Originally Posted by livefree";p=&quot

Do you keep your "group kool aid cup" with your tinfoil hat, Reb?
lie - n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
3. A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth

v. lied, ly·ing, lies
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression.

Main Entry: lie
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: untruth
Synonyms: aspersion, backbiting, calumniation, calumny, complete distortion of the facts, corker, deceit, deception, defamation, detraction, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fable, fabrication, falsehood, falseness, falsification, falsity, fib, fiction, fish story, forgery, fraudulence, guile, hyperbole, inaccuracy, invention, libel, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, myth, obloquy, perjury, prevarication, revilement, reviling, slander, subterfuge, tale, tall story, terminological inexactitude, vilification, white lie, whopper
Antonyms: fact, truth
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: lie
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: falsify
Synonyms: be untruthful, beguile, break promise, bull, con, concoct, deceive, delude, dissemble, dissimulate, distort, dupe, equivocate, exaggerate, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, forswear, frame, fudge, invent, jazz, jive, make believe, malign, misguide, misinform, misinstruct, mislead, misrepresent, misspeak, misstate, overdraw, palter, perjure, pervert, phony up, plant, prevaricate, promote, put on, queer, snow, soft-soap, string along, victimize
Antonyms: tell truth
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Originally Posted by livefree";p=&quot

Originally Posted by livefree";p=&quot

For those who are still in deep denial about the fact that Bush&Co blatantly lied to America and the world about his reasons for invading Iraq, here is another good analysis of those lies. I couldn't include all of the links, so go to the original article for links to sources.

Bush's Five Big Lies That Led to the Iraq Quagmire

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html#FALSEHOODS

These are the five lies Bush told that Ralph Nader documented to impeach him.

Weapons of Mass Destruction. The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, “Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney later accused him of having.” Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. President Bush's favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president “We were wrong.” See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, 2004-01-28.

Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda. The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies — one secular, the other fundamentalist.

Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space over most of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors. In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.

The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need “liberation” from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it's about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.

Bush's Untrue Statements About WMDs in Iraq

“What’s the difference?”
~ George W. Bush, 2003-12-16 in an interview with Diane Sawyer, excusing his lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, by claiming that there was no difference between having weapons and wanting to have them.

Here are the Bush Administration's statements about WMDs and Iraq that turned out to be untrue. In the next section, I will show they were not just errors, but bald lies.

“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.”
~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on evidence for Iraq’s non-existent nukes.

“The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
~ George W. Bush, 2003-03-17

“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07. These tubes turned out to be nothing more threatening than the tubing used to construct playground equipment.

“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”
~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07, on Iraq’s non-existent drones capable of launching an attack on the USA.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction, we found biological laboratories.”
~ George W. Bush, Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 2003-05-29, If he found them, what happened to them?

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
~ George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, 2002-09-12

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28. The documents supporting this turned were crudely forged.

“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”
~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28 This was a bit of dissembling, using out-of-date information to imply Saddam was still armed even though inspectors found no traces. What would constitute evidence something was destroyed other than by allowing inspectors to see for themselves it no longer exists, which Saddam did.

“The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.”
~ George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003-01-28 This was a bit of dissembling, using out-of-date information to imply Saddam was still armed even though inspectors found no traces.

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
~ George W. Bush, Radio address, 2003-02-08

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
~ George W. Bush, Address to the nation, 2003-03-17

“While we were here in this Council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads had been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.”
~ Colin Powell, 2003-02-05

“We know he has been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons,”
~ Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 2003-03-16

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
~ Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW convention, 2002-08-26

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
~ Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair Interview, 2003-05-28

“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-21

“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-04-10

“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.”
~ Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2002-12-02

“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”
~ General Tommy Franks, Press Conference, 2003-03-22

“I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”
~ Ken Adelman, Defense Policy Board member, Washington Post, 2003-03-23

“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”
~ Patricia Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22

“We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
~ Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Washington Post, op-ed, 2003-04-09

“The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
~ Donald Rumsfeld, 2003-02-07, apparently not.

How You Know Bush Lied About WMDs in Iraq

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”
~ Mark Twain

Many people are willing to let Bush off the hook for not finding any WMDs. They say the poor man was mislead by faulty intelligence.
I say that is not true. He knowingly lied. Here are 23 reasons why I think this.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY Top secret documenthttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...593607,00.html leaked in Britain is the smoking gun. 2002-07-23. It describes an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony. Greg Palast explains its significance.http://www.gregpalast.com/

Bush used a forged document to back up his claims, — the Niger Uranium document. He knew the document was forged since he sent retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson in 2002-02 to Niger to check. A document to sell yellowcake would require the signature of the prime minister, the forgoing minister and the minister of mines. Nobody had signed such a document and further all the yellowcake had been presold to the Japanese and Europeans. There was no way that huge quantity of 500 tons could have been shunted. Wilson wrote about this in an op-ed in the New York Times 2003-07-06. Someone in the Bush camp (presumably Karl Rove) retaliated by outing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent, thus endangering her life and the lives of operatives who worked with her. Jeff Gannon and Bob Novak published the outing and refused to name the source.

There were no WMDs. Even FOX news announced the formal end to the search. The final CIA Duelfer report said there never were any, and none were moved to Syria (another Bush lie). It was not just that Bush said he had evidence of WMDs, he claimed solid proof. If he had solid proof, where are they? There were no drones, no nuclear centrifuges, no gas, no biologicals, no nukes, no plutonium, no uranium, absolutely nothing! In his 2003-01-28 State Of the Union Speech, Bush talked specifically of “38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure” and ”500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”. He also claimed he knew where this stuff was.

