So the premise is that they would lie and fabricate to get us into a war, but they wouldn't do the same afterwards to justify it (eg. have the Army declare the 55-gallon drums as WMD)?

Additionally, most intel reports are referred to as estimates for a reason. The fact that our best guesses based upon limited information were wrong shouldn't come as a huge shock.

Let's see, inspectors should have more time, into months and years, but the U.S. military should have only days or weeks, and based on this clearly, Bush and Blair lied.

Furthermore, it has to be a lie. If we don't find any WMD -- and I believe we will -- it has to be a lie; it couldn't possibly be that they were just wrong.

And I like the point that if the U.S. was willing to lie to get us into a war, why wouldn't it lie about finding WMD? As just about every detractor has point out -- it wouldn't be difficult for the U.S. to plant evidence. So if it's all a lie, why hasn't the U.S. planted any evidence yet?

I'd like to hear the loyal fans of the Bush Administration either defend or condemn EVERY lie that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld told in the run-up to the war, not just cherry-pick the ones you find it easiest to manufacture a vague excuse for.

Of course, in order to do that, you'd have to acknowledge the lies. You'd have to take an honest look at what this Administration said and did, and appraise those words and actions in the same way as you would if there were a Democrat in the White House.

And I know that is forbidden.

But it shouldn't be. The lies don't just disappear because you like the result of them. And anyone who ignores, downplays or denies the obvious lies told by the Bush Administration loses any standing when complaining about the lies that, say, President Kerry tells in 2005-2009.

I expect to hear not a peep. Because with your silence, you have clearly demonstrated: You believe it is okay for the President of the United States and his Administration to lie.

(Oh, and if you're unaware of the lies--that's no excuse either. You'll just have to be "unaware" of them when the Lying Democrat tells them, too. Because you have no excuse for failing to notice lies published on the front page of the newspaper.)

What lies, Brian?

Apparently, you can handle the truth. Your post was refuted in no minor way and you don't even deal with it. You just soldier on in your self-rightous manner.

Howard,

Put your cards on the table.

Are you claiming that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld have told no lies in their official capacities during the run-up to this war?

Yes or no.

Nice job tiptoeing around both Howard's and my response. Typical.

Why hasn't the administration planted evidence of WMDs in Iraq? Well, I think the simplest answer is the best here. They would not be able to get away with it.

Why has the administration admitted that it deceived the public as to reasons for the Iraq invasion? Because, with every (non) find of (non) WMDs brought to light the fact that they *had* deceived us. If there had been any way out of it, they wouldn't have admitted it.

Either that, or they thought we'd be so blind/brainwashed as to accept the fact that they had lied without fearing reprisals. Apparently, they've succeeded in some quarters.

Joe,

I have responded elsewhere to these same claims and will do so again here.

However, first, put your cards on the table:

Are you claiming that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld have told no lies in their official capacities during the run-up to this war?

Yes or no.

Brian, you silly boy ... you're asking us to play a fools game ... make a blanket statement so you can easily knock it down.

If you're going to accuse the president of lying, you need to prove it.

What are the specific lies you believe the administration has told in the run up to the war?

Don't dodge now, as I know you love to do. Point by point, what are the lies?

No cards to show here. Please read my comment. I've made no claim with regard to anything anyone said. I'm neither defending or condemning the administration. I've merely questioned why they would lie in one instance not in another. Nice try, though.

Howard,

Your ignorance of and/or unwillingness to acknowledge and condemn the lies the Bush Administration told are part of my point. The title of this article is "Lies Don't Matter." I believe this is your position, even though you won't state it. I am offering you a chance to refute this proposition by illustrating that you are aware of the significant lies told by the Bush Administration and that you condemn them because they are lies.

An abusive ad hominem such as "silly boy" doesn't somehow mean you are not failing to be straightforward here. Either you feel the Bush Administration has told no lies, or you feel that it HAS told lies, or you don't care. Take a stand.

