Democrats & Liberals Archives

Lies and Spin

Over the past week we have literally been bombarded with lies that were told. Which lies do you think are the most serious, or make you the angriest?

A - Iraq Troop Surge
President Bush has started his vaunted troop surge which he said was to put 21,500 more troops on the ground in Iraq. That "surge" has now more than doubled (and the cost has more than tripled) according to a CBO analysis. Counting support personnel, the surge could actually involve 48,000 troops and cost up to an additional $27 billion (depending on duration of the surge). See also articles at DefenseTech, McClatchy, or CNN.

B - Plamegate - I Didn't Do It
From "no one was involved" in leaking the name and status of Valerie Plame, it seems like everyone was involved - Libby, Fleischer, Rove, Cheney, and possibly even Bush. Sampling of related articles: LA Times, Washington Post, The Nation, and Truthout.

C - Iran is a major threat in Iraq
According to the Bush spin machine as they seemingly beat the war drums in a buildup to strike Iran, Iran is a major operating force and threat in Iraq. Well ... Not according to the what we can see of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Whoops, those pesky intelligence folks.

Of course then there is the debate over whether what we see happening in Iraq is a civil war or not. The White House steadfastly maintains it is not. At a news conference yesterday I watched Stephen Hadley quote from the report that it was not a "civil war," and claim repeatedly that the administration would not try to put a "simple label" on the Iraq situation. Oh please, not use simple labels and rhetoric to your advantage? Why would we think that the administration would stoop so low (9/11, 9/11, 9/11, cut and run, staying the course)?

While the administration may not stoop so low as to apply the overly simplistic characterization of "civil war" to the Iraq situation, they are not above "cherry picking" parts from the report that support them - even if those supporting pieces are in the same paragraph as the part they don't like. The offending paragraph is quoted below, and the emphases are mine.

The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

D - Global Warming? What global warming?
The executive summary of the UN's Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been released. Actually, this is just from Working Group I of the Panel, but even the summary is damning. Global warming is happening. Human activity is a major contributing factor. We have 10 years - maybe - to reduce the impact.

While the summary marks the strongest IPCC statement to date on global warming, it is hardly the first or only highly credible report. We have known for several years that the jury was in on this. We have had little "debate" within the scientific community over global warming for almost a decade. The "debate" prior to the last few years has been the significance of the impact of human activity on global warming - not whether it was real or not.

However, business, the lap dog media, and the Bush administration, have done everything in their power to silence discussion and create the impression of scientific dispute and doubt. The Bush administration has actively squashed even use of the world "global warming" or climate change" by government scientists (and Bush's own appointments). In an effort to discredit the report, the American Enterprise Institute offered scientists$10,000 each to argue against the IPCC report. It is not surprising that AEI is significantly backed by the energy industry - including coal. They are also a major lobbying force and contributed heavily to the G.W. Bush campaigns.

You Pick
Obviously, there are significant implications for each of the lies. And the Plame situation is linked both to the lies and spins that (for some) apparently justified the invasion of Iraq, and undermined our human intelligence on Iran. On the other hand, growing the US forces in Iraq by 48,000 (which would be approximately at one-third increase) is major on many levels - for Iraqis and Americans. On the other hand, the case against Iran seems to be a recycling of the Iraq script. In fact, one could virtually do a search (for Iraq) and replace (insert Iran) on that script - how efficient of them. Regardless, it could very well end up with US (and Israeli?) missile strikes inside Iran, and we can all predict where that will go. However, it may be that the global warming debacle goes to the heart of what influences really rule the Bush's Oval office.

A, B, C, D, all of the above?

Posted by Rowan Wolf at February 3, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #206480

Just another week in the Bush administration revelations. We should be very concerned and motivated, but, not shocked or surprised in the least.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #206486

Only the most egregious lies

B – we know who leaked the Plame identity. It was Richard Armitage. It looks like almost everybody knew about it anyway. The Plame nepotism was widely known. It made sense to talk about it, since Wilson was saying Cheney had sent him. This was just not true.

D. Bush specifically mentioned global warming in the SOTU. Get current on your criticism. This one is OBEd.

I guess you do not think Iran is causing trouble in Iraq. Take my advice and do not buy those magic beans.

It would be much more fun and easier to criticize Bush if what you said was true. Sorry about the reality thing.

Posted by: Jack at February 3, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #206491


Wilson never said Cheney sent him personally.

Just a Fox news lie that you belive.

Posted by: Patrick Howse at February 3, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #206500

Bush specifically mentioned global warming in the SOTU. Get current on your criticism.

And in last year’s SOTU address he said we were addicted to foreign oil. And what’s he done? Zilch. Woih Bush, promises are meaningless. Actions are all that matter.

Posted by: bobo at February 3, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #206505


He has done as much about it as the Dems. Clinton never tried to ratify Kyoto and oil was at an all time low price in 1998, when all those SUVs were selling so well.

Posted by: Jack at February 3, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #206520

When people disagree about something, does that mean that one side in the dispute is “lying?” or that—gasp—there an honest disagreement? It seems a pretty childish way of approaching disagreements to just say that one side is “lying” if you don’t agree with them. What happened to the supposedly Democratic idea of gray areas and compromise here?

