...of the liesfalse statements. You're trying to excuse Bush and Co. not through exoneration but by claiming that Democrats are equally responsible for the liesfalsehoods. That's nonsense on the face of it: The liesfalsehoods originated inside the Bush Administration, in many cases from dubious sources such as Rumsfeld's private "alternative" intelligence office; while Democrats (and Republicans and the spineless media) repeated them. Those who create lies are far more culpable than those who believe them and repeat them.
You're using the same tenuous argument to claim that the study is biased because it only examined the statements of key Bush Administration officials. Again, of course it did--those are the people who originated the liesfalse statements. If you think it means something to count those who believe and pass on the liesfalse statements, you may as well count almost of all of the lapdog media and a majority of the American people (at the time). Does the sheer number of people fooled by the liefalse statement make it less a liefalse?
I noted that you also tried to split hairs with a technical definition of "lie" (though you didn't actually provide one). Let's go with the element of intent...isn't it curious that the tempo and quantity of the liesfalse statements varied in lockstep with the political calendar?
Kinda looks like the liesfalse statements were made based on calculations of political benefit. Fascinating how there's a gigantic peak just before an election, dontcha think?
Current Events » in reply to Heh.
Consider the source
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Study: Bush, other officials issued hundreds of false statements before Iraq invasion
- Why am I not surprised?
- Heh.
- Same analysis, different source
- Consider the source
- He got you guys again
- Clinton made us do it......
- Democratic "support" for Bush-Cheney based upon misguided trust.
- For those who are interested.