I'll expand the questions, if that will help you:

1. Are you claiming that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld have told no lies in their official capacities during the run-up to this war?

2. If you are not claiming this, what does it mean that you have failed to acknowledge and condemn the lies? Have you failed to acknowledge and condemn the lies because you support Bush, and therefore the lies he and his Administration tell are acceptable?

A rather slippery slope, don't you think?

Have you ever told a lie in your life? No? You're a liar! Yes? You're a liar!

Have you ever tolerated a lie in your life?...

So Brian, would you care to show your cards now?

What's your point?

Joe,

What does it mean that you won't take a stand on the issue of whether the Bush Administration has told lies in the run-up to the war?

I mean--isn't this important? You don't care?

My point is that it is obvious that you and Howard both know that the Bush Administration has told outrageous lies in the run up to the war. They are obvious. That's why you fear denying them.

Still, you refuse to acknowledge or condemn them. And unless you would provide the same "see no evil" favor to a Democratic President (or anyone else with whom you disagree), this is hypocrisy.

Perhaps I should put my cards on the table with regard to a Democrat.


----------------------------
BILL CLINTON AND THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL -- LIES

Bill Clinton told ties throughout this scandal. The biggest lie he told was when he wagged his finger at the American people and said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." (Not only was this a lie, but also caddish toward Lewinsky. "That woman"? What a pig.) But Clinton also lied during his videotaped testimony, even if he did manage to do so cleverly. I don't care if they are merely lies of omission, or lies done with technically "truthful' wording. Clinton intended to deceive, and he did deceive. He lied.

This lying is part of a pattern. He also lied about similar sexual issues when he was running for President in 1992. Clearly Clinton has cheated on his wife many times and has a problem with regard to sex--he seemingly can't resist it, even when succumbing to temptation means disaster for his personal life, his career and even the prestige of the United States Presidency. He has these furtive encounters, then lies about them. And he lies with one clear goal--to save his skin. It isn't out of respect for his family, right-wing conspiracy, blah blah blah. No, he lies out of self-interest, pure and simple. When it comes to sex, I would never trust a single word Bill Clinton ever said. It would be reasonable to assume he is lying, because that's what he does.

Nonetheless, I think Clinton was a good President. While I would score him a flat zero in the "sexual fidelity" and "telling the truth about sexual fidelity" departments, those are not very important departments for me when it comes to the Presidency. I think he did a stellar job in many of the other departments (such as the economy, and building a good military), and a fine job in most departments. So, yeah, he lied and lied and lied and lied, but, on the whole, I defend him as a President.
--------------------------------


You see what I mean?

That's what I'm waiting for from you and Howard. An unflinching look at the lies the Bush Administration told in the run up to the war, to prove that you aren't blinded by loyalty and ideology, and an explanation as to why you support the war and Bush anyway.

So here you go...


--------------------------
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE RUN-UP TO THE IRAQ WAR -- LIES







---------------------------

Again, please pay attention to what I'm saying. I've made no claim with regard to anything anyone said, nor defended or condemned the administration. That's an interesting purity test you suggest that I NEED to prove I'm not blinded by loyalty and ideology.

You've made assertions, I've asked you to support them. In your failure to adress my question, you've attempted to redirect the argument against me.

Interesting. Weak. But interesting.

Joe,

If you want to play a game of Who Asked Whom First?, I'd point to this line in my original article...

...do the lies matter?

Actually, Brian, I never had the desire or intention of discussing the Bush administration. You posted an opinion piece, I questioned your reasoning, you failed to explain or answer. That's all.

Joe,

I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question in a direct manner if you'll answer mine.

I'll even do it first, if you insist. Give me your question.

Here's mine:

Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?

Sorry, Brian, I was just interested in seeing if you could back up your argument.

So far, you are confirming my argument. "Lies don't matter" to war supporters was my argument. And, clearly, they don't matter to you. You can't even be bothered to state whether the lies exist or not.

