The word "lie" has a precise meaning. The Democratic Party and their stooges have spent years trying to make "Bush Lied" objectively stick, and failed miserably.
There's a difference between being wrong about something, and lying about it, and this stupid "study" trying to blur that distinction doesn't change that.
I simply made the point above that many people on all sides of the political spectrum believed the things this study tries to palm off as "deliberate deception," and did so using the best information they had, from many sources other than just Bush. If Bush was "lying," they all were.
I picked Hillary's speech because it was easy to find, and had both Saddam possessing weapons AND his link to al Qaeda in a nice package. I could have used most of the Democratic leaders of the time. Anybody who cares to can just go down the list and apply the study's methodology, linked in my first response. You can discard anything before 2002 and still have a nice collection.
I suppose if I had used a non-Clinton as my example, it would have made the same point, and not confused people who apparently have trouble with such things.
It's not my fault people drift off the issue around here.
Current Events » in reply to He got you guys again
re: He got you guys again
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.