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.

 

You Want a Documented Lie by George Bush?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I have been thoroughly amused by some recent discussion on ATS about whether George Bush has told lies. The deluded Republican partisans reject all examples of Bush lies, because the sources that document the lies are left-wing. LMFAO! What difference does that make if the source provides valid links which document the lie? But the Bush lovers refuse to even consider any source with a left-wing bias.

How about the official White House website? Would you consider that a reliable source? From a November 12, 2003 interview with David Frost of the BBC.


Nobody could say that Saddam Hussein wasn't a danger. Not only was he a danger to the free world -- and that's what the world said. The world said it consistently -- he was a danger to his own people, as well. Remember we discovered mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men and women and children clutching their little toys, as a result of this person's brutality.


www.whitehouse.gov...

Well, it turns out that that is a flat out lie, and Tony Blair, who made the same claims, has admitted it is a lie.

PM Admits Graves Claim 'Untrue'


Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.
The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

The admission that the figure has been hugely inflated follows a week in which Blair accepted responsibility for charges in the Butler report over the way in which Downing Street pushed intelligence reports 'to the outer limits' in the case for the threat posed by Iraq.


Tony Blair has admitted that he lied about the mass graves. When will George Bush do the same?






[edit on 7/21/2004 by donguillermo]




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Well well this thread is a bit empty you can hear the Bu#s over in the corner mumbling about whom they can blame is little lie on, ‘oh oh’ I have an idea it was MI5s fault no no the CIA, ha ha you get my point,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it wasn’t us

George who? (George I’ve never made a mistake Bush) your being Funny aren’t you donguillermo



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I will agree that this is a pretty damn big lie, and yes, I am a Bu#e. However, and a big however, 5,000 of his own people tortured and murdered is pretty damn atrocious.

I mean, we lost just under 3,000 people from 9/11 and I am pretty pissed off about it. Imgine 5,000 people tortured and then murdered.

I am not saying that number lying of that magnitude is not bad, I am still disgusted that someone would kill that many of their own people.

Edit: Downing Street pushed intelligence reports 'to the outer limits' in the case for the threat posed by Iraq.

Weren't these mass grave findings after the start of the war?

[edit on 7-22-2004 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I will agree that this is a pretty damn big lie, and yes, I am a Bu#e. However, and a big however, 5,000 of his own people tortured and murdered is pretty damn atrocious.

I mean, we lost just under 3,000 people from 9/11 and I am pretty pissed off about it. Imgine 5,000 people tortured and then murdered.

I am not saying that number lying of that magnitude is not bad, I am still disgusted that someone would kill that many of their own people.


Well, many mass graves have not yet been investigated, so the final number may be much higher than 5,000. But who is to say all these people were tortured and murdered by Saddam? From Saddam's perspective, maybe he was fighting a terrorist insurgency, just like us.

Who is to say Saddam is the terrible villain we have made him out to be? It might interest you to know that there is serious doubt whether Saddam or Iran was responsible for the gas attacks at Halabja in 1988.

You might also be interested in knowing that there is serious doubt whether Saddam ever plotted to kill the first President Bush, as has been alleged.

I don't have links handy for these points, but if you are handy with Google, you should be able to find reliable information casting serious doubt on both these accepted historical truths.

No doubt Saddam was a corrupt ruthless dictator. But was he really any worse than many other dictators we have done business with in the past, and continue to do business with today?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Well, mass graves usually indicate one thing: plotted extermination. Let's say he was fighting insurgents, all of those people, including children, yes children, were killed in such a short period of time, that they needed a mass grave site?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Well, mass graves usually indicate one thing: plotted extermination. Let's say he was fighting insurgents, all of those people, including children, yes children, were killed in such a short period of time, that they needed a mass grave site?


Agreed. But you do know that many children have been killed in Iraq as collateral damage to U.S. military operations? And that there are mass graves in Fallujah, where indiscriminate U.S. bombing in residential neighborhoods has killed hundreds of women and children? Yes, I know, we are bombing suspected terrorist hideouts; but the point is, many innocent women and children get killed when you drop 500-pound bombs in residential neighborhoods.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
"Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam’s regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Ba’ath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shi’ite save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shi’ite uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. "

www.shianews.com...

There are bound to be mass graves some where with hundreds of thousands of corpses; according to Iraq's own records, 5 million people were killed.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
They will admit wrong doing but not without putting a "well you know what" or a "but" in their sentence to justify the lies because perhaps they are so hell bent on being in the right instead of "wrong/left" you know how it is, right is the truth even though their leader has been caught in lie after life... I guess right and wrong are long gone words unless you have your political party affiliated with the word... This goes for both sides mind you.



[edit on 29-7-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog

There are bound to be mass graves some where with hundreds of thousands of corpses; according to Iraq's own records, 5 million people were killed.


