# Why do people forgive Bush's lies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205 "2005-01-11T13:55:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/121 "2005-01-12T08:46:11Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > If the terrorists were in Northern Iraq, then that would make (2) true. But it seems that the database you linked to wants to infer that Bush was refering to Saddam being linked to 9/11 only. Who is being dishonest on that point? > > Afetr ferreting out those first two sophisms, I gave up on thinking maybe the database listed had an agenda but the facts may speak for themselves. They did. Try again. Pardon me while I… _:::::::::yaaaaawn:::::::::::_…there, feel much better. Hmmm…where was I? Oh yeah, about to compose a reply to yet another Bush apologist. No, no, on second thought, no need, for I see that **'luc’s** already given you a Reader’s Digest version of the deceitful way BushCo attempted to tie Zarqawi -----\> AQ ------\> Iraq ------\> Saddam -------\> 9/11 ------\> TWAT. Sad to see that not only did so many of you buy it _then_, but that you’re still clinging to said fantasies _now_. However, since we apparently agree that facts do indeed speak for themselves, it’s abundantly clear that all you’ve done in your haste to ‘debunk’ what was presented as such, is get yourself even deeper into the Apologia Seas. To wit: [**Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind**](http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) > [@](#): > > \*\*With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq. > > But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. > > In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. > > The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council. > > “Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution. > > Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. > > The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq. > > “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey. > > In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. > > The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. > > Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. \*\* (my highlight) Outraged yet? You should be. Me, I’ll just go back to sleep. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/122 "2005-01-12T13:58:35Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > Regardless of whether he did or did not in fact lie, a significant part if not a majority of the public are not convinced that he did so. > > In addition, the vehemence from the Left on this issue has cause a significant part of the electorate to disregard the message. So your explanation boils down to “cognitive dissonance”. That is hardly news. The more patiently someone explains to you that you’re wrong, the harder you’ll believe you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/123 "2005-01-12T15:02:23Z")
It is interesting that CBS justifiably took heat, and rolled some heads, for publishing alleged facts without sufficiently verifying and authenticating such alleged facts, but that the Bush Administration is held to a different standard than the news media. The Bush Administration gets to go to war based on insufficiently verified and unauthenticated alleged facts. Dan Rather lost face and will have to step down, whereas GWB won another 4 year term. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/124 "2005-01-12T15:13:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The more patiently someone explains to you that you’re wrong, the harder you’ll believe you’re right. Yeah, the “Bush lied” croud in this thread have been the MODEL of patience. :rolleyes: For the milliionth time, if anyone has any evidence that Bush actually believed that there were no WMD in Iraq, let’s see it. That would convince me. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/125 "2005-01-12T15:21:31Z")
He actively refused to find out, didn’t he? He was so desperate to get his war started that he refused to wait another 2 fucking weeks for the UN inspectors to confirm what had already become clear. The \*very best \* spin you can apply to him, even theoretically, is that he didn’t \*care \* what the truth was - but is that really any different from lying? There are 1300 dead Americans, something like 6000 more wounded, many for life, because of that - and some tens of thousands (his administration refused to release estimates) of dead Iraqis because of that decision - and you’re looking for hairsplitting ways to say “Well, he didn’t technically _lie_”. Go explain that to a grieving family. **zamboniracer** , yup, if Rather and Mapes had been Administration officials, they’d get the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our highest civilian honor, for it, and might even get Cabinet nominations for it. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/126 "2005-01-12T15:58:23Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > Seems they say they get their information from things like defectors, detainees, and Intelligence services. Seeing as how the President cannot verify every peice of information he gets personally, how else is he to get such information on an inaccessible regime? So where is the blatant dishonesty? So what you’re saying is that your president is just too lazy, stupid and gullible that he would accept the word of defectors [who were known to have lied before] and torture victims [who could be brought to the point where they’d say anything, rather than wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their work - and come to the conclusion they’ve had to admit to now - that there were no WMD, and no valid reason to invade Iraq. There was a lot of information out there about Iraq before the invasion - Bush’n Blair just weren’t listening. I’m not happy that our government aided and abetted Bush in this criminal action. After so many soldiers and civilians have died for this lie - can you honestly say that Americans feel safer after the war in Iraq? They haven’t brought freedom to those people - they have brought torture and death. Do you feel proud of your government’s actions? I don’t! ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/127 "2005-01-12T16:28:51Z")
