In response to enuffisenuff's comment:
In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
Heh, heh, heh ... ya, I guess pushing lies and propaganda through the news media to sell the Iraq debacle was soooo much better.
That was "patriotic"; sending American soldiers half-way around the world to bleed and die, all for a lie ... the neo-cons support that kind of 'shilling'.
"Lies and propaganda" were pushed through the news media to sell Iraq?
Nov 2001 Pentagon official Richard Perle: "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."
Obvious that was a lie.
26 Aug 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Obviously there was doubt else we would have found the weapons.
18 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
Obviously a lie.
28 Oct 2002 During a speech at the Riner Steinhoff Soccer Complex in Alamogordo, New Mexico, President George W Bush declares: "He's got weapons of mass destruction."
Well where are they?
21 Mar 2003 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares: "Well, there is no question that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly."
Obvious a lie.
1 Mar 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense "We know where they are [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
President George W. Bush, in the 2003 State of the Union address, uttered the infamous "16 words": "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Even Colin Powell called Bush on that one.
All those statements, and more, were presented as declarations of fact. No equivocation, no hedging, no sense of any doubt what so ever. They all were reported by the news media as statements of facts, no questions asked.
Not a single one of those statements were proven to be true.
If you present something as an unquestionable fact even though you know it's no better than a guess - at best - then you are lying. When you say you "know" something when you really don't know anything, then you are straight-up lying. You are purposely twisting the facts and giving the audience a false sense in the reliability of your speculation. You are trying to convince people that you "know" something when you really don't "know" anything. It is the textbook definition of propaganda.
— n 1. the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc, to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc
Because they weren't "proven true" does not mean they were lies and propaganda. I think the world for years stated clearly that there were WMD. I think another poster (above) showed the large amounts of info presented from both sides for moving on Iraq.
I can't deal with ideologues. I vote for the Democrat nine times out of ten because they make more sense to me. However, the truth is the truth. The truth about Iraq is, Democrats and Republicans wanted to go, voted to go, and went.
Bush bungled it up, but nobody lied and nobody pushed the media to influence a war.
Heh, heh, heh ... apparently your the person that everyone sells their bridges to.
The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against military action.
And even if they all voted for war, that only proves the lies worked, not that they weren't lies.
If someone makes an unequivocal, unparsed and unambiguous declaration that they "know" something to be true and that statement turns out to be untrue, then they were lying when they made the statement.
If someone makes a strong but hedged statement in which they 'believe' something to be true or they 'think' it is true and it turns out to be untrue then they didn't lie.
You can't go around stating something to be 'known' when it isn't.
Words have meaning and there were plenty of other less specific words the little-Bush administration could've used but they didn't. They chose those particular words for a reason; to convey a sense of specificity, of finality, of "knowledge" yet in truth, none of those words applied to what they actually knew about wmd in Iraq.
They lied, and they lied to convince people to support the Iraq debacle. That is textbook propaganda.
Okay. Thank you for proving my point about ideology and blind support for the letter after a politicians name.