[bholdr]

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

I find it almost unbelievable that some people don't see through this kind of shameless propaganda... the quotes that are used, out of context, DON'T EVEN SAY what the writer tries to trick you into thinking they do... It's an irresponsible, dishonest hack job...

Here:


[ QUOTE ]
In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.



"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

[/ QUOTE ]

The writer wants to prove the president's innocence by proposing that if bush's specific claims about WMDs were lies, then ALL claims about WMDs in iraq are categoriclly lies... including, appearently, those cited by clinton in a seven year old speech. PROOF!

G'huh?

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between Clinton's citation of a years-old iraqi admission of previous WMD capabilities, and Bush's appearently willing lies; Statements that he KNEW to be untrue when he made them. These claims were made with the intent of convincing the public and the congress to support a war of aggression that they would not had Bush been honest.

Now, I'm not completly convinced that Bush deliberatly lied... though i'm quite sure that the way the administration convinced the public and the government (and out few allies) to support his dirty little war was deceptive, misleading, immoral, reckless, and shameful. read on for more of the same from the right:

[ QUOTE ]
"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002



Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.



"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

okay... wow. In this passage, we're supposed to believe that, somehow,

IIIIF bush was lying about, oh, i don't know, specific evidence of an african uranium connection in his state of the union address,

THEEEEN Harry Reid MUST have been lying too, when made some genralizations about iraq pre-war...

as for Ms Clinton's selection... it's so stunningly out of context that i really don't know where to start.... geez... she doesn't even SAY that there are WMDs in Iraq! Even if the poster's absurd 'if bush lied then they all lied' line of reasoning made sense (it doesn't), this quote wouldn't even remotly apply. maybe hilliary HAS said that she thought iraq had WMDs, but she doesn't here... why does the poster want us to believe that she does?


But you know what? I'm not really suprised. After all, the poster uses the same shady tactics that W himself used when he was banging that drum- selective use of intelligence (quotes out of context), fixing the evidence around the policy (claiming that target is saying something clearly not contained in the material), and eagerly accepting ideology as reality... chucking reason out the window in favor of their absurd hubris. WAKE UP!