Bush hired John Bolton to massage the data, and see to it that nobody else saw the raw intelligence. See Chain Of Command.http://mindprod.com/politics/bushboo...html#ABUGHRAIB

Bush ignored the advice of the CIA. See Chain Of Command.

Senator Sam Levin released formerly classified documents that undercut top Bush pre-Iraq war claims of a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
“These documents are additional compelling evidence that the intelligence community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest ranking officials in our government to the contrary.”
~ Senator Carl Levin, 2005-04-16

The Atomic Energy Commission said Saddam had no nuclear program. The could tell because sensitive instruments checking rivers and ground water would detect one if there were. See Chain Of Command.

Weapons inspectors including American inspectors, declared Iraq had no weapons.

His traditional allies did not believe his solid proof. That includes Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and Russia. If none of these military allies bought it, how could it have been so solid? Surely you don't take chances with someone about to nuke you with drones, yet still America's allies insisted Bush's was bluffing. France denounced Bush's claim as completely fraudulent in the UN. Others were more diplomatic.

The UN had repeatedly searched Iraq and found nothing. There were American members on that U.N. team whom Bush could have told where to look if he actually knew anything. They still found nothing.

Bush used the vague term WMD instead of being specific about just what is was he suspected Saddam of having. If he truly knew he could have said, “Saddam has X kilograms of sarin poison gas” or “enough plutonium for three Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs.” But he didn't, thus covering his ass so that if he found even one rusty canister of the poison gas Rumsfeld sold Saddam on credit for the Iran war, it would count as a WMD.

Listen to his Cincinnati speech on 2002-10-07 about the Iraq threat, where he talks about the “mushroom cloud” and “30,000 liters of anthrax”, the “nuclear mujahideen”, “750 attacks on American and British planes” — all pretty scary stuff on first reading or first hearing. But if you read carefully you realise he is dissembling, making things sound far more dangerous than they really are. For example, in the 750 “attacks” there was not one plane hit much less shot down. He is trying to snow you to make you think there is a threat where none exists, while still covering his ass for when he is later confronted with his deception. If he had a case, why did he need to deceive?

George Tenet, the ex CIA director, said that Bush demanded he find some evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Saddam, even when Tenet assured him no such link existed. That is tantamount to demanding the CIA forge some evidence.

“From the very first instance it was about Iraq. I was all about finding away to do it. That was the tone of it: the President saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
~ Paul O'Neill, treasury secretary, The Price Of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill by Ron Suskind.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had already decided to invade Iraq long before they claimed to have evidence of the WMDs.
“I expected to go back to a round of meetings [on 2001-09-12], examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realised with an almost sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were trying to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometimes in 2002.”
~ Richard A. Clarke, White House Counter Terrorism Chief, Against All Enemies

CIA analysts who didn't agree that Iraq posed a threat were removed or reprimanded.

Bush said, “We've wanted so many wars, and we didn't get them. And we've wanted this one for years.”

Bush kept changing his supposed justification for the war.
One of the neocons confessed that they kicked around various justifications for the war and picked the one they thought would “sell” best.
“For reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on one issue everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction...”
~ Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, 2003-06

The neocons posted on the PNAC website long ago their plan for the Iraq war to control its oil and for a faked “New Pearl Harbor” to justify war.
The neocons confessed on their own website that deposing Saddam had nothing to with the Iraq war.
“While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
~ PNAC (Project for the New American Century) the neocon website 2000-09

The war is still going on, even though no WMDs were found and Saddam is captured. The first thing Bush did on invading Iraq was secure the oil fields. That was obviously what he was worried about, not the WMDs.

“But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.”
~ Colin Powell on 60 Minutes 2004-02-04

Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 (the British CIA), told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the case for war against Iraq was being “fixed” by the Americans to suit the policy. Read the transcript of the BBC documentary.

Bush's lie was the greatest crime of the last 100 years.
It cried wolf about nuclear war.
It framed an innocent country.
It conned the taxpayers of $300+ billion and funneled it to the likes of Halliburton. .
It attempted to steal the second largest oil reserves on the planet worth trillions.
It sent over 1100(now over 1600) young Americans to their deaths, thinking they were saving America from a nuclear attack, when in reality they were participating in a robbery.
It sent thousands of Iraqi children to hideously painful deaths.

“All this was inspired by the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Originally Posted by Nathyn";p=&quot

I believe Nader's five big lies, along with the Downing Street memo pretty much sum it up. The head of MI-6 explained that the Bush administration was planning the war long before they publicly talked about Hussein, and the British knew the war in Iraq was inevitable, motivated by politics.

I can't wait to see a Conservative go, "Well.. Maybe he lied... BUT JUST A LITTLE!!"

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

The hatred of those on this forum for Bush and the USA is astounding.

Originally Posted by Tedminator";p=&quot

Notice the not-so-subtle connection he makes that the people who disapprove of Bush also hates the USA.

So listen up y'all! If you love the USA, then you must love the Bush! no ifs, ands, or buts about it... It's the patriotic thing to do.



Next week's TalkingPoints for the "true-american": Don't love the Bush? Then you must be a terrorist!

Originally Posted by I

Originally Posted by I

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

The hatred of those on this forum for Bush and the USA is astounding. With all the hyperbolic speculation, none of you Bush haters have yet to prove one very important part of what constitutes a lie, and that is intent. You need to prove intent, and you have failed miserably in that effort. Oh you have plenty of theory and supposition but zero proof of intent. Did Bush make an error in judgement? Possibily, but that will only be known when it is written in history.

I'd strongly suggest you re-read what defines a lie...you have to have intent to deceive.