What Is a "Lie'?

rayboyusmc

Senior Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,015
341
48
Florida
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly•ing (l ng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.
Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.
The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.
"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it." PLEASE WRITE THAT ON THE TOMBSTONES.

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.
The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.
Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

These folks are a bunch of inept go it alone apple dumbling gang cowboys. Their ineptness is only surpassed by their duplicity to the American public.

As to why it took so long. The Repubs wouldn't let it be investigated when they were in power. It has taken this long to pull the closely guarded information.

There will be efforst to pursue this in a criminal court.
 
It was true then and it is true now, if you want to know the truth you only have to open your eyes. Many go through life blind, the sad thing concerning this lie is the number who have suffered the ultimate loss.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=HmmjgOWQifg]YouTube - Countdown: Cheney-Bush Still Lying About Iraq War 4-6-07[/ame]
 
From what I remember,...it was about not following the UN Resolutions first and foremost!

And if anyone doesn't think he had WMD, you are terribly wrong. He used them on his own country for God's sake!

Iraq is in it's infant stages of standing on her own now with a true government that is picked by the Iraqi people.
 
Oh he had them. However, not when Bush attacked him.

I guess the weapons inspectors were just lying to US.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQqCoPxNVQs]YouTube - Countdown: McBush War Lie's 6-5-08[/ame]
 
If you were a Marine, you are a shining example of how far the Corps has fallen. When you left the Corps, did you join the DNC propaganda section right away or did you have to go to school first?
 
If you were a Marine, you are a shining example of how far the Corps has fallen. When you left the Corps, did you join the DNC propaganda section right away or did you have to go to school first?

He was an Officer. He lived in rarified air. Not subject to the same reality as the troops and NCO's that did the real work.

There is a reason you find more officers are liberals and it is not because they are "smarter".
 
Is it because officers have that college education that's supposed to make them gentlemen? Kind of ironic, the military requires college to become an officer and 90% of the colleges hate the military with a passion.
 
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly•ing (l ng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.
Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.
The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.
"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it." PLEASE WRITE THAT ON THE TOMBSTONES.

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.
The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.
Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

These folks are a bunch of inept go it alone apple dumbling gang cowboys. Their ineptness is only surpassed by their duplicity to the American public.

As to why it took so long. The Repubs wouldn't let it be investigated when they were in power. It has taken this long to pull the closely guarded information.

There will be efforst to pursue this in a criminal court.

:eusa_boohoo:
 
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly•ing (l ng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers misstated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made a case for war, the Senate intelligence committee reported on Thursday.

The report shows an administration that "led the nation to war on false premises," said the committee's Democratic Chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia. Several Republicans on the committee protested its findings as a "partisan exercise."

The committee studied major speeches by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in advance of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and compared key assertions with intelligence available at the time.
Statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda were wrong and unsupported by intelligence, the report said.

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

Such assertions had a strong resonance with a U.S. public, still reeling after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Polls showed that many Americans believed Iraq played a role in the attacks, even long after Bush acknowledged in September 2003 that there was no evidence Saddam was involved.

The report also said administration prewar statements on Iraq's weapons programs were backed up in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but officials failed to reflect internal debate over those findings, which proved wrong.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main cases for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists -- were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

"The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein," Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report.

"Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false premises."

A statement to Congress by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Iraqi government hid weapons of mass destruction in facilities underground was not backed up by intelligence information, the report said. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said Rumsfeld's comments should be investigated further, but he stopped short of urging a criminal probe.
The committee voted 10-5 to approve the report, with two Republican lawmakers supporting it. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri and three other Republican panel members denounced the study in an attached dissent.
"The committee finds itself once again consumed with political gamesmanship," the Republicans said. The effort to produce the report "has indeed resulted in a partisan exercise." They said, however, that the report demonstrated that Bush administration statements were backed by intelligence and "it was the intelligence that was faulty."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. We certainly regret that and we've taken measures to fix it." PLEASE WRITE THAT ON THE TOMBSTONES.

U.S. public opinion on the war, supportive at first, has soured, contributing to a dive in Bush's popularity.
The conflict is likely to be a key issue in the November presidential election between Republican John McCain, who supports the war, and Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the war from the start and says he would aim to pull U.S. troops out within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.
Rockefeller has announced his support for Obama.

The administration's record in making its case for Iraq has also been cited by critics of Bush's get-tough policy on Iran. They accuse Bush of overstating the potential threat of Iran's nuclear program in order to justify the possible use of force.

A second report by the committee faulted the administration's handling of December 2001 Rome meetings between defense officials and Iranian informants, which dealt with the Iran issue. It said department officials failed to share intelligence from the meeting, which Rockefeller said demonstrated a "fundamental disdain" for other intelligence agencies.

These folks are a bunch of inept go it alone apple dumbling gang cowboys. Their ineptness is only surpassed by their duplicity to the American public.

As to why it took so long. The Repubs wouldn't let it be investigated when they were in power. It has taken this long to pull the closely guarded information.

There will be efforst to pursue this in a criminal court.

Why do you go to the trouble of posting the definition of a lie, then go about presenting an argument that does not support that definition?

I know. With a little "liberal license .....":)
 
In international affairs there is rarely anything that presents itself in black and white, because most of the "evidence" or "proof" lie beyond your reach intentionally. Decisions or beliefs are often predicated on impressions, or reading between the lines. Today, it's becomes even more critical problem due to the speed at which events unfold. This is going to cause people and nations to act more quickly with, unfortunately, only a sketch of the issues at hand. This does not constitute as acting on a lie. It comes down to being a best guess. And if you believe you have to act, you don't do so wishy washy. You do it believing you are correct.
If you look back on many conflicts throughout history you'll find hundreds of these "misunderstandings".
Communication is a two way street. If I misunderstand you it's either because I'm not listening or your not making yourself clear.
If you are intentionally being vague, don't expect me to understand and expect conflict.
Any nation today who intentionally remains vague or maintains closed doors, has no grounds to complain about being misunderstood. It's adolescent behaviour.
 
From what I remember,...it was about not following the UN Resolutions first and foremost!

And if anyone doesn't think he had WMD, you are terribly wrong. He used them on his own country for God's sake!

Iraq is in it's infant stages of standing on her own now with a true government that is picked by the Iraqi people.

Why are you wasting your breath, Chief? This same lame-ass accusation that is regurgitated every month or so has been shot down so many times it would take a lamprey to find it and a Saturn V rocket to re-float it.

Ten years from now and every month or so in between it'll be the same shit. The last Democrat President got flat-out busted lying. The leftbots are DETERMINED that no matter what they have to fabricate or twist, they're going to one-up that. And don't think miserable failure has daunted them at all.

You'll see this same thread again in a month or two, reworded in an attempt to make it sound like it's something new, but in the end, it'll be the same old shit that'll go it's usual nowhere.
 
Oh he had them. However, not when Bush attacked him.

I guess the weapons inspectors were just lying to US.

YouTube - Countdown: McBush War Lie's 6-5-08


I guess the weapons inspectors couldn't find what they weren't allowed to look for.

Didn't YOU post this thread? Complete with definition of a "lie"? Yet you go happily right along and misuse the word. The weapons inspectors could report finding nothing and not be lying and the WMDs STILL exist.

Stop using words too complex for you to understand.

Get a grip. We sold the shit to his ass so we KNOW he had it. There is photographic documentation he used them. If he wasn't hiding anything, why act like he was? Why the shell game with inspectors? To hide what he didn't have?
 

Forum List

Back
Top