You are missing the whole point. Bush and Blair claimed that hundreds of thousands of corpses had already been found. Actually, only 5,000 corpses have been found. That makes what Bush and Blair said a lie. Even if hundreds of thousands of corpses are eventually found, that doesn't make Bush and Blair any less liars. Again, I emphasise, Bush and Blair made statements about how many corpses had already been found.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Bush is a LIAR. Im sure if I scoured the pages and pages of information that come out of the White House everyday you could write a book, just on his lies alone.

I still remember when the 9/11 commission was going to question Bush about intelligence, etc. and they said he would NOT be under oath. All I thought was.....then why believe him, if a Christian President cant be under oath it must mean he is hiding something.

Bush has lied plenty, whether its left or right wing information is erroneous!



Of course, many other presidents have lied as well, maybe just not to the extent that Bush has!



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
What? You couldn't get enough mileage out of this post
Bush and Blair Lied About Mass Graves in Iraq in the War On Terrorism forum? These are the same arguments.

What's that all about?





posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   
try this,

www.shianews.com...



Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam’s regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Ba’ath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shi’ite save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shi’ite uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. With slogans such as “After today no more Shi’ites” the army had advanced into the city of Karbala. The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared.


I suppose how many iraqi's were in mass graves depends on the when your talking about as this systematically occured thruout iraq over a period of years. are we talking about local to one area or nationwide?

My point here is, lets say this was an actual lie, not a confusion of info...
IS THIS N ACTIONABLE LIE? is the question you havwe to ask yourself...
in otherwords....can you actually DO something to get Bush with this lie?
Doubghtful, was he speaking to the press when he said this or under oath?

Do the words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ring a bell?
Politicians lie? noooo...you dont say? The pot calling the kettle black?



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Don't know if this will count but here is some of the thing Bush said on the issues and then the things he did on the issues

www.house.gov...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   
CazMedia says


I suppose how many iraqi's were in mass graves depends on the when your talking about as this systematically occured thruout iraq over a period of years. are we talking about local to one area or nationwide?


Please reread my post. Both Blair and Bush stated that hundreds of thousands of corpses had already been found. Not how many might eventually be found, or how many were believed to be in the mass graves. The actual number found is 5,000. Bush and Blair lied.


My point here is, lets say this was an actual lie, not a confusion of info...
IS THIS N ACTIONABLE LIE? is the question you havwe to ask yourself...
in otherwords....can you actually DO something to get Bush with this lie?


Ahh, the Republicans favorite word when spinning away the truth, "actionable." This was not confusion of info, it was a lie. My purpose in making this post was not to "get" Bush. I was responding to various posters who claimed there was no evidence that Bush lied about anything. Incidentally, for other Bush lies, see the thread

"Bush Lied?" Let’s Examine the Facts


Doubghtful, was he speaking to the press when he said this or under oath?


He was speaking in an interview with David Frost of the BBC. The fact that he was not under oath doesn't make it any less of a lie.


Do the words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ring a bell?
Politicians lie? noooo...you dont say? The pot calling the kettle black?


This is not a pot/kettle/black situation. Clinton is not pointing out this lie, I am. Thank you for providing another example of a phenomenon I have previously commented on. Whenever Bush is criticized, the response is always "Bill Clinton did it, too" or "It's all Bill Clinton's fault." Why do Bush defenders always want to change the subject to Bill Clinton, rather than answer valid criticisms of George Bush?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
DG,
First off, and not to attack you personally,
but that avatar you have of the ex first bitch, I mean Senator Bitch Clinton is really creeping me out. Can you help us out here, save that avatar for halloween? I just want to reach out and slap those glasses off her condecending face...LOL

On to debate,
Do you mean found by the coalition or found by anyone? Im still unclear on the time period in question here? Both our links each have cited are about a month apart timewise.

What are you using to determine this statement was a lie as opposed to a misstatment/innaccurate research at that time? Is it possible its a lie, yes...is it possible that this was some type of error from sources to the Prez? yes.....it it can you clarify this?

DG says,


He was speaking in an interview with David Frost of the BBC. The fact that he was not under oath doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Well it kind of does matter. Anyone can legally lie to the press, especially those "in the know"...as a member of the press that has to deal with officials i know this happens. Lying under oath is a crime however.

Some lies are worth more than others in the game that is life.
Lying in general is not illegal, and indeed sociologists say that lying is actually GOOD for cultures, otherwise if we always said exactly what was on our minds, starting in our families and working outwards, there would be a lot more friction in life than there is when humans lie so as not to hurt another person. Lies are a form of "social glue" so to speak in this fashion..example..next time my wife comes down and says "how does this look?" if i said what i really thought there would be a fight, so I lie and tell her its fine. I am not advocating lying, but mearly pointing out that it is a very deeply ingrained part of the human condition.

My pot calling kettle black comment was not to point the finger away from Bush for alledged lies, but to show that BOTH parties leaders have, and do lie. Im not suprised that politicians "exaggerate". on either side.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   
CazMedia says


On to debate,
Do you mean found by the coalition or found by anyone? Im still unclear on the time period in question here? Both our links each have cited are about a month apart timewise.

