Comments (47)

WTFEveryDay wrote on August 22, 2007 12:32 PM:

Bush lies. The sky is blue. Grass is green. is this news? It would be far easier to identify any instances of TRUTH that have emerged from the great misleader's mouth over the last 7 years (if not his entire life).

Impeach...imprison....now!

moondancer wrote on August 22, 2007 12:33 PM:

I'm shocked that shrub would lie to us about the Iraq occupation.
Actually, the more amazing thing about his speech is trying to tie similarities to vietnam. How weird, after spending the first several years slapping people down for even mentioning any comparison

Anonymous wrote on August 22, 2007 12:41 PM:

So why does Nancy Pelosi keep saying impeachment is off the table? The Democrats were elected in November on a campaign that emphasized standing up to Bush and Cheney. Yet, once in power, they have continually run away from the central issues.

And, instead of forcing the Bush administration to end its unconstitutional domestic spying activities, the Democrats have hastily passed a bill that gives the President even more powers.

Are the Democrats competent to run the country?

mo2 wrote on August 22, 2007 12:43 PM:

He is a liar and is threatening to torture Iranians! We all know what labelling as an enemy combatent means - it means disappearing, it means torture, it means no right to lawyer, no right to trial, no right to know what you are charged with, no Red Cross visitors, .... "Obstruct funding" my ass.

"The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization."

BG Portland wrote on August 22, 2007 12:49 PM:

From thelittle I could stomach watching this morning, I heard the oft-repeated lie "we are fighting them there so we don't fight them here" again - a terrible insult to every law enforcement and border patrol officer in the U.S.

I did hear some reference to Vietnam,and gathered than it is now a war the U.S. won - but then the Commies took over when we withdrew. Now there is peace after the U.S. withdrew - so i don't get the whole deal.

As I say, I couldn't watch much - my stomach gets the heaves, and my blood pressure gets too high. My language deteriorates badly too.

IMPEACH BOTH DICK & GEORGE!!! (please)

thomas wrote on August 22, 2007 12:50 PM:

if the Dems want to know why their congress has such a low public opinion standing they just need to do the math.
Add the 25% bush deadenders (obviously against the Dem congress) to the 60%+ of those who voted for D's in 06 (voted for the Dems to do something about this administration - something that isn't getting done) and you get the the number that is unhappy.
the rest just aren't paying attention.

jfaberuiuc wrote on August 22, 2007 12:50 PM:

What's even more impressive is that at least five of the AQI men killed or captured each month are actually the #3 man for the organization in Iraq!

Anonymous wrote on August 22, 2007 12:52 PM:

But an inability to disprove a statement doesn't ever make that statement true -- rather, that makes it gibberish.

'propaganda' sounds better and more accurate that 'gibberish' for this administration

Grogor wrote on August 22, 2007 12:52 PM:

I have 1500 cars and other possessions.

Richard M. Mathews wrote on August 22, 2007 1:01 PM:

There is another lie in there. It is the assumption that if we suspect someone of being against us and the Maliki government, they must be an extremist.

There is no "innocent until proven guilty" here. If they are captured, they are guilty.

There also is no possibility that those who are against the Maliki government might be something less than an extremist.

It may well be that every one of these detainees is an extremist. It just has not been proven.

mutt wrote on August 22, 2007 1:06 PM:

Whats wierd is his points will be repeated so often by hacks & stooges it will be referenced in the future as a "everyone knows".
By dint of repitition, it will become fact. In some minds....

sec code: please.
As in Please jail Cheney first...

AlphaLiberal wrote on August 22, 2007 1:13 PM:

George Bush is al Qaeda's biggest promoter.

AlphaLiberal wrote on August 22, 2007 1:15 PM:

George Bush is al Qaeda's biggest promoter. I'm sure they appreciate his services to inflate the reality of their size and effectiveness.

What a dupe.

Legalize wrote on August 22, 2007 1:26 PM:

Wait, so yesterday, the Commander Guy states that if the people of Iraq are unhappy with their government, then they should replace it. However, today, the Decider states that anyone who opposes said government is an extremist.

I can only imagine the knuckle-draggers drooling and nodding "yup" to both statements.