As for me, as you likely can guess, I think Presidential lies in the run-up to a war do matter.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Your original comment in full:

So the premise is that they would lie and fabricate to get us into a war, but they wouldn't do the same afterwards to justify it (eg. have the Army declare the 55-gallon drums as WMD)?

Additionally, most intel reports are referred to as estimates for a reason. The fact that our best guesses based upon limited information were wrong shouldn't come as a huge shock.

Actually, I don't necessarily think I've proved anything. If you wish to surmise certain conclusions about me, fine. If you think that your estimation of my opinions or thoughts (upon which you have no factual basis) somehow strengthens your point, more power to you.

I saw a glaring weakness to your original argument and I pointed it out.

BTW, all politicians lie, silly boy.

Re: Joe and Howie.

Are your posts 1 and 2 the best you can do? Consider: In 1995, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, Hussein's son-in-law, who had defected to the West, told the CIA that Saddam had destroyed all his WMDs after 1991. The Bush administration cited other statements Kamel made, IN THE VERY SAME TESTIMONY, that Iraq desired to obtain wmd's, neglecting to point out that he also thought it could no longer do so, owing to the inspections regime and the collapse of the country's infrastructre after Gulf War I.

But never mind that, as I'm sure you will. Subsequent to 1995, weapons inspections became increasingly rigorous (thanks in part to Scott Ritter), generating supporting documentation you can easily access through public sources, and yet no wmd's were found. Recently, we've heard off-line murmurings from Administration officials that wmd's were never the "real" issue. Translation: they were lying.

So, given the Administration's complete lack of credibility on this issue, it's going to have to do a good job of concocting evidence that will satisfy anyone besides the gullible U.S. media and the hawkish conservatives. So have patience. These things take time. You'll be suckered soon enough.

Very good, Mike. Not sure I follow the logic: US has no credibility and has lied in past to further war goals, therefore US must now be completely honest because of what? Type slowly, I'm having a hard time following.

The point that I was trying to make before was if they didn't really care what anyone thought before, why do they care now?

My point is that if the U.S. wants to plant evidence of WMD's, it's going to have to do a top notch job to convince anyone but folks like you. That takes time, and that's why you haven't seen the fruits of its labor yet.

Why does it care? Good point. It may not, in which case no fabrication may be forthcoming.

But one reason why Administration officials might care is that if no wmd's are found, the invasion would be a clear cut violation of international law and entrenched Western notions of permitted use of force. And the Administration may care about THIS because:

If Bush or other senior officials were to travel to any Western country after they leave office, they would be at risk of arrest by judges under UJ (universal jurisdiction), a doctrine pioneered by Western human rights lawyers which argues that anyone traveling in the West who has been accused of aggression or war crimes anywhere on Earth can be arrested and tried in that country. This doctrine is what allowed Pinochet to be arrested in London, and it also accounts for why Henry Kissinger cannot leave the U.S. He was nearly arrested in Paris a few years ago at the behest of enterprising human rights lawyers, owing to his involvement in the East Timorese massacres, among other horrors.

Oh, well, sure then, they'll flout all the other international conventions, but they're shaking in their boots(get it? boots? Texan) about a relatively untested law.. BTW before you go making snarky little "folks like you" remarks why don't you check where I've written that I was convinced there are WMDs in Iraq.

UJ may be untested theory, but enough bigshots have come close enough to being arrested, a la Kissinger, that a Karl Rogue or a Colon Bowel probably wouldn't want to sit around in overnight lockup waiting for counsel to spring them. Especially in Paris, where even the criminals are rough on Americans.

You wrote that "the fact that our best guesses based upon limited information were wrong shouldn't come as a huge shock."

They weren't "best guesses," Einstein, they were straight out lies. Not that folks like you would know the difference.

Cheers! Move along now. I'm done with you.

Next!

Care to provide an example, Mike? That's all I'm asking for, folks like me want to know. You do get double points for double snarkiness that time.

Allow me to clarify, an example with a citation (sorry, I'm going to have to disqualify entrie from buzzflash and indymedia, I don't have many standards but I do have some).

