[KJC1]

This is a great read. Long, but well worth it.

[RedCell]

ping for later

[edcoil]

"What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed"

Bush won't fight back. Arnold won't in California.

A lie goes around the world before the truth gets its shoes on but, the truth has to get up and going.

Neither Bush or Arnold seem to be fighting back.

[Williams]

I think the biggest lie now is that the "war" is going badly. The war was won, Iraq is meeting every election milestone, and there is no significant military action against our forces.

I blame the administration at this point, they don't have the political courage to say things are going well. They think that if there are casualties the next day they will look bad. They need to EXPLAIN things to the public. I'd like to know who the heck they think is going to do it, if they don't.

[BackInBlack]

Excellent article. The one line I take issue with, various forms of which have been floating around this forum for a while now is this: "To lie means to say something one knows to be false." To lie is also to say something one has little reason to believe is true. If I say my neighbor's dog were hit by a car and killed today, I'm lying even though I don't know for sure that I'm wrong. It is also a lie, for all moral purposes, to utter a technical truth that is designed to mislead someone into believing something false. It's a distinction without a difference. What I'm driving at is we don't want to diminish the standard of lying. In the long run, that doesn't serve anyone. Now under these strong standards, I think the administration did tell some fibs in the run up to war. That's what administrations do. I know of no administration, Republican or Democrat, that did not tell similar lies. And none of the administration's fibs change the fact that this war was a just cause that we should have undertaken even without the exaggerations. That, to me, is the bottom line.

[ocr1]

ping

[kellynla]

BTTT

[Capriole]

Tremendous article. I wish the Bush adminstration were more forthright in putting out information like this. If Karl Rove weren't so busy with legal problems he could put together a media campaign that would consolidate this evidence and shut the Democrats up.

[Quilla]

Holy cow! Did you catch footnote #1:

Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.”

[Homer1]

Everybody knows it's a lie, but it's also a big cash cow for the democrats; so they keep repeating it.

[rhombus]

A great resource, will save for later but why is this dated December 2005? Am I having a senior moment? What year is it?

[KJC1]

Ping for a great article to read and bookmark for future use ;)

[ZULU]

It is a good read.

WMD were just ONE of the MANY good reasons for invading Iraq.

Saddam was also funding terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Saddam may very well have been involved with the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Saddam tried to murder an American President (Bush I).

Saddam violated the terms of the Persian Gulf War I treaty.

Saddam ordered his people to fire on U.S. and British planes enforcing the no-fly rule.

Iraw was strategically positioned in the nexus of terror between the Sudan, Lybia and Syria on the west and Iran on the east.

Bush's problem has been his indefensible inability to articulate for the unwashed American masses all these facts along with the ones outlined in the article.

Whenever Dems attack, Republican S.O.P. is to sit there like a punching bag and take it.

The problem with Iraq and the war there is it has become an end in itself instead of what it really is - just ONE battle in a major worldwide war with Islamofascism.

Shortly AFTER our invasion, Lybia came clean (or pretended to), the Syrians were quiet and the Iranian nutjobs stopped all the heated rhetoric about the great white Satan.

They were scared. They were afraid THEY were next. They should have been.

When cleaning out a nest of vipers, make sure you don't miss any.

[daviscupper]

This is a great read and should be filed away and used repeatedly to beat lying DemoRATS and MSM liberals over the head. Learn the details. The facts are on our side. GLTA

[marblehead17]

ping for later

[Yardstick]

Reference bump

[Stultis]

The following passage from the OSS's psychological profile of Adolf Hitler might have been written for today's Democrat leadership:

His primary [propaganda] rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

[VOA]

bump

[r-q-tek86]

This is great... thanks for posting

I'm wondering... is there a rebuttal article out there that is as well documented? (I know that isn't possible... but I'm sure some DUmmie has tried)

It would be interesting to see their version of the "facts".

[Rakkasan1]

bttt

[Cautor]

Thanks for posting this MUST READ piece.

The bit pasted below really could be read to suggest (as others have already pointed out here) that Wilson was/in cahoots with French intelligence as part of their effort to discredit efforts by the Bush administration. Someone really needs to get to the bottom of this and soon.

"More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, “among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."