Anonymous wrote on August 22, 2007 1:29 PM:

I'm an amateur historian in the uses of propaganda in this past century.
I cannot think of any regime, including those of the Soviets and Nazis, who have made a more Orwellian use of language in politics as have the Busheviks.

Part of me tells me we may be doomed as a Republic. God help us I hope I'm wrong.

williamf wrote on August 22, 2007 1:35 PM:

More of the same. Lies, smoke and mirrors, vacillation, equivocation, provocation, stupification, the bullshit machine is working well.

interested litigant wrote on August 22, 2007 1:42 PM:

There is no lie. You would find something to make up as a lie in order not to write anything intelligent. I've read your garbage before. You can be counted on to pull the line of the socialist useful idiot every single time. You are pathetic.

flag wrote on August 22, 2007 1:42 PM:

According to Bush's math, at this rate, this "war on terra" should be over in about 100,000 years.

TheraP wrote on August 22, 2007 1:45 PM:

1. I thought we didn't "do body counts."

2. If Iraq is Vietnam - and we ARE doing body counts, then who have WE become?

rob meyer wrote on August 22, 2007 1:48 PM:

IMPEACH NOW!!!!! IMPEACH NOW!!!!! IMPEACH NOW!!!!!

jeffgee wrote on August 22, 2007 1:48 PM:

Also to be compared with Vietnam: Young pro-war Republicans with "Other priorities" to military service
I call them "Little Dicks"

Anonymous wrote on August 22, 2007 1:58 PM:

I fear that analogies with WW2, Vietnam, Korea, however fallacious, will work with the dead enders because they know few, if any details of such conflicts or are so muddled that the mere evocation of such names provides justification for our presence in Iraq.

"It's just like Korea, isn't it?"

No, my friend, it's not "just like Korea." It's more like Vietnam.

MsInformed wrote on August 22, 2007 2:23 PM:

IMPEACH*INDICT*IMPRISON

1st Dick, and then "the dick".

SB wrote on August 22, 2007 2:25 PM:

As Spencer alludes to, it sounds sooooo much better to uninformed Americans (like 'interested litigant' above) to state "al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists" than simply "Iraqis." But the latter, more accurate term would make Bush look like a belligerent, brutal, bloodthirsty savage so it's not used.

Rich wrote on August 22, 2007 2:32 PM:

I guess President W was right - this war is just like Vietnam. Didn't they fudge the kill numbers of VietCong then? This is right out of the LBJ/Westmoreland play book.

Righteous

Perm Dude wrote on August 22, 2007 2:32 PM:

I don't mean to nitpick, but the President said "killed or captured" not just captured. He may, indeed, be lying, but responding to his remarks by only citing the "captured" side of the equation is the same rhetorical device Bush employs so often. A better response would have been to include the "killed" portion in the response.

pd

Phillbert wrote on August 22, 2007 2:35 PM:

I'm reminded of the scene in HBO's "Path to War" where McNamara's staff does some simple arithmetic on figures the Army provided about enemy soldiers killed & wounded during Tet, only to discover the Pentagon was claiming to have inflicted 125% casualties on the enemy.

If Bush's figures are correct, we may be dealing with some sort of zombie al Qaeda operative that can regenerate itself.

Roy Eidelson wrote on August 22, 2007 2:59 PM:

For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing at http://www.eidelsonconsulting.com/videos.php

moondancer wrote on August 22, 2007 3:17 PM:

This is all pretty easy if you remember one thing: The official story is ALWAYS a lie. Working under that assumption, finding the truth is a little easier.
You can assume Maliki is toast, but cant be touched cuz they have no alternative. AQI is just a phrase for shrub. He ignores the persistent mantra that they are but a small part of the problem. In his newspeak he is trying to make them central.
The surge as a whole is a lie. It means nothing without a real government. Yet he is keeping the spotlight on one aspect that is useless without the other.
His constant braying about giving Iraqis a chance for democracy is a lie. They want two things: us gone and security. Of the two us being gone is much more important.
Lastly, the most compelling lie. The country is going to collapse into a civil conflagration the minut we pull out. Well, how do things look right now? We can still maintain a presence in the area to keep opportunists out of the mix, but this has to play out sooner or later. I dont think anyhone thinks it'll improve after 10-15 years of our occupation.
Having lost all chance of any support from the country, its time to be a man for the first time in your life and admit your gross error and get out.

lostrax wrote on August 22, 2007 3:31 PM:

AND i bet everyone here can provide an acurate advanced summary of the "report on progress in iraq" due out in september. get ready for a fresh fork-turn of the same old manure pile folks.