Allow me to clarify, an example with a citation (sorry, I'm going to have to disqualify entries from Buzzflash and Indymedia, I don't have many standards but I do have some).

Don't make me repeat myself

Joe,

Since you dodge one simple question over and over and over and over (and over), you force me to speculate about what your answer to that question might be.

I've answered your questions, you refuse to answer mine.

Well, okay.

The question:

"Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?"

Joe's answer: "Yes, of course the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war. Any fool could see that. Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld couldn't open their mouths without lying at one point. It's doubtful they could have launched the war without certain of these lies being told, so they told them out of desperation.

"However, I prefer not to acknowledge this uncomfortable fact. While ordinarily I would be against lies, I like these particular lies, because they helped bring about a war I supported. I think I might have accidentally believed some of them, too. So I'm not going to be honest about the Bush Administration's lying. I won't claim they didn't lie, because I'd look like a complete idiot, but then again I'll never acknowledge a single one of the lies, either, because I feel to do so would weaken the argument for the war.

"Better to just stay quiet about the lies. These particular lies don't matter--although, you'll never hear me saying that, because I don't plan to take this position on lying when some politician tells lies that I DON'T like."

Please let me know if I've misprepresented your position on the issue, Joe. This is the best I could do, as I only have your evasions to work with.

If you choose to remain mysterious about your position on this issue, well, I'll just keep trying.

That fits your conservative strawman quite nicely, Brian.

Actually you never did touch upon the original question but I will give you credit for further amplifying points that you wanted to make.

Here's how it really works: I go to Blogcritics, check out the new posts, I see Brian Flemming, I say to myself "I wonder what the hell he's whining about now?", I see you've done yet another hyperbolic post in which you've cut and pasted 90% of some Fiskian toady's screed and added a 10% dash of your own shrill rhetoric, and, lastly, I add a smartass remark. That's it!

What's so hard to understand?

so, brian, you were all for clinton getting impeached? all for his getting convicted (which he didn't, even though, as you said, it's a PROVEN FACT that he lied UNDER OATH, which has never been proven of bush). somehow i find this hard to believe. you clearly have a hard-on for bush, like i've said before, seeing as you obsessively write post after post after long ass post about him 3-4 to a day. that has NOTHING to do with his being a republican????? suuuuure. democrats love to throw the word hypocrisy around, even though they clearly demonstrate hypocrisy constantly (like continually asking Joe the same question over and over again instead of answering his, when he DID answer yours [i think he stated time and again that his point had nothing to do with whether bush told lies AND that he believed they would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, here you go brian 2+2=4, got it?]). so get off your soap box and burn it (not necessarily in that order).

Brian, this is ridiculous. You've been asked repeatedly to substantiate your claim that the Bush administration lied, and you refuse to do so until someone jumps through your logically fallacious hoops so that you can win either way. Fine, I'll bite. Nobody in the Bush White House has ever lied about anything. They're all as pure as the driven snow. I've answered your question, now list the lies.

Note that you may not list simple differences of opinion, nor may you list instances in which someone made a statement that later turned out to be wrong unless you can prove that the person who made the statement used it knowing it was false and intended to deceive. That is, after all, the definition of a lie. Well, besides ironically being the name of the first Secretary General of the UN back in the 1940s, that is.

You know, I just bet you'll still beat around the bush and refuse to answer the question because my answer wasn't phrased properly, so let me rephrase. Yes, lies matter. Honesty is one of a few things I use to determine how I feel about a particular politician.

Since this whole exercise is another Brian-wasting-his-time foray into futility, let's wrap it up quickly, okay? Just list the lies as Joe and Howard have repeatedly asked you to do, and let the back-pedaling begin. Well, you'll call it back-pedaling. Most people call it honestly giving a guy the benefit of the doubt, but don't let that stand in the way of your preconceptions.

Phillip,

Yes, it is ridiculous. The question is simple. Has the Bush Administration lied in the run-up to the war?

