 commission, … you name it. It has been one spectacular total assual on Bush throughout the media (except for Fox News). And guess what? It isn’t working! Why? The Dems are scratching their heads? They simply don’t get it. And the more they think they aren’t being heard, the more kooky they get, the louder they get, only making it worse for them.

Well, your definition of “lie” could be used at any time to make any politician and/or YOU and ME a liar at any time.

The reality is that you are more and more in the minority … as far as polls go concerning the war in Iraq. People do think the war is necessary and more and more think that we need to start taking international thugs seriously.

And of course, as usual, the liberals insult the American people as being dumb cows. BTW, this is why Reagan was great by most peoples’ standards. He didn’t insult his ‘customers’ … I can’t imagine treating my cusotmers the way liberals treat the Amecian people. I can’t imagine telling them they are ‘greedy’ (like when Reagan was elected in a landslide) or now with this election as ‘dumb’. Some day Dems will get it that politicians get elected by making people feel good about themselves (i.e. Reagan/Clinton).

The reality is that this is an amazing election. Democrats and the willing media have thrown EVERYTHING at Bush, day by day. AWOL, conspiracy books, Bill’s book, “My Lie”, 9/11 commission, … you name it. It has been one spectacular total assual on Bush throughout the media (except for Fox News). And guess what? It isn’t working! Why? The Dems are scratching their heads? They simply don’t get it. And the more they think they aren’t being heard, the more kooky they get, the louder they get, only making it worse for them.[/quote]

Clinton is not a fan of the media either.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3829799.stm

[color=blue]If all the false information and statements weren’t because of this:[/color]

Lie:
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

[color=blue]Then the only alternatives are:[/color]

Incompetent:
2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 : lacking the qualities needed for effective action : unable to function properly

[color=blue]And/or:[/color]

Stupid:
1 : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner : lacking intelligence or reason

spook,

There is another possibility. The statements could have been made in a perceived emergency situation where imperfect knowledge was the only knowledge.

[quote=“tigerman”]spook,

There is another possibility. The statements could have been made in a perceived emergency situation where imperfect knowledge was the only knowledge.[/quote]

spook,

You also omitted another possibility. The statements could have been made for political purposes – to intentionally deceive the public into believing we are “winning the war on terror” so they will re-elect dubya, when in fact the number of terrorist acts is increasing and dubya’s actions may be counterproductive.

But they wouldn’t intentionally mislead the public would they?

Yea, talking about lies, I heard there’s a great new book hitting the shelves. It’s about a president that is desperately trying to find a decent place for himself in the history books:

When all else fails change the subject, eh pinenut?

Just looking to put things in perspective. If the premise is we can’t trust Bush because he lies, then, hey, Clinton was the master at lying. But then again, perhaps to some his lies are better sounding than Bush’s lies.