Skip to comments.Is Bush lying about his lies? (GREELEY ALERT)
Posted on 11/25/2005 10:52:01 AM PST by Chi-townChief
Not only did the Bush administration deceive the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq, it is now deceiving them about the deceptions. In a burst of political tantrums, the president and the vice president have shouted that it was "irresponsible" to assert that there had been deception and it was unfair to the troops fighting in Iraq.
Is the administration lying about its lies? That many of the arguments in favor of the war were false is beyond question. Nor can there be any serious doubt that the new argument that it is irresponsible to question the old arguments is also false. But if a lie is a conscious effort to deceive, then the charge that the president and the men around him deliberately lied and are now lying again, then that issue must be left to heaven. It is enough to say they spread falsehoods three years because they had made up their minds that there had to be a war and are now spreading falsehoods about the original falsehoods. The president is not a man who likes to admit he was wrong. Therefore, one must cover up the mistakes.
Consider some of the evidence. Vice President Dick Cheney and the president both insisted that Iraq was trying to import "yellowcake" uranium for nuclear weapons. Then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and the vice president warned of "mushroom clouds."
Bush says that everyone agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He has said in the past that it was not his fault that all the intelligence agencies of the world believed that they did. Therefore, the intelligence agencies of the world were to blame for the mistake, he wasn't. Everyone in Washington, he argues, supported the war.
In truth, many Democratic senators did, not realizing how much the case in favor of the war had been cooked. In the national intelligence estimate issued just before the war, the internal dissent was excluded. The administration had created an atmosphere of fear and deception that indeed won support for the war.
Now we realize that even before Sept. 11, the powerful people in the administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) wanted a war with Iraq. The day of the attack some of them tried to find evidence that Iraq had attacked us. Now there was certainly going to be a war, and the challenge was to present a case to the American people to win their support for the war.
The search for evidence was essentially a search to make the case, not a search for the truth, much as one prepares a political campaign or support for legislation or drafts a legal brief. One looked for evidence that would justify the war as preventing Rice's mushroom clouds. One took whatever one could find. Even Colin Powell says his sad attempt to be the Adlai Stevenson of his day was the worst experience of his life. The U.N. inspectors found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. But that conclusion was dismissed, in effect, as a typical example of U.N. "waffling." No one in the administration, as far as I know, has ever said that the inspectors were right. It would seem such a suggestion is "irresponsible."
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.
Moreover at least three-fifths of the American people now believe that he did in fact deceive them. The question arises as to whether he and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are also deceiving us on the certainty of victory in Iraq. Granting for the sake of an argument that we must train a functioning Iraq army, why will no one in the administration predict how long that will take? Why after several years of that effort is there only one fully capable Iraqi unit (of 750 men)?
James Fallows, in a long and careful article in the Atlantic Monthly, says that it would probably take 10 years, just as anonymous hints from the Pentagon assert. The alternative is set a strict schedule for withdrawal, which Fallows admits would be a loss of honor.
Whose honor? That of the United States or those who fabricated the reasons for the war? What honor do Bush and Cheney have left?
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
The thing Fr. Greeley hates most about Bush is that he is a Christian. Greeley is one of those confused souls who mistakes Karl Marx For Jesus of Nazareth.
And .. he never mentions .. are the dems lying about their lies about Saddam and his WMD ..?? The dems were talking about long before Bush even came into office.
Funny .. the Clinton years seems to be totally forgotten.
I think I remember going to war with Saddam back in the 80s....do any of these folks remember that ? ...not that it matters but there was talk that maybe we ended that war too soon ...
The inability to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Psychosis is a term used to describe a severe mental illness. Psychotics are characterized by a variety of symptoms that most people consider abnormal. These include experiencing delusions, such as the notion that one is being persecuted or conspired against. Psychotics may see things which don't actually exist and hear Voices (i.e. God) when no one is around. They often exhibit compulsive, irrational, ritualized behavior, esp. when such behavior serves no purpose or is even harmful or disruptive to those around them. They show no concern for others but may exhibit total self-centered behavior. Includes sociopathy, schizophrenia.
and thats MISTER Dickhead to you, Airman!
What a waste of words by Greeley... it pays to have tunnel vision but if his party keeps losing elections, maybe it's time to open them up.
Father Greeley should stick to religion! I think priests taking aggressive political actions went out with Cardinal Richelieu!
The author is a lying about lying about lies.
So this guy is a priest? How terrible someone in that position would lie like this.
Yes he is a Jesuit priest! He has written a number of novels too, can't recall any titles.
The liars who have been lying about Bush now are forced to say that Bush is lying about lying. That makes them liars about the lies that they claim Bush is lying about the lies they claim he is lying. Can their lies get more convoluted? The trouble with liars is that they lose track of their lies.
(If you can follow this perhaps you can clarify my confusion.)
Greeley is telling lies to back up his lies by claiming Bush is lying about lying. Simple.
The picture is of two Marines and Surfer Boy, the one that looks like he wants to tear Kerry a new one is a Sergeant.
Let me understand this - The heads of government around the world says Saddam has WMD - and we are supposed to ignore it?
Can you imagine if you were responsible for the lives of 280 million Americans - would you ignore this information, and do nothing? I can see the Democratic response now if something did materialize.
If you lie about your lies, then are you telling the truth?
The heretic Greeley should stick to the only thing he's good at; writing soft core porn.
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?
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?).
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.
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:
Nor does he mention that 157 Democrats voted in favor of said resolution.
Randy Andy has always had an aversion to the truth.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I guess it's an improvement on buggering little boys..
Absolutely not -Joe Wilson demonstrated this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.