> [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](#): > > So what you’re saying is that your president is just too lazy, stupid and gullible that he would accept the word of defectors [who were known to have lied before] and torture victims [who could be brought to the point where they’d say anything, rather than wait for the weapons inspectors to finish their work - and come to the conclusion they’ve had to admit to now - that there were no WMD, and no valid reason to invade Iraq. There was a lot of information out there about Iraq before the invasion - Bush’n Blair just weren’t listening. > > I’m not happy that our government aided and abetted Bush in this criminal action. > > After so many soldiers and civilians have died for this lie - can you honestly say that Americans feel safer after the war in Iraq? They haven’t brought freedom to those people - they have brought torture and death. Do you feel proud of your government’s actions? I don’t! There you go again. You automatically leap from lazy, stupid and gullible to LIE. I the word lie can be a synonym for anything as long as everyone comes to the same conclusion…yours. It’s comparable to saying that every perosn killed in Iraq by the coalition forces were murdered and all of the coalition troops are murderers. DOes that sound familiar? People argue that constantly and they use the same logic as you guys. “Don’t get technical with me. I feel what they are doing as wrong and can call it what I want despite evidence to the contrary.” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/128 "2005-01-12T16:30:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He actively refused to find out, didn’t he? He was so desperate to get his war started that he refused to wait another 2 fucking weeks for the UN inspectors to confirm what had already become clear. The \*very best \* spin you can apply to him, even theoretically, is that he didn’t \*care \* what the truth was - but is that really any different from lying? > > There are 1300 dead Americans, something like 6000 more wounded, many for life, because of that - and some tens of thousands (his administration refused to release estimates) of dead Iraqis because of that decision - and you’re looking for hairsplitting ways to say “Well, he didn’t technically _lie_”. Go explain that to a grieving family. Being ignorant isn’t the same as being a liar. And I’m not trying to spin this in favor of Bush, because I can’t stand him at all. I hate hate hate hate hate him. But I’m not willing to say that he spread lies about Iraq if: (a) there’s no strong evidence that he knew one thing, but said the opposite; or (b) it seems likely that he and others – many, many others, on all sides of the political spectrum – were simply wrong, as opposed to making things from whole cloth. That doesn’t strike me as hairsplitting at all. And as far as the grieving families go, I’m sure they are very thrilled to hear your explaination that their son or daughter died for a lie. I think they died in service to their country, with dedication to those who were fighting beside them, in a war that never should have been started. Neither the American soldiers nor the Iraqi victims asked to be sent into that meatgrinder. That’s Bush’s fault, and he should be condemned for it. But I just don’t see evidence that Bush knew one thing, but said another. It’s a matter of reason and evidence for me, not simply outrage at the terrible, bloody blunders he has committed. It could very well be that Colin Powell or George Tenet or someone will publish their memoirs in a few years and reveal that they knew full well that Saddam had completely disarmed, but decided to manufacture and plant evidence that he still retained WMD. If that’s the case, then I’ll gladly admit that I was wrong in defending Bush against the charge of lying to get us into a war that I always opposed. And should that scenario come to pass, as I admit my mistake, I’ll be wondering if some of this crowd in this thread will be calling _me_ a liar for ever defending Bush on this one issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/129 "2005-01-12T16:46:48Z")