If you had said to me, during the Lewinsky scandal, "Tell me where you stand--has President Clinton lied about this scandal or hasn't he?," I would have considered that a legitimate demand. And I would have answered without hesitation, "Yes." And I would have had no problem listing the lies he had told to date. (In fact, at the time, I did do that, because I was furious with the guy, and I was frustrated with fellow liberals who refused to see what a legitimate issue--that it's about lying, not sex--Clinton's enemies had going for them.) I would probably also have volunteered to list his half-lies and probably-lies and evasions and equivocations as well. I wouldn't have needed you to pin me down on each one of them, and I wouldn't have said, "You have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt," a defense that could still (in a tortured way) be made about many of Clinton's obviously dishonest statements on the scandal. I would not have stood behind these technicalities to protect Clinton.

Why? Because lying matters, no matter who the President is.

But, even though the lies are just as obvious in the case of the Bush Administration--and at the least there are instances where a reasonable person would be very suspicious--not a single war proponent here has been able to bring himself to mention a single one of them. Your facetious statement above is the closest anyone has come.

It is May 1, 2003. The record is what it is. What any reasonably informed person should know--and especially what someone who publishes opinions about Bush and the war should know--is what it is. The subject is the Bush Administration, the war, and deceit.

That nothing leaps to mind--or that you claim nothing leaps to mind--speaks volumes about your ability to ignore lies when they are told in the service of a cause you support.

In comments #4 and #9, Howard asked you to name an example of something you considered a lie by the Bush adminstration. You have not listed one. In comment #17 you offered to answer a question directly, even first, if someone would answer yours. Even though many people have been asking, still you've listed nothing.

I've answered your question, and I asked for a list. I still got nothing. Have you been lying to us? These aren't difficult questions we're asking you. You made a claim and we're asking you to back it up, and you evade, claiming that the most interesting thing about the whole exercise is that we can't think of any lies on our own. A novel argument - let's see how it works elsewhere. Um no, it doesn't.

Put up or shut up, Brian. I agree, lies matter. Ollie North disgusted me when he lied to Congress and excused it on the basis that it was the right thing to do. Nonsense. If Ollie was so sure it was right, he should have been willing to pay the real price of his lying and deceit and gone to prison for it.

I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I don't blame him for the actions of his attorney general, though you've suggested that I should. I don't blame him for sex in the white house. I do blame him for lying boldly and directly to the American people and shaming himself. That is unacceptable and there were consequences.

Ditto on Bush. If you'll ever get around to substantiating your claims, we'll take a look and see if they are in fact lies or maybe just "instances where a reasonable person would be very suspicious" as you're suddenly describing them - as if you'd know what a reasonable person would do! 8^)

List them, Brian. I'll assign a score to each of them. 1 point for a difference of opinion, 2 points for a bad assumption later proven false, 3 points for a mistake, and 10 bonus points for each lie.

Joe and Howard and I are all waiting, Brian, so make a list and I'll check it twice for you. Number them please, for easy reference. Thanks.

i'd like to bring to peoples' attention the fact that my country's pm, Tony Blair, told a blatant lie in the runup to the war:
"We know saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we are going to take them off him"

Now, after the war has happened, it's "the aim of the war was always to liberate the iraqi people from an oppressive regime"
the fact is, educated or not, what he and our great british government were saying were guesses rather than the truth. This may seem "just a formality" in the aftermath of a seemingly successful war, but if it is to set a precedent as to the level of blatant lies that are told by politicians even in countries that consider themselves good (as opposed to evil), it does not bode well.

Jadester - You probably didn't read my most recent comment (#35 if you want to go back now), but between that one and #33 which contains a link to the definition of "lie," I think you'll see that there are a variety of possible explanations for Tony Blair's statement, and unless you have proof of Mr Blair's mental state at the time of that statement, you'll need to retract your accusation.

