Ex-Bush spokesman: President used 'propaganda' to push war

My word, how do you refute such logic.:bowdown:

I did not need to refute the ignorant pap he was spewing. It is simple really, if Bush lied every fucking country in the world that believed the EXACT same thing was also lying. And the UN was lying as well since they did not certify he had no weapons, even after intense attempts to do so.

His own Generals BELIEVED he had weapons. You people are hilarious with your ignorant spew. Standard procedure, keep making the same ignorant claim until enough people have heard it long enough they begin to doubt the evidence it is not true.
 
Wonder why Mccellan didn't take his own advise?

Challenging motivation
McClellan pointed to the timing of Clarke's book.

"If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long? Why wait until the election?" Instead, McClellan said, Clarke "conveniently" released a book in the middle of the campaign season.

CNN.com - Bush administration rejects Clarke charges - Mar 23, 2004

Still no one has addressed the Clarke book and Mcclellan comments. No wonder....because Mcclellan wrote the book for $$$$$. Anyone that can't address that is obviously....:offtopic:
 
McClellan would probably tell you that he was told to say that though....

So do you think Mcclellan is credible? If so which time, when he was defending the President or now when he claims that he was lying and propagating for the President?:eusa_dance:
 
So do you think Mcclellan is credible? If so which time, when he was defending the President or now when he claims that he was lying and propagating for the President?:eusa_dance:
I never thought McClellan was credible. Had he any conviction at all, he should have resigned when he knew all of this was going on.
 
I never thought McClellan was credible. Had he any conviction at all, he should have resigned when he knew all of this was going on.

But you now trust him, when he says he was lying and propagating the whole time.
 
The word Propaganda does not mean to lie. It has taken on that context but that is NOT its meaning.

Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every Politician, every Government uses Propaganda and I do not mean in the negative sense.

As Larkinn likes to say, words have meanings.

The wiki link:

Wikipdedia: "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."

We shouldn't have been propagandized, misled, or lied (by ommission) into war. War should be fought for self defense, and the reason for going to war should be self evident. We shouldn't have to be propagandized into a war. That's just wrong. I don't care if you point back to history to other immoral wars, like Vietnam. Pointing to the bad behaviour of others, is child like behaviour unworthy of further debate.

You were told 5 years ago that Bush was exaggerating, misleading, and misrepresenting the nature and scope of the threat from Iraq. And you and other Bush voters denied it, and called those of us who pointed it out "traitors". Now, you're admitting that Bush exaggerated and misled us on the threat from iraq.
 
The wiki link:



We shouldn't have been propagandized, misled, or lied (by ommission) into war. War should be fought for self defense, and the reason for going to war should be self evident. We shouldn't have to be propagandized into a war. That's just wrong. I don't care if you point back to history to other immoral wars, like Vietnam. Pointing to the bad behaviour of others, is child like behaviour unworthy of further debate.

You were told 5 years ago that Bush was exaggerating, misleading, and misrepresenting the nature and scope of the threat from Iraq. And you and other Bush voters denied it, and called those of us who pointed it out "traitors". Now, you're admitting that Bush exaggerated and misled us on the threat from iraq.

Of all the people to utter so much as a word, YOU have no right. You're teh Joseph Goebbels of "Bush lied ...." rants.

The fact is, EVERY person and politician on this planet presents their cases in a light favorable to their agenda. That you exaggerate and mislead with your accusations that Bush doing it is somehow worse is nothing less than what you are accusing Bush of.

How come it is with few exceptions the only people who didn't know Bush was presenting an argument favorable to his agenda appears to be you Bush-haters? Y'all are the only ones I see incessantly whining about it.

If Bush is a lar, so are you and anyone else who makes the claim there were not legal and vaild reasons to take Saddam Hussein out. Matter of fact, I don't see where Bush actually lied, but I have seen where you have continually presented misinformation to support your extremist accusations.
 
The wiki link:



We shouldn't have been propagandized, misled, or lied (by ommission) into war. War should be fought for self defense, and the reason for going to war should be self evident. We shouldn't have to be propagandized into a war. That's just wrong. I don't care if you point back to history to other immoral wars, like Vietnam. Pointing to the bad behaviour of others, is child like behaviour unworthy of further debate.

You were told 5 years ago that Bush was exaggerating, misleading, and misrepresenting the nature and scope of the threat from Iraq. And you and other Bush voters denied it, and called those of us who pointed it out "traitors". Now, you're admitting that Bush exaggerated and misled us on the threat from iraq.

THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT! bush LIED!
 

Forum List

Back
Top