13 June 2005

You'd think if anyone would know how to say "dissemble"...

From The Times in the UK:

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

From yesterday's WaPo:

Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security. Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.

and God bless The Daily Show...

Governor Bush on Global Warming in 2000: "I think it's an issue we need to take very seriously, but I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions."

President Bush on Global Warming in 2005: "We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."

FYI: The jury's in.


And people continue to object any time this man is called a liar.

"How can you justify that," the apologists whine, "three review commissions have never found anything regarding misrepresenting the intelligence."

As if that's the only point a lie could've occurred in the last four and a half years.

As if the commissions were even allowed to glance in that direction...

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month."

No one in private life can exaggerate, feign ignorance, or "disassemble" so consistently and not be called out for exactly what he/she is: a liar. But again, the MSM and the individuals comprising it are so cowed by the Republican noise machine that they hesitate to call a spade a spade for fear of rebuke. Anything less than fawning adoration and the kool-aid quaffers mount up on their oh-so-high horses and make pronouncements of "namecalling," being "anti-Bush," and "slander."

Note to the horsemen of the apologists: it's only slander if the accuser is lying.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...