To review: "We know Saddam has WMDs" is only a lie if it can be shown that Tony Blair actually knew Saddam did not have WMDs. As of the time I write this, no such evidence has been shown. Frankly, I don't expect that it ever will. We can say that Tony Blair (and by extension, George Bush) may (or may not, I'm not sure what the deadline is for deciding) have been mistaken. We can say that Tony Blair might (or might not) have been a complete idiot to believe what his underlings told him. But there is a world of difference between stupidity and lying.

Carter was stupid. Clinton lied. See the difference?

Since Brian seems to have abandoned this post, I'll list a few samples that I've heard widely described as lies.

Lie #1. Colin Powell claimed various things to the UNSC in the failed attempt to secure a new resolution.
Response. I'll score either two or three points for most of his claims, one for the aluminum tubing thing, and without a more detailed list, that's all I can do for now. I don't see any evidence that Powell knew the source of some of the information he was presenting, but there is no question that some of it was tenuous at best. The aluminum tubing issue was widely debated before and after his statement, so it seems to be a difference of opinion (1 point). Claims of WMDs at specific locations seemed to bounce back and forth between bad assumptions and flat-out mistakes, but I don't detect any indication that he thought the information he was giving the UNSC was false.

Lie #2: Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate President Bush the elder.
Response: I mention this because I've read this a couple of times from Jude Wanniski. I don't know if anyone else believes it or not. Since they now have in custody the man supposedly responsible for the alleged attack, I suspect we'll learn more one way or the other soon.

Both of those fall far short of the standard of a lie. Even if it turns out that there are no WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam never tired to whack the Bush daddy, how would Bush and Blair have known that? The fault would have to settle on the people responsible for feeding the information to Powell and company, assuming that they themselves weren't simply mistaken as well.

These are a far cry from having personal knowledge of a situation and lying about it, like Clinton and North (and probably Reagan) did.

I might even be willing to peg Rumsfeld with a lie if I could remember the exact text of his denial of reports that the US was going to pull out of Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. Then again, he's usually pretty careful about what he says, so he probably covered himself there too by not explictly denying it.

Brian, it's clear you feel hoodwinked. It's clear you feel that Bush should have known better or given Saddam the benefit of the doubt. But don't just run away when people ante up and answer your questions. List the lies and let me respond.

Maybe they have lied and I just haven't caught it amidst all of the knee-jerk hysteria coming from your corner of the internet. If so, I'll be disgusted right along with you. I hate lying politicians, a group which consists of almost all of them. If Bush has lied, I'll be annoyed at him like I am annoyed at all lying politicians. Heck, I'm already annoyed at him for being such a poor communicator, and people say I'm petty for that.

I'm waiting for a list, Brian. Citations would be nice, but you can start without them if its easier, and I'll just ask for citations on the ones with which I'm unfamiliar.

Thanks.

Phillip,

You wrote:

List them, Brian. I'll assign a score to each of them.

I'll remember this, the next time you try to hound someone for not answering your question. You've even changed your question since you first asked it, and I've answered all variations. Still you won't respond to the very simple and straightforward question put to you by Joe, Howard and me.

I flatly deny that President Bush told any lies in the entire time he has been in office. I've done so once already, so I don't know why you claim that "nobody has denied this."

It is truly embarrassing for Bush and Blair that nobody has found WMDs. If they are eventually found, it will server to further justify the idea that weapons inspectors would never have found them. If none are ever found, it will significantly undermine trust in their ability to accurately sift through intelligence data. But lying? As I've stated repeatedly, that's a specific accusation with a specific meaning, and I don't see what Bush has met the requirements. Clinton did. Ollie North did. Daschle has, Gingrich did, and on and on and on. But since you've made it all the way to comment #39 without mentioning even one despite repeated requests, I'll assume that we're all in agreement: Bush has not lied.

One thing for sure: you have lied. You said, "I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question in a direct manner if you'll answer mine. I'll even do it first, if you insist. Give me your question. Here's mine: Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?" You can back-pedal now and say that was extended only to Joe, but I answered your question (an answer you've forgotten already in comment #39) and you still haven't answered mine.

