Spinsanity: The Republican assault on "political hate speech"

They did but IIRC the CIA's "pessimistic" viewpoint was ignored and the State Department's comprehensive plan was dropped and the Defense Departments "they will welcome us with open arms" plan was inserted without *any* contingencies.

 

First of all, I am not defending the Kennedy charge.

And why does it matter if Bush INTENTIONALLY misled the nation, a lie is a lie even when the teller is not fully aware of it. Someone in the Bush administration had selective perception when it came to the intelligence that was gathered and/or presented to the public when drumming up support for this war. When it comes down to it, the ADMINISTRATION lied and since Bush is supposed to be in charge of the administration, he is ultimately responsible for any exaggerations, misstatements, or outright lies.

 

No, giddy, you haven't accepted that he lied. You are correct that I cannot tell you without doubt whether the statements given to the public to bump the poll numbers for this war were misstatements, exaggerations, distortions, or outright lies. The point is that information was given to the American people that has turned out to have been debunked before it was used to make the case for war. That certainly fits the description of someone using false information to deceive or mislead.

Foirst, why are you limiting it to office holders? Office holders are not the ones on the right that most people listen to, that would be Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (and to a lesser extent, Hannity and Colmes ). They were calling Clinton a liar (and much worse) on a daily basis.

 

Diseminating misinformation without intention is not lying. I know; I'm George Washington!

 

Originally posted by andymoon

No, giddy, you haven't accepted that he lied. You are correct that I cannot tell you without doubt whether the statements given to the public to bump the poll numbers for this war were misstatements, exaggerations, distortions, or outright lies. The point is that information was given to the American people that has turned out to have been debunked before it was used to make the case for war. That certainly fits the description of someone using false information to deceive or mislead.

<b>Everything Bush or Clinton or Perot wants to do is debunked by critics and political opponents. If you cannot tell the difference between misinformation and outright lying, you have no business calling it a lie. How can you dispute that? Maybe because it serves your purpose?</b>


Foirst, why are you limiting it to office holders? Office holders are not the ones on the right that most people listen to, that would be Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (and to a lesser extent, Hannity and Colmes ). They were calling Clinton a liar (and much worse) on a daily basis.

<b>I am llimiting it to office holders because their job is to serve their constituency not to influence the national opinion and jostle for sound bites. We are at war here not arguing about whether or not to keep Daylight Savings Time.</b>

 

I don't if those remarks said it best, but they best show what's wrong with Bush's thinking.

In the end it looks like those that wanted to wait were right, and Bush was wrong. Not waiting and rushing into a war because of WMD that weren't a threat resulted in the loss of lives that didn't need to be lossed.

 

I'm not sure why this is even news, the Republicans have been at this since Gingrich and Atwater, literally making the new truth of George Orwell's 1984 a reality so that there is a so called liberal bias to news in general and Fox is deemed balanced.

 

Yes, the 2004 election is going to get quite ugly... witness this memo from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie

GOP will trumpet preemption doctrine
By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 11/12/2003

WASHINGTON -- Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq, Republican Party officials intend to change the terms of the political debate heading into next year's election by focusing on the "doctrine of preemption," portraying President Bush as a visionary acting to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil despite the costs and casualties involved overseas

The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

(snip)

Source-Boston Globe