Republican lies used to trick the public

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: Republican party would have been labeled as the party of terrorists. Seriously, there are plenty of examples of incompetence and downright treason on the part of the current administration.
  • #141
Art said:
Well, well what a surprise. More lies.
It seems WP is classified as a chemical weapon by the pentagon but only when used by Saddam.
http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/
There is a link to the actual report embedded in the article above.
How convenient.
Art said:
More lies in the making? The Whitehouse has dismissed a newspaper report in the UK which claims Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera's offices in Qatar but was talked out of it by Blair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4459296.stm
It is interesting to note the people who leaked the supposedly 'non-existant memo' have been charged under the official secrets act. Which seems a tad self-contradictory. :rolleyes:
Senior politicians in the UK are now demanding the memo be published in full.
And here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153489/

Disturbing. No wonder Cheney and Bush are being so defensive—they know they must stop the investigations that continue to reveal their true nature, which is far worse than “irresponsible.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
It gets better. It seems the British gov't are going to extraordinary unprecedented lengths to prevent this 'non-existant' memo from being published.

Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1648594,00.html

This subject is getting a lot of attention in the UK. It seems all journalists are concerned about the idea that members of their profession can be murdered for doing their jobs because some people don't appreciate bad press.

Many are also now openly questioning whether the pentagon lied when they claimed the bomb attacks on al-Jazeera's offices in Baghdad and Kabul were accidents.

The memo also puportedly refers to a heated disagreement between the US and the British regarding the battle in Fallujah. Hopefully someone will leak it on the internet soon as it is likely to be very 'illuminating'

The trial of the cabinet officer who originally took the memo is to be held in-camera so the conclusion can only be that it's contents are devastating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
Art said:
The trial of the cabinet officer who originally took the memo is to be held in-camera so the conclusion can only be that it's contents are devastating.
"In-camera" ? What exactly does that mean ? No public access or something more ?
 
Last edited:
  • #144
Gokul43201 said:
"In-camera" ? What exactly does that mean ? No public access or something more ?
In secret - no press, no public, just the judge and the legal teams.
Latest from Guardian Newpaper in the UK
Gagging for the truth
Leader
Thursday November 24, 2005
The Guardian
It is impossible to know if George Bush was being serious if he did indeed suggest to Tony Blair that the US attack the Arabic satellite television broadcaster al-Jazeera. The White House does not even want to dignify this "outlandish" report with an answer. The British government is saying nothing either, but it has charged two men under the Official Secrets Act with leaking and receiving a document, and threatened to gag newspapers if they dare reveal its contents.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1649442,00.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Wilson has given an interview to BBC radio in the UK twisting the knife in the white house claiming Blair was tricked into supporting the war in Iraq.
Bush aides 'double-crossed' Blair

Mr Wilson disputes that Iraq was acquiring nuclear weapon material
The ex-US diplomat at the heart of the political crisis in the White House says Tony Blair was "double-crossed" on the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
Joseph Wilson said he believed the Mr Blair had thought he was getting involved with a "disarmament campaign".

But "he was double crossed by the regime change crowd in Washington" and ultimately had "no choice" but to go along with a regime change war.

Mr Wilson told BBC Radio 4 the White House had "hyped the nuclear case".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4465810.stm
 
  • #146
Art said:
Well, well what a surprise. More lies.
It seems WP is classified as a chemical weapon by the pentagon but only when used by Saddam.
http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/
There is a link to the actual report embedded in the article above.

Nice Catch.. so, 2 closed threads and each time more info to support our points... i would say 3 times proved wrong, even after they closed our threads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
That only proves that Pentagon (and in the other thread, the State Dept.) have lied to make their case...nothing else. Would the State Dept. have criticized some other country for use of a similar weapon(?)...most likely. However, WP is not classified as a chemical weapon, and this doesn't change it. Do I sympathize with its use : no way !
 
  • #148
How the Bush Administration sold the war

The Public relations firm, The Rendon Group, and Ahmad Chalabi and Judith MIller were employed by those who needed an excuse for the war in Iraq.

Link contains video and text

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/2011
JAMES BAMFORD: Exactly. Before he actually called these people into broadcast this information, obviously the C.I.A. had a big interest in this and the Pentagon had a big interest in this, so the C.I.A. flew a polygraph operator with his machine all the way over to Thailand, Pattaya, Thailand, which is south of Bangkok, and they went into a hotel room, they strapped up al-Haideri, and they asked him all these questions.

And they went over and over for hours his allegations regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they came away with charts that indicated he was deceptive, that he was lying, that this was not true. And they flew back to Washington and, presumably, assuming this was going to be the end of it.

But that was information that was never made public. They didn't broadcast that information. So what happened was the I.N.C. and Chalabi decided to take that bogus information that al-Haideri was giving and broadcast it around the world. So, they called in two journalists. One of the journalists was Judy Miller, who was given the worldwide print exclusive rights to the story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
Ivan Seeking said:
Here is another one for the list: If you don't support the war in Iraq, you aren't supporting your troops or country. In other words, the only acceptable position for any loyal American is to be pro-war.

What lie could be greater or more devious?

That one really irritated me...follow the crowd or be Anti-American. Psh. People usually feel the war isn't at all good for America and are thus looking out for their country's well being...how is that bad? What about how we entered this war in the first place? Didn't we, more or less, push and shove other countries into the same situation? "You're either with us or against us." Didn't Bush say that or something like that?
 
  • #150
AngelShare said:
That one really irritated me...follow the crowd or be Anti-American. Psh. People usually feel the war isn't at all good for America and are thus looking out for their country's well being...how is that bad? What about how we entered this war in the first place? Didn't we, more or less, push and shove other countries into the same situation? "You're either with us or against us." Didn't Bush say that or something like that?

Whe he addressed the joint session of Congress, September 2001 he said;

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #151
I finally fully apreciate what Sir Winston Churchill meant when he said:

Democracy is the worst form of Government barring all the rest:biggrin:

You voted the semi literate ninkompoop in again you kinda screwed up there:bugeye: the world breathes a collective sight that presisdents only have two terms of office. How lucky you are that that constitutional idea was finally enforced:rofl:

American Politics, honestly guys you couldn't make this stuff up:tongue2:

Our politics are down right mundane compared to you guys, hats off?

Your media representation of the world is also fairly amusing, it often walks a fine line between impartial reporting and propaganda. it's a good job you Americans have other ways of obtaining information than your news programmes. They sometimes distort the facts a little too much for my liking. Mind you so does much of our press sometimes, you just have to chose the wheat from the chaff.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
110
Views
28K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
238
Views
25K
Replies
133
Views
24K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
3K
Back
Top