Hmm, wait. Is a "broken promise" the same as a lie? Maybe you are off the hook on a technicality...

Brian, perhaps you've failed to read post 33? And I doubt my responses could necessarily be construed as implying agreement.

Anyhow, I'd be more interested in discussing how the Administration lied about the existence of Bin Laden and Hussein. They haven't found them yet either, so they must not exist.

Joe,

I will take your continued silence on the matter as agreement.

Phillip,

A) I didn't see your comment 38 as I was writing comment 39.

B) I honestly believed you were not being serious when you stated you didn't think Bush lied. From your tone in comment 33, I took it that you were basically rolling your eyes and making the statement sarcastically, as if to say, "Okay, okay. I'll pretend to say it for you. Happy now?"

And now, with this comment

I flatly deny that President Bush told any lies in the entire time he has been in office.

After 42 comments, you still won't list even a single example of something you consider a lie from the Bush administration. You hint that you at least have something in mind with vague references to Rumsfeld and Powell, but you refuse to respond to the specific instances I listed and answered to help get the ball rolling. You say, "I'll take what I can get," but then you refuse to engage in the conversation.

You say it is a non-partisan issue, but then state that your question (and entire post) is designed to entrap Republicans so that they must either admit no moral standing or hold Bush responsible for lying. Still, you refuse to address the heart of the issue: You accuse Bush and his administration of lying, but refuse to substantiate your accusation even once, with even one simple sentence.

This is crap, Brian, and I expected better from you. Take two aspirin and try again another day, when you're willing to discuss substance instead of inuendo. You list a series of straw man positions, none of which have basis in reality, and you still won't answer a simple question. You claim naivete, but practice accomplished dissembling and evasion. You call a simple discussion of your accusation "a rhetorical game" and dismiss it as unworthy of your time. You state that you'd be happy to have a discussion over details, but again refuse to do so. News flash: the discussion started. You've ignored it. Now the discussion is over, unless you step up to the plate.

You wanted to know recently why I occasionally decided that I would post no more on a certain subject. This is why: it is a waste of my time.

Phillip,

I am more than willing to discuss the particulars of the Bush Administration's statements in the run-up to the war.

I want to give you, Howard and Joe a chance to answer the question, though:

"Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?"

Brian - Can't you read?

Thanks for the opportunity, Brian, but you don't need me to respond to Phillip.
And there's no telling when Howard will be back.

(cricket, cricket)

I'm willing to be patient.

It is somewhat tragic that your bloviating is somehow dependent upon my response. Had I known about this condition I would have tried to exacerbate the situation sooner.

I hope the other folks who post articles here are more willing to defend what they say rather than trying to obfuscate and dissemble when someone questions them. Perhaps you ought to put a disclaimer at the beginning of your posts (eg:I will only discuss this with you on the condition that you acknowledge and affirm the validity of my statements beforehand and only if you want to talk about the aspects of the subject which I want to talk about).

this is getting sad. c'mon brian, back your statements up! is that too much to ask? there is no argument here, it hasn't even started (and looks like it never will) because you're trying to make everyone who disagrees with you look stupid. unfortunetly for you it has turned out the other way around.

I haven't visited this thread in days. Here we are, 50 post into it, including 15 by Brian, and Brian has yet to produce one single, clear, explicit plain statement that the Bush Administration lied. Not one example of a lie. Amazing.

Who's doing all the lying here -- the guy who claims to care so much about lies, or Bush?

Brian takes offense to my "ad hominem" attack, but yet he wants to base his entire argument an equal violation of logic -- a kind of strawman. He wants us to simplify our position, to save himself the working doing it. He's taunting, making a blanket statement: "Joe and Howard, go ahead, cause then I can incinerate your statement like a Harvest Day scarecrow."

Unable to argue like a mature man and state his case explicitly, he want to only argue on his terms or not at all.

