Is Bush lying about his lies? (GREELEY ALERT)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel25.html ^ | November 25, 2005 | ANDREW GREELEY

[Angry Republican]

If you lie about your lies, then are you telling the truth?

[A.A. Cunningham]

The heretic Greeley should stick to the only thing he's good at; writing soft core porn.

[Political Junkie Too]

Now we realize that even before Sept. 11, the powerful people in the administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) wanted a war with Iraq.

Let's see, that would have been only about 8 months in office. You don't think they were still focused on their transition since Clinton/Gore froze their transition funds until December 2000? Or how about how the Senate was still holding up Bush's appointments to Cabinet and Under-Secretary positions? Don't you think they were still focused on trying to put their team together?

-PJ

[razorgirl]

I thought that the Sun-times was a conservative newspaper. What are they doing with a columnist like this?? (Isn't this the home newspaper of Novak?).

[ncountylee]

The Rev. Andrew M. Greeley is a priest, sociologist, and best-selling author. He is a professor of social sciences at the University of Chicago and the University of Arizona, and a research associate at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. His current sociological research focuses on contemporary issues facing the Catholic Church, including the celibacy of priests, the ordination of women, the religious imagination, and the sexual behavior of Catholics.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Greeley is probably alluding to the January 1998 letter sent to Clinton & signed by:

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey & Robert B. Zoellick

However, Greeley always fails to mention the 1998 Congressional resolution signed into law by his impeached pal Slick Willie, advocating regime change in Iraq:

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Nor does he mention that 157 Democrats voted in favor of said resolution.

Randy Andy has always had an aversion to the truth.

[redpoll]

Yes, it all makes sense now. Evil Nazi Republican morons concoct a brilliant conspiracy to hide the truth inside the truth wrapped in lies for the purposes of turning the United States into a Christian theocracy run by tyrannical capitalists using Wal-Mart merchandise to get the oil from Iraq and kill the caribou in Alaska and pollute the earth and kill kids by keeping abortion illegal and banning contraception while phony blacks promote white male politics because they hated Clinton so much and it's all just revenge on the loss of GW's father in the 1992 election.

Wow, it just makes the tin foil in my hat all tingly.

[Loyal Buckeye]

If I had a nickle for every time a RAT politician said 41 failed when he didn't take Sadaam out, I would have a whole lot of nickles.

The RATS can't stand it when GWB acted while all they could do is shoot off their big mouths about Sadaam.

[pawdoggie]

That many of the arguments in favor of the war were false is beyond question. In Andy's opinion, of course, but this is instructive because when a Republican is fed potentially faulty information, it's not an "error" or a "mistake" or a "misreading", it's a "falsehood" (like all those "falsehoods" that led Bill Clinton to conclude that letting Osama Bin Laden flee to Afghanistan was a good idea). And how many arguments are "many". Frankly there weren't that many "arguments" in the Congressional "use of force" resolution, which constituted our official reasons for invading Iraq. Of those few (though important) arguments, only one has been shown to be in (arguable) error (or "false" as Andy puts it): the presence of stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.

The president is not a man who likes to admit he was wrong. Therefore, one must cover up the mistakes.I was thinking about this the other day. When did FDR admit his "mistakes" in not "leveling" with either the American people or (more importantly, in this case) with his military commanders in the Pacific about the dangerous turn negotiations between Japan and the US had taken in the months, weeks and days prior to Pearl Harbor ("this means war")? When did Harry Truman admit his big boo-boo in not including Korea in the "American security zone" prior to the North Korean invasion? And when did JFK give the "I blew the Bay of Pigs, and got snookered at Vienna" speech to the nation?

The buck stops in the Oval Office. If the president was not deliberately lying to the American people, he nonetheless presided over what was in effect and in truth a massive deception. He would be much wiser to admit his mistake and assume responsibility, but it is apparently not in his character to do so. Here's where the old Soft Core Porn Meister trips himself up. Having declared "Bush's lies" a self evident truth in a previous paragraph, he now concedes the possibility that the President didn't "deliberately lie" to the American people, he just "presided over" a bit of wishful thinking (wanting Saddam out of power, like his predecessor, and therefore wanting to believe the intelligence that his "handlers" presented him on WMDs, like his predecessor). So now we all see why those White House Reporters (and Dutch Uncle Greely) wanted (and want) so desperately for the President to "admit" a mistake, because in their world mistakes can equal "deception" and "lies".

[ZULU]

Since they lost the election, the Dmes are trying to recreate the Nixon days and either impeach Bush or force him to resign.

They are criminals.

[Wil H]

So this guy is a priest? How terrible someone in that position would lie like this

I guess it's an improvement on buggering little boys..

[Wil H]

If you lie about your lies, then are you telling the truth?

Absolutely not -Joe Wilson demonstrated this.

[jpl]