Xman wrote on August 22, 2007 3:39 PM:

I very much doubt Bush "knows" anything. He is just parroting what he hears that he likes. I desperatly what history thinks of him. He protests otherwise too much to be believed. I'm pretty sure the Viet Nam comparison comes from Cheney and Rummy (where they failed and still seek to rescue their manhood). They know the Viet Nam thing is still a nice little polarizing hot button. They have to give their side something new everyday to try to keep them on their side. FOX and the hate media need fresh "content" everyday.

code: expert. Expert at twisting anything to get his way...or fool the monkies.

theswan wrote on August 22, 2007 3:40 PM:

Her isn't going to leave without an oil agreement to benefit his base, his al-qaeda.

Captain Nemo wrote on August 22, 2007 3:41 PM:

Too many Democrats let the Republicans call the tune. Rather than questioning the wisdom of our aggressive military stance, they outbid each other to show that they are strong on defense, they will retailiate, they will invade any country to take down the terrorists, they call for Maliki to resign, etc.

The truth of the matter is that the United States is addicted to war. Too many people's economic security are tied up with "defense". We spend more on weapons than the rest of the world put together; and yet the country is vulnerable to attack.

Our power to destroy is greater than our power to control, as Zbignew Bresinki put it.

Few have seriously challenged the constant militaristic propaganda promoted by the Repubicans to keep themselves in power and obscure their greed and corruption. Kucinich and Gravel are the only Democratic candidates who have seriously raised this issue.

The Democrats need to begin re-framing the national debate on
our hyper-aggressive military posture, and its detrimental effect on our own society, as well as the world's.

Michael Lafferty wrote on August 22, 2007 4:25 PM:

The assassination of President Hgo Din Diem and the self immolation of Buddhist priests paint a picture of South Vietnam at a time during which a different administration had to make decisions about the future of US support to an ongoing war effort.

Can the US-directed death of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the suicide of imams be close at hand?

StevieG wrote on August 22, 2007 4:30 PM:

The real lie in Bush's statement is the implication that these killed or captured "Al Qaeda terrorists" are the of the same ilk as those who attacked us on 9/11. Fact is, the vast majority of terrorists we have killed or captured in Iraq wouldn't be terrorists at all had we not invaded Iraq. The US (or more precisely, the Bush administration) recruited a whole army of terrorists with their reckless and unnecessary war. Sure we're killing or capturing some of those terrorists, but the sad fact is that we've killed or captured far fewer than we've created, and every day we create more than we'll ever manage to kill or capture.

Bush touting the number of Al Qaeda we've killed or captured in Iraq is like an arsonist firefighter touting the number of blazes he's extinguished. A stat that looks praiseworthy on the surface but hides a more sinister truth.

Michael Lafferty wrote on August 22, 2007 4:31 PM:

That would be President Ngo Din Diem…

It's worth noting, by the way, that these actions occurred as the result of decisions made by a comparatively sane Kennedy administration. Not much at all like the set of crazies who currently occupy the White House, the 'unitary executive office of the Vice President' and the CIA, DOD and others involved in the Vietnam debacle.

Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on August 22, 2007 5:09 PM:

It very funny to note that Bush dropped the "Coalition forces" or "Iraqi-US forces" joke in this latest exageration.

If US Forces are killing or capturing 1500 terrorists a month, how long will it take to deplete Saudi Arabia? Not a typo. US officials recently noted that a majority of the bombers in Iraq were coming from Saudi Arabia.

wm wrote on August 22, 2007 5:54 PM:

Come on, he didn't say that did he. Hey lets start a campaign to refute every lie with adds on the national news media.16 more months of this bull. Will we still be.