I've never said, contrary to Brian's characterizations, that the Bushies didn't lie in the run up to the war. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But if Brian is going to post something that accuses the Administration of lying, he should be able to back it up. Apparently, he can't do that. His unwillingness to do that certainly suggests that he doesn't have the goods, he doesn't have the facts, he knows he's on the losing side of this argument, but just can't admit it.

I'm not going to play your game, Brian. Either list the lies or admit that you can't prove a single lie. If you can't do that, you prove the complete stupidity of your position.

Prove it, Brian. Prove just one lie. That's all we ask. One lie. Why are you so afraid to do that? Why are we on our 50th post and you have not been able to produce one single, irrefutable lie? Is your position that weak?

Still waiting.

Patiently, though.

No rush.

I love watching the brain dead liberals (aka: fascists) and conservatives (aka: fascists) go at it.

You all trust your politicians way too much and you all put to much faith in the idea that government can solve your problems. The prove is in the fact that you have wasted so much time here arguing back an forth about this crap. And the fact that you all probably blindly vote for Democrats and Republicans. Maybe if you all got off your computers and actually did something to help yourseleves and your fellow man instead of putting all your faith in a bunch of boobs who don't the first thing about what life is really like, you could actually make a difference.

Don't bother replying--I have better things to do. Like teach my kids not to be like all of you.

Brian, I don't think Howard and Joe are ever going to answer your question. But I'll take up the quibbling, just for the heck of it:

1. Inspectors found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials to prevent discovery. 2. Iraqi agents posed as scientists while the actual scientists were quietly moved to Syria and Jordan. 3. We have firm evidence of Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda. 4. The tonnages of chemical and biological agents Iraq has not accounted for since 1991 are still a threat. 5. Satellite photographs indicate that Iraq is rebuilding former nuclear facilities. 6. We know Saddam recently tried to purchase uranium from Nigeria. 7. We have more satellite photographs showing new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites, specific coordinates of incriminating evidence at Saddam's palaces, and evidence indicating the Iraqis have imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium.

That list is just for starters. It includes several statements on behalf of other parties that the concerned parties later flatly refuted. (Item 1 and Item 5, which was a claim by Bush on behalf of the IAEA.) It includes statements of things as facts which, scientifically speaking, could not be facts. (Item 4, the last part of 7.) And it includes reportage as established facts opinions that were later shown to be basically invented from whole cloth (Item 2), based on the kind of tenuous interpretations of webs of coincidence that we normally call "conspiracy theory" (Item 3), or drawn from forged documents so badly done that a freshman college student could have caught them (Item 6).

Now, of course, all of these are only lies if we assume that the Bush Administration was both competent and conscientious enough to know that what they were spouting were falsehoods. Phillip Winn has been kind enough to demonstrate for us the "they weren't dishonest, merely ridiculously incompetent to the point where virtually nothing that comes out of their mouths on the subject can be trusted" line of defense. That's pretty much the only other alternative here -- but even it won't do for items 1 and 5.

And then there was silence.

Yes, everyone is awaiting your apology for wasting their time.

brian, let's say everything that guy said is true (i don't have the time to go through all those links) but even if it IS, you're proud that you made a comment, were so grossly un-informed that you couldn't back it up in the LEAST, then played a little back and forth game until some other guy came and backed YOUR story up??!!!

wow.

heheh, maybe brian's a politician...

What an interesting string of comments. I don't know if anyone is still going to this string after 5 days, but I would like to put in my 2 cents.

Brian has proved that reincarnation is a fact.

Back in the Fifties, a little known Senator from Wisconsin was standing in our hallowed halls screaming that he had a list (in his hand, mind you) of communist agents in the government and in Hollywood. But he never showed his list to anyone. In fact, our man Joe road this carnival for several years, became quite famous (or infamous) and ruined more than a few people's lives before the truth came crashing down on his head.

So Brian (Joe) Flemming (McCarthy), show us your list of Bush lies, before you lose the last vestige of your credibility!
Not holding my breath,
Mark