It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patrick Cockburn: This is the war that started with lies, and continues with lie after lie after lie

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

This is the War that started with Lies, and continues with Lie after Lie


www.independent.co.uk

It has been a war of lies from the start. All governments lie in wartime but American and British propaganda in Iraq over the past five years has been more untruthful than in any conflict since the First World War.


The outcome has been an official picture of Iraq akin to fantasy and an inability to learn from mistakes because of a refusal to admit that any occurred. Yet the war began with just such a mistake. Five years ago, on the evening of 19 March 2003, President George Bush appeared on American television to say that military action had started against Iraq.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Changed title

[edit on 3/19/08 by FredT]




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
This is a timely and accurate expose on the unfathomable dishonesty that has taken place from our filth-bag 'leaders' to start, and more importantly CONTINUE this sham of an invasion and occupation going on in Iraq. The lies are occuring steadily right up to this very moment, with Dick Insaney spewing his rubbish of how well everything is going over in Iraq (in direct contradiction to the General running things over there) and making more assinine statements trying to tie an Al qaeda presence YET AGAIN to Iraq as an excuse to why this invasion was necessary. The lies and deceptions are endless with these criminals...

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-3-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Before reading through yet another "Bush is bad because of the Iraq war" thread, here's some interesting info on previous democrat presidents and their wars:

a. FDR led us into World War II with Germany.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost -
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost -
an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost -
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing.

But Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.



[edit on 3/19/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Although I agree with this viewpoint, this is not news. This is an editorial.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Before reading through yet another "Bush is bad because of the Iraq war" thread, here's some interesting info on previous democrat presidents and their wars:


Before derailing the thread with off topic material, try reading the piece.


If you'd like to discuss past democratic Presidents, feel free to start a thread over on PTS; however, the last I knew, two wrongs don't make a right; so you can play the "but the evil Dems did this..." game, all day long, and it won't amount to anything. Intelligent people see right through that tired partisan charade.

Personally, I think the piece was quite well written, and highlights the MSM frenzy/propaganda machine. Many Americans are still unaware that an American military spokes-man said there was no evidence the two recent bombers had Down's, and many uninformed citizens are still hyping it. Our MSM is quick to sensationalize, and miserable at setting the record straight.

[edit on 3/19/08 by redmage]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
But Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.


What does Osama have to do with Iraq? Its been proven there was no connection between Iraq and Osama. "Al Qaeda" didn't exist in Iraq before the war, and now the "terrorists" have moved there.

DD,

Another great thread.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


Pointing out that instead of this being just a "Bush lies ..." issue, it is more like "Standard Operating Procedure" for presidents and that even more democrats than Republican presidents have engaged in this sort of behavior is hardly a thread "derailment".

It's more like a wake up call to dump your anti-Bush tunnel vision and start looking at the bigger picture.





posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


You cite Germany as a reference to this war? Sadam barely had an army or an airplane, let alone capacity to invade or attack the US. Germany was a SLIGHTLY different story. How can you even compare the two?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthWithin
 


Does the term "4th largest army in the world" stir any memories for you?

If not, here's a history lesson for you: it was how they used to describe Saddam's army before the U.S. military pulverized it. At any rate, before it was destroyed, the iraqi army was widely considered to be a dangerous military force with experience in using WMD.

So, your comment does not refute the point I was making that many presidents have engaged in wars where the U.S. was not directly attacked - not just Bush.

Thanks.




new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join