**Ravenman** : I don’t think anyone is claiming that Bush knew there WERN’T any WMDs in Iraq. The claim is that he said he knew there WERE when in fact he didn’t know 100% for sure, and that he fudged the data to make it look more likely that Iraq did have WMDs. Those are different positions. To me, it just looks like sloppiness-- they assumed the WMDs were there and figured the case didn’t need to made strongly enough. They just assumed that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs (which was true) and that a strong case didn’t need to be made (which wasn’t true). Besides, we might as well banish the word “know” from the English language if someone is going to be called a liar because they said they knew “x was true” and it turned out later that “x” was not true. The other issue that causes some confusion is this whole idea of “imminent threat”. Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. although his administration did an absolutely horrendous job of making sure people didn’t interpret things that way. The Bush doctrine is that we can’t wait until they become an imminent threat because that’s too late. I hate this type of phrasing, but there’s really no other way to say it better: In a “post 9/11 world”, we can’t afford to let countries like Iraq become an imminent threat. (Note: I don’t believe this myself, I’m just explaining the Bush doctrine.) On this subject, I think people are confusing there disagreement with the Bush policy and the idea that Bush must have lied about an “imminent threat”. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/130 "2005-01-12T16:48:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He was so desperate to get his war started that he refused to wait another 2 fucking weeks for the **UN inspectors to confirm what had already become clear.** Oh, another point here. You’re overstating the certainty that existed at that time. In Hans Blix’s book, Disarming Iraq, he recounts a meeting with Tony Blair on February 20, 2003. He writes: > [@](#): > > Personally, I tended to think that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction, but I needed evidence. Perhaps there were not many such weapons in Iraq after all. Blix also goes into considerable detail at many points in the book that he had his doubts about the specific intelligence reports – especially the allegations of mobile BW factories – and yet he still thought that there were probably WMD to be found. This might be a quibble, but I think that Blix did an excellent job under the circumstances, and was approaching the matter in a far better and rigorous way than Bush et al. were. But if Blix had seen so much intelligence that he doubted, and still retained a gut feeling that he might find something, then I find it reasonable that Bush, who didn’t question the intelligence nearly as intently as Blix, would be even more convinced that WMD were still in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/131 "2005-01-12T16:50:11Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > What about inaccurately portraying the content of an article? Will that convince lots of people? > > The differences between your story and your cite that I pointed out were not minor details. They go to the crux of your claim that the White House lied about anything.So let me see if I’ve got this straight – cite to Fox News = bad (bringing about calls of “Faux News,” etc.); cite to Capital Hill Blues (site motto: “Nobody’s life liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session”) = A-OK. > > Come on! Let’s try and maintain some semblance of objectivity here. Surely we can do better than citing to an anti-government blog. And keep in mind that your cite is to _the author’s characterization of events_. The author has not provided us with any details or quotes regarding what the admin actually did, which would allow us to make up our own minds; he’s just characterizing what they did, and hoping that we mindlessly accept that. Your 2nd cite is to a blog that quotes Capital Hill Blues. So it’s no better. Yawn. Fox News is not a good source to cite because they have, on many occasions, reported pure fiction as fact with the obvious intention of benefiting conservatives, and they rarely bother to offer corrections and apologies when they get caught doing so. If you can prove that Capital Hill Blues does the same on a regular basis, then I will stop considering them credible. Until that time, I will continue to view them as one of the best watchdogs of Congressional action. But if you’re going to say that any source not alligned with your political beliefs is not “credible”, then I think this debate is at a standstill. Your Washington Post says that Shrub shared the true budget figures with “select” members of Congress. But that still leaves us with the unfortunate fact that a report which would have told all of Congress the definite, true budget figures was withheld by threat of firing an employee. As for your claim that Bush “never knew” the true figures, the WaPo article states that the White House released the true figures, which they had earlier lied about, a mere two months after the bill passed. And we’re still left with Pub Senators saying “Bush lied through his teeth”, which is a mighty odd thing to say about your party leader if he was actually infallibly honest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/132 "2005-01-12T16:53:42Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > …Now that is a lie. It’s not misleading, or aform of innuendo and insinuation, leaving a bit of room for deniability. Not one word!? Shall I directly link much that was corraborated?.. Yes. Do so. You may come across the following quote from a news conference in Cairo, Feb. 2001. Colin Powell speaking: > [@](#): > > …He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors… . Seems rather a disconnect, no? > [@](#): > > …Some people may have deliberately misled and others definately lied in reports and such, but you cannot prove Bush or anyone was anything but duped in those occassions… So merely a fool and a dupe? Swell. That must be an enormous comfort to you. > [@](#): > > …Many people believe Bush honestly felt the threat was real. They feel that under that percieved threat he did the right thing… _Feel_ is definitely the operative word. > [@](#): > > …ANd if you want to accuse of hypocracy, where is the database of all of the liberal lies that have gone on?.. Dunno. Don’t you? So, boiled down, your defense is: the President is not a liar, he is merely a chump and a dupe who relies on his feelings and intuition when making a decision that will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. And this is good enough for you. And secondarily, liberals are liars too, so that makes it a wash. Logic like this makes baby Jesuits cry. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/133 "2005-01-12T17:11:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Oh, another point here. You’re overstating the certainty that existed at that time. Perhaps. How about “\*nearly \* become clear”, then? > [@](#): > > Blix …still thought that there were probably WMD to be found. This might be a quibble, but I think that Blix did an excellent job under the circumstances, and was approaching the matter in a far better and rigorous way than Bush et al. were. He was using the appropriate attitude under the circumstances. Somebody looking for something will be more thorough, and be seen as more thorough, if he’s convinced it’s there somewhere. Yes, he certainly did do an excellent job under the circumstances. Far from the “Inspections are a joke” and “Blix is blind” crap we heard from the warhawks. > [@](#): > > I find it reasonable that Bush, who didn’t question the intelligence nearly as intently as Blix, would be even more convinced that WMD were still in Iraq. Then why not let him finish the job and be sure? Two more fucking weeks, that’s all it would have taken. If the shit was there and was a threat, that would have gotten the UN behind the operation. But we both know Bush was going to have his war even before 9/11, on whatever pretext became available. > [@](#): > > Being ignorant isn’t the same as being a liar. Not what I said. Ignorance is not knowing the facts. Bush actively \*refused \* to find out, and even started a war when the risk of the facts being revealed became too great. Yes, you’re hairsplitting. > [@](#): > > And as far as the grieving families go, I’m sure they are very thrilled to hear your explaination that their son or daughter died for a lie. I think they died in service to their country, with dedication to those who were fighting beside them, in a war that never should have been started. Because it was founded on a set of lies. > [@John Mace](#): > > Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. Okay, whose turn is it this time? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/134 "2005-01-12T17:14:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, whose turn is it this time? Yours. Show me where Bush used the exact words “imminent threat”. And be sure it is Bush himself, not someone else. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/135 "2005-01-12T17:24:21Z")
**Elivs** : I’ll save you the trouble. Please bookmark this page from Spinsanity for future reference. [Sorting out the “imminent threat” debate](http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html) > [@](#): > > What the administration said > > Those defending Bush most often point to an excerpt from the President’s 2003 State of the Union speech in which he explicitly said Iraq was not an imminent threat: > > ``` > Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. > > ``` > > Furthermore, these Bush administration defenders accurately point out that **neither President Bush nor any of his aides ever outright described Iraq as an "imminent threat."** My bolding. You are probably thinking of this: > [@](#): > > Twice, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer affirmed questions from reporters using the phrase “imminent threat” to describe the administration’s case against Iraq. As the liberal Center for American Progress pointed out, when Fleischer was asked by a reporter on May 7 of this year, “Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these – because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?” he replied, “Absolutely.” And on October 16 of last year, a reporter asked, “Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.” Fleischer replied, simply, “Yes.” > > While Fleischer’s affirmation of reporters’ use of the phrase is indeed notable, it’s important to keep in mind that he never uttered the words himself - hardly conclusive evidence in the matter. Fleischer incorrectly described the administration position. And it’s easy to understand why-- the position was confusing and poorly communicated, and IMO wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/136 "2005-01-12T17:29:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Yes. Do so. I have already done so with the bombing of the camps in Northern Iraq. > [@elucidator](#): > > So, boiled down, your defense is: the President is not a liar. Duh. Or should I say, \*you[/] have failed to show that he is. Your ad hominem attacks notwithstanding ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/137 "2005-01-12T17:36:40Z")
See, John? That was easy. Much easier, in fact, than wading through all the pages of thread cites that this board’s Search function comes up with. I do hope you read, and considered, \*all \* of that link. Why, btw, are you concerned only with those specific words in that combination, and not with the very meaning that you try to blur by calling it “badly communicated”? The Administration policy was to go to war in Iraq _no matter what_ the facts were, including the imminence or significance of any threat. That even took priority over hunting down Osama (and would you demand a cite for Bush saying “Wanted, dead or alive”, while we’re at it?). No, as your own link says, the Bush policy is that a threat doesn’t even \*need \* to be imminent to justify a war. The bar was much lower than that, to the point where the facts are simply not needed at all. Seems to me that’s even worse, doesn’t it? We hanged people for that at Nuremberg and Tokyo. ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/138 "2005-01-12T17:38:16Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > There you go again. You automatically leap from lazy, stupid and gullible to LIE. I the word lie can be a synonym for anything as long as everyone comes to the same conclusion…yours. Darn it - I’d just written a long reply to this post when my dog lay down on my computer cable, pulled out the plug, and my post was lost for ever. I can’t sit at the computer for long enough to write it all again so here are a few points. Bush/Blairco, the media, the CIA and British Intelligence knew before the invasion that some of their information was false - but they repeated the same lies and went ahead anyway. Other countries in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ withdrew their troops when they found out they’d been duped. Repeating information you have good reason to believe is false is telling lies, isn’t it??? [http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm) And, after the experience in GW1 with intelligence from expatriates - it was extremely lazy, stupid and gullible to accept anything from people with their own agenda as fact without checking it carefully - does no-one else remember the lies about Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators to die. [http://members.tripod.com/iraqbabies/babies.htm](http://members.tripod.com/iraqbabies/babies.htm) > [@](#): > > It’s comparable to saying that every perosn killed in Iraq by the coalition forces were murdered and all of the coalition troops are murderers. DOes that sound familiar? People argue that constantly and they use the same logic as you guys. “Don’t get technical with me. I feel what they are doing as wrong and can call it what I want despite evidence to the contrary.” Bush preferred to believe what he knew were lies than to believe the truth. Logic has nothing to do with your argument - there’s tons of evidence out there that Bush knew the facts - but **you’d** just prefer to stick your fingers into your ears, close your eyes to the truth and say ‘Yah Boo, I can’t hear you’. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/139 "2005-01-12T17:40:43Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > ANd if you want to accuse of hypocracy, where is the database of all of the liberal lies that have gone on?. Yeah, with all the tighty-righty bloggers with time and intense motivation to find _tu quoque_’s around, you’d think there’d be one, wouldn’t you? How about you start, then - what are some of your favorites? It’s spelled “hypocrisy”, btw - “hypocracy”, if it were a word, would mean “government by the lowest”. That might have some rhetorical value after all, though, ya know. ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205/140 "2005-01-12T18:37:46Z")
> [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](#): > > Bush/Blairco, the media, the CIA and British Intelligence knew before the invasion that some of their information was false - but they repeated the same lies and went ahead anyway. Other countries in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ withdrew their troops when they found out they’d been duped. Repeating information you have good reason to believe is false is telling lies, isn’t it??? > [http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm) OK, this is the last time I go to a “cite” that has obvious agendas. How about an unbiased link or at least something you have devoted your own time to corroborate? From your link, > [@](#): > > 1. Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger. > > Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, **and here is W’s most notorious case in point:** Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney’s office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: “Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) > [@](#): > > Wilson’s assertions – both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information – were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. > > The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address. > > … > > The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” > > “Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents – purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq – were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. > > … > > The panel said it still has “not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa.” If my fingers are anywhere, they are on my throbbing temples because I have to go through this crap. And if you decided to believe at face value what Common Dreams decides to tout as fact than you are either extremely lazy, stupid and gullible to accept anything from people with their own agenda as fact without checking it carefully, or a liar under your own paradigm right? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yeah, with all the tighty-righty bloggers with time and intense motivation to find tu quoque’s around, you’d think there’d be one, wouldn’t you? How about you start, then - what are some of your favorites? No thanks. I have better things to do with my time, like lurn to spell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-forgive-bushs-lies/284205.md?page=8)