LIES
On May 1, 2005, the Sunday Times of London published confidential minutes of a meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his cabinet. The minutes disclose that President Bush and Blair had secretly planned to invade Iraq—before discussions about inspections for weapons of mass destruction had even begun; in fact, before the United Nations had been asked to revisit the idea of inspections. This casts a shadow on all of Bush’s statements about his reasons for going into Iraq, especially those claims about weapons of mass destruction.
When two trailers were captured in Iraq in May of 2003, Bush proudly declared that “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.” But three weeks prior to the acquisition, the Pentagon had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. The report was sent to the president two days before his statement, rendering him well aware of the reality of the situation. Yet he chose to make his statement in spite of the truth that was laid before him.
Bush also claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported in 1998 that Iraq was six months away from producing weapons. But no such report existed. What the IAEA did claim, however, was that there was no sign that Iraq even had the capability to produce weapons. Bush’s statement was an outright lie, a complete fabrication, not a slight bending of the truth or an omission of vital information.
This is only one set of his lies centered around an illegal war—a war that he began without Congressional approval, which is required by law before engaging in war. Why do we continue to believe anything he says? Why do we think that he’s not lying about any other thing he discloses to the public?
When President Clinton made his famous lie (“I did not have sexual relations”), he was impeached. Why don’t we render the same service to our current president for perhaps the most deadly lies in recent history?
When two trailers were captured in Iraq in May of 2003, Bush proudly declared that “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.” But three weeks prior to the acquisition, the Pentagon had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. The report was sent to the president two days before his statement, rendering him well aware of the reality of the situation. Yet he chose to make his statement in spite of the truth that was laid before him.
Bush also claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported in 1998 that Iraq was six months away from producing weapons. But no such report existed. What the IAEA did claim, however, was that there was no sign that Iraq even had the capability to produce weapons. Bush’s statement was an outright lie, a complete fabrication, not a slight bending of the truth or an omission of vital information.
This is only one set of his lies centered around an illegal war—a war that he began without Congressional approval, which is required by law before engaging in war. Why do we continue to believe anything he says? Why do we think that he’s not lying about any other thing he discloses to the public?
When President Clinton made his famous lie (“I did not have sexual relations”), he was impeached. Why don’t we render the same service to our current president for perhaps the most deadly lies in recent history?
posted by Anonymous at 4/13/2006 09:45:00 AM
5 Comments:
Wow, that runs pretty deep. I agree wit hthe point that you make saying why don't we extend the same service, but just let me say this. Do we really want Dick Cheney running it in his stead? I think that Congress realizes their mistake, but for that reason they don't want that to happen. Another good reason to leave it well enough alone is our own beloved, treasonary Karl Rove. That man is a snake in the grass and what he has done to expose almost 110 CIA operatives. Why wouldn't he do that to any of the people that back the impeachment of Bush.
He is a liar, he is not really stupid. Anyone that can wag the dog like he has done, and get all of America to back it(and some still do) to a lot more smarts than we give him credit for. He sucks in the communication department, but it's the friends that you surround yourself with, and they happen to have just as much power. Enough to scare the entire Congressional staff.
I like the post and am in no way arguing, I'm just adding to it. Great post and very informative. I like it.
President Clinton was impeached? Where was I when this happened?
I think the democrats are too weak at the moment to do anything against Bush.
I mean - think about it: Bush says "We're gonna find out who leaked the information and they're gonna lose their job!" all the while knowing that it was him that authorized the leak.
Yet that's not enough ammo for the democrats to take him down?
That's the problem I think with the system. It's like weighing negatives almost. The Republicans to me seem like a scheming, lying, close minded, rich boys club. And to me the Democrats seem like a weak, do nothing, socialist cool kid party that I seem to have little in common with. I hate that Moderates that I may agree with more, and ones that hold closer to my values get pushed to the side in this system.
So is it really Justice for all? Where is there justice in a corrupt society filled with greed. That is the fueling factor in our so-called wonderful government.
Kay Nixon resigned before he was impeached, most people think that he was removed from his office because of impeachment. A common misconception.
Back to the point at hand. Until we as a society can clean the dirt from our eyes, that these so called politicians throw at us around every corner, and find a party not moved by the money thrown at them. Then this is never a Democracy. I think our founding fathers would absolutely shudder to think that our society has turned out to be nothing close to what they have dreamed. The dream was to be free of oppression, which in a sense we were. But then there comes the NSA wiretaps, and the President spying on anyone that seems to form a strong claim against him. So tell me this, are we right now free of oppression? On the outside it may seem to be so, but you have to get past the lies(once again) to determine if that is the truth. The truth of the matter is no, just like Lizzen has brought up in this blog. Great thoughts and very inspiring!
Post a Comment
<< Home