Stephen Borron wrote on August 22, 2007 7:10 PM:

Rachel,
Duh! I don't expect the average Joe to understand the very clever analogy Bush made between Iraq and Viet Nam, but YOU of all people! Can't you see we're headed down the very same path? In 30 years, we'll not only have to normalize relations with Al Qaida, but give them most-favored nation status! We'll have a 10 trillion dollar trade deficit with them, we'll be begging them to devalue their currency, and we'll be flooded with Sarin-tainted toys! God Bless George W. and God Bless America.

The Oracle wrote on August 23, 2007 12:30 AM:

I'm a veteran.

I served in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War.

I will never join the VFW.

Most VFW members salute a guy who went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard when he was a young drunk and lied us into a war in Iraq as a crazed president, a war that has gotten tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers killed or maimed for life.

Nope, I will never join an organization that blindly follows such a craven president, and equally craven vice-president.

Reverend Jim wrote on August 23, 2007 12:33 AM:

moondancer: " Actually, the more amazing thing about his speech is trying to tie similarities to vietnam."

Yeah, you'd think the Vietnam War would be the last thing he'd bring up ... after all, that's the war he deserted from. (Please, MSM, somebody bring that up!)

Patriot wrote on August 23, 2007 12:40 AM:

Just to make sure there is no mistaking the Hilary/Bush agenda is the SAME! For real change in Washington D.C, Please Vote for anyone who did not vote to get us into this Quagmire in the first place.
I am going to Caucas for and vote for Barack Obama.
Why? He will bring the needed change.

Professor wrote on August 23, 2007 10:16 AM:

Gee, it's pretty interesting when you parse a statement that is true, and blog that interpretation as constituting a "deceptive", "blatant lie".

Even your leftist sources [Brookings Institute, Spencer Ackerman] acknowledge that Bush's statement is factually true. Credible military and intelligence sources acknowledge the difficulty in determining membership in al Qaeda, whether native Iraqis or foreign nationals. So it makes perfect sense not to attempt to discriminate the count of those "killed or captured" into the pigeonholes of "al Qaeda" or "other terrorists". Those captured and in custody lie about their affiliations and nationalities to attempt to get freed to fight again. "I'm just an innocent goat-herder... Al Qaeda came into my humble home and forced me to shelter them... etc, etc." And discriminating the identity of the dead [terrorist? foreign? domestic?] is next to impossible. They aren't going to DNA-test every corpse to determine its family tree. Hell, had Bush made more specific breakdown of the numbers, you would be bitching about how those numbers were "blatant lies" because Brookings, or Spencer, or Ned Parker, disagreed with the numbers quoted.

BTW, the Parker estimate of "...only 135 foreign... out of 19,000 detainees in U.S. custody..." leaves an awful lot of room and speculation on the number of DEAD foreign al Qaeda members. After all, it is these foreign interlopers who are more likely to fight to the death rather than be captured.

I wish you had spent a tenth of the time you have on parsing Bush's statements in trying to interpret the misleading, self-serving, statements of ex-President Clinton. For example, his latest claim that "We contracted with people to kill him [OBL]. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.” Not even Michael Isikoff could buy that one.

sluggo wrote on August 23, 2007 12:35 PM:

Bush wasn't lying. He knows how to count only in 'base 3'.

Anonymous wrote on August 23, 2007 1:11 PM:

Bush is a DECEIVER. The difference between outright lying and deception is "technically" telling the truth in a way that's intended to elicit an inaccurate and deniable perception from the listener. In other words, the listener is at fault for hearing what he/she inferred was said rather than the actual words of the speaker. Only a member of the Bush administration could deliberately deceive and claim not to be a LIAR.

buckheaddad wrote on August 23, 2007 2:48 PM:

BACK TO BASICS:

The very essence of the "addictive personality" is
THE LIE. The addict tells themself (and all others) that "ALLs OK . . . there's nothing wrong
with me . . . just tag along a little longer."

buckheaddad wrote on August 23, 2007 2:48 PM:

BACK TO BASICS:

The very essence of the "addictive personality" is
THE LIE. The addict tells themself (and all others) that "ALLs OK . . . there's nothing wrong
with me . . . just tag along a little longer."