What are you using to determine this statement was a lie as opposed to a misstatment/innaccurate research at that time? Is it possible its a lie, yes...is it possible that this was some type of error from sources to the Prez? yes.....it it can you clarify this?


The date of the BBC interview was November 12, 2003. Eight months later, on July 14, 2004, the Guardian publishes a story saying that Tony Blair has admitted that only 5,000 corpses have been found. You are grasping at straws and using a semantic smokescreen to spin Bush's statement as not being a lie.

When Bush made his statement, the U.S. military had been on the ground for eight months. This was not a case of faulty intelligence. The military knew how many corpses they had found. The only way Bush could not be lying is if the military deliberately passed false information up the chain of command. How likely is that?

What happened is that Bush and Blair had reports from Iraqis that the mass graves contained hundreds of thousands of corpses. That may ultimately prove to be true. But Bush and Blair, relying on possibly questionable intelligence, both said hundreds of thousands of corpses had already been discovered, when they both knew that only 5,000 corpses had been discovered.


Lying in general is not illegal,


I never said it was. The whole point of my original post was an answer to certain posters who claimed there was no evidence that Bush ever lied about anything. But Bush doesn't have to be under oath for a lie by him to be a crime and an impeachable offense. He is commander-in-chief and has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. If he deliberately lies about an important government matter, he has committed an impeachable crime, in my opinion. For example, suppose it could be proven that Bush knew he was lying about WMD in Iraq, not that he was misled by faulty intelligence. In that case, wouldn't you say he should be impeached?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
DG Says,


You are grasping at straws and using a semantic smokescreen to spin Bush's statement as not being a lie.


Hold it a second, how the hell did i put up a smoke screen by asking you for a little more info? I wanted to understand weather or not the bodies were found during the occupation by coalition forces or not. The link i cited talked about "hundreds of thousands" of bodies over a period of time....i wanted to know what period of time that you were speaking about. Indeed it seems that a lot more than 5000 bodies have been found in mass graves in Iraq, its just splitting hairs to try and pick one instance out of the timeline and say only 5000 bodies were found [BY COALITION FORCES during x timeline] is the part you left off that sentance to start with. A small obfuscation there? Mind you some of us are not sitting with a flowchart and timeline of events like you might be.

besides, look at what the last paragraph of YOUR cited article says

from observer.guardian.co.uk...



'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq.'


All thru this article, it talks about the difficulties in assertaining this information....

It seems to me that this situation is more about confusion of information, varying sources, and "common knowledge" shared thru human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world, that led to both Bush and Blair to use the figures they did, and which led to a retraction of those statements (meaning they realized the error)

I feel this is extremly thin as a lie, considering your own source used qualifiers to cite difficulties as well as acknowledging "hundreds of thousands" killed in Iraq by Saddam regime. Talk about grasping for straws, im glad i re read your article cited because it was all i needed to see thru your anti Bush haze.
Did your source lie then too?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Bush told a lie? Name a person who hasn't lied?

Actually, with the misinformation floating about these days, it is possible Blair told 2 lies, and Bush told none in regards to the issue at hand.

The internet, lair of whacko's, myself included. My grandfather always cautioned me "do you believe everything you read?"

One finds information to support ones belief, no matter what the source.

One criticizes another's source, and vice versa.

Who indeed knows the truth, one chooses to believe what one chooses to believe.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire, Bushy is a liar, Bushy is a liar.

Clinton did NOT tell a lie, depends on what the definition of is, is.

Oh for cryin out loud, judas H. priest, everybody has told a lie.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Yeah, so what, right?

So what if the President of the United States tells a few lies in order to get "his war"?

Who cares if most of the MAIN reasons for going to war have been proven to be falsehoods and fabrications?

Who cares if tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US forces have died in the meantime, BECAUSE the war was fast-tracked because of "actionable information" which later turned out to be false?

It's a whole bunch of little white lies, and not even 50,000 people have died because of it.

Pfft.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
CazMedia, we have reached the point of diminishing returns in this conversation. You are using smokescreens with all this talk about timelines, confused information, unconfirmed reports about hundreds of thousands of corpses in mass graves, and allegations of millions of people killed or missing in Iraq.

I have already answered all your arguments and questions, point by point, and you just keep bringing them up again. Bush stated as a fact that hundreds of thousands of corpses had already been found. Eight months later, Blair admitted that only 5,000 corpses had actually been found. Bush lied, pure and simple. Spin it all you want, Bush still lied.


Indeed it seems that a lot more than 5000 bodies have been found in mass graves in Iraq,


Please document this statement. You are just making things up.


its just splitting hairs to try and pick one instance out of the timeline and say only 5000 bodies were found [BY COALITION FORCES during x timeline]


No, you are the one splitting hairs with this irrelevant talk about timelines. You are now making things up and deliberately obfuscating the plain facts. I repeat, here is the timeline. Bush states hundreds of thousands of corpses have been found in mass graves in Iraq. Eignt months later, Blair states only 5,000 corpses have actually been found. That is your timeline. Spin that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join