935 lies, and the media's failure to stop the Iraq War

Keep in mind that this is a president who, when on the college debate team, had a primary tactic of starting outside whispering campaigns to attack the other debaters when it was clear he had the losing argument. This is a pattern of behavior that starts decades before he took office. He cheats hoping no one will notice. When he gets caught, he uses weasel words to "interpret" the rules/laws differently, and he uses hit squads to attack his critics. This has been and always will be his MO.

TAZ89 wrote:

How that gets twisted into "Bush Lied People Died" is beyond me. I think you have to deperately want that statement to be true to believe it.

It is true that there are records of Saddam using chemical weapons on Kurds and that he said he still had that capability. However, he did not, and we went to war over the assumption that he did. That is unforgiveably irresponsible; if you are going to take action that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, you check the facts again, and again, and again until there is no possibilty of doubt. You don't just take a maniac's word for it because it happens to be what you want to hear.

Even if the position you're taking is flawless, that we had to assume Saddam had WMDs and no amount of research or intel gathering could prove otherwise, it still doesn't answer the question of why we didn't go after a far more obvious WMD threat: North Korea. North Korea has a much more significant military than Iraq did at the time but we also have a tremendous amount of support and infrastructure in South Korea, and if a war is worth fighting it's worth fighting hard, wouldn't you agree?

I agree that "Bush lied, people died," is at best a gross oversimplification and at worst totally inaccurate. However, the facts speak for themselves. We haven't found WMDs. What we found was Saddam Hussein literally gardening and writing. Clearly someone screwed up big-time, and not only did the administration refuse to ask the right questions to get to the truth before taking such definitive action as war (and, mind you, war was never officially declared), but it used its own mouthpieces and the media to discredit the doubts and sell the war to the public. If a threat is so significant that it must be stopped by any means necessary you shouldn't need to "sell" that to anyone. It should speak for itself.

When you look at the whole picture it's not important who technically lied and did not. What is important is that the administration could have kept the entire conflict diplomatic or ignored the "problem" altogether, but instead chose to go to war, not out of necessity but preference.

Edwin wrote:

I can understand a mistake or two. But 935?

The 935 number is meaningless, as they repeatedly refer to the same thing, just uttered more than once:

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the study found.

So basically any time Bush mentioned WMDs in Iraq, it's counted as a separate "lie". But I guess "Bush told two "lies" over and over" doesn't quite make for a sensational enough headline...

As noted, the more it's repeated, the more effect it is intended to have (and the more effect it did have).

Haven't we thoroughly covered this story for the past 4 years? Still bringing it up with the same conclusion...not sure I get that point.

Robear wrote:

As noted, the more it's repeated, the more effect it is intended to have (and the more effect it did have).

Sure, but it's not news that claims about WMDs and Al-Qaeda were uttered more than once. Framing the story around a 935 "lie count" makes it sounds like the story is more than it really is.

Until these guys are held to account, it seems like fair game to me. We should not shy away from condemning them for their actions, which after all were not based on good-faith mistakes or accidental situations. Since they are trying to get immunity for what they've done, for them and the companies and people they dragged into various things, it seems reasonable to keep it in the public eye.

It certainly is not something that is politically based. They've done real harm to the country and even to their own party.

Can't argue with you there Robear...lol

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe in court if you're charged with fraud or perjury each time you commit that act it's another charge, regardless of the "content" of that crime.

This isn't to say Bush is guilty or not of either crime, only to note that in a legal sense, a repeated lie is not a single offense.