But if that’s the way we have to play, we should have the choice here of voting on whether we think Joseph Wilson, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton or UN panels are the “biggest liars.” If this post is simply partisan name-calling, which it seems to be, it would only be fair. And where’s Jimmy Carter here, whose own staff has been quitting on him because they can’t stomach his massive lies about Jews?

What I agree with is the truth. What I don’t is a lie. What childish thinking.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 3, 2007 7:42 PM
Comment #206530


All of the above. Bush can NOT be trusted and should be impeached. As CinC he has led over 3,000 of our best and bravest fellow Americans to their deaths in Iraq over a lie. History will define it as a lie.

Bush is still perpetuating the lie. On one rare occassion he told the truth, “We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President.”

That was possibly the only true statement this President has ever made. We need to light a fire under Pelosi’s ass demanding full investigations and impeachment. It’s the only proper thing to do.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 3, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #206531

This post is aptly named, Rowan. Lies and spin.

Let’s go through some of the lies and spin shall we?

A. Bush lied about troop surge?

Democrats and the left are really redefining the definition of the word lie these days.

Counting support personnel, the surge could actually involve 48,000 troops…

Sadly, this speaks to the ignorance of journalists who somehow found out that there are these people called ‘support troops’ and that not all of the ‘mercenaries’ in Iraq are combat soldiers. Imagine that.

I’m not sure where the lie is here Rowan.

B. The Plamegate lies.

From “no one was involved” in leaking the name and status of Valerie Plame, it seems like everyone was involved - Libby, Fleischer, Rove, Cheney, and possibly even Bush.

This appears to be a list taken from a Berkeley protest sign. You conveniently left out the actual persons involved in ‘outing’ Plame. Richard Armitage ring any bells? Or how about Joseph Wilson himself?

C. Is Bush lying about Iran being a threat?

Another strawman argument meant to distract and dissuade from the truth. Iran is at war with us whether we acknowledge it or not. Of course liberals believe that they really do want nuclear power but not bombs. And they would never ever ever actually use a nuclear bomb on anyone… they’re not America after all.

D. Those pesky Global Warming Deniers.

Is capitalism destroying the planet? Conveniently those who have always believed capitalism is destroying the planet have taken to Global Warming as the justification of all their dreams and socialist agendas.

But where is the proof?

Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change— the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
Of course any one who disagrees with the liberal orthodoxy is obviously a liar and a heretic. Posted by: eric simonson at February 3, 2007 9:25 PM
Comment #206533

KD…those 3 words…im peach ment….bring a smile to my face, and I’ve waited months for it to become safer to push for it. Until now, it would have been frightening to think of what we would get with success…and that would be dead-eye Dickie. Now, that the Libby trial is revealing all the back door dirt, the threat of big D isn’t looming quite as large, and we could be looking at a lady President before Hillary gets a chance at it.
Got any good suggestions about how to get our reps off thier butts and get started????

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 3, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #206536

“Sadly, this speaks to the ignorance of journalists who somehow found out that there are these people called ‘support troops’ and that not all of the ‘mercenaries’ in Iraq are combat soldiers. Imagine that.”


I’m sure the “support troops” that have become “casualties” of this war will understand why they’re not just defined as “troops”. I’m sure the family members that have laid “support troops” to rest would understand how their fallen loved ones don’t quite qualify as “troops”.

Uh huh, just try that explanation at your local VFW.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 3, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #206539

“You conveniently left out the actual persons involved in ‘outing’ Plame.”


Does the name George Bush ring a bell? His declassification of the 2002 NIE and playing “duh, uh, wh, what, huh” for months implicate him at least as an accomplice before the fact.

Of course we know that King George considers himself above the law. He’s not unless we let him be.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 3, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #206542

Iran’s involvement in Iraq. That’s a tough one, so tough the administration just can’t come up with any solid evidence. I ran across an analysis of the carnage at Najaf that differs from the MSM and I’ve spent the past two days reading and trying to learn. It seems that their account sounds likely based on historical and regional differences within Shiite Islam:

“The modus operandi was clear: Shi’ites supported by Iran (the current Iraqi government) screaming “al-Qaeda!” and used the Pentagon to kill Arab nationalist Shi’ites. In this scenario, everything in Iraq that is not SCIRI or Da’wa is bundled into the “terrorist” bag. This pattern is bound to be replicated before, during and after the US surge.”

“What is certain is that the Maliki-Hakim alliance will continue to deploy its US-trained Iraqi army and police in further massacres, advised by the dreaded Scorpion commando squad, which is funded by US dollars, and responding to the head of Iraqi intelligence. In this sense, the Najaf massacre is also a classic case of the “Salvador option” in its Iraqified version”

More about the Salvadoran connection:

“In the past year, the U.S. military has helped build up the commandos under guidance from James Steele, a former Army Special Forces officer who led U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in El Salvador in the 1980s. Salvadoran army units trained by Steele’s team were accused of a pattern of atrocities.”

“The first commando units — the Lion Brigade, Scorpion Brigade and others — were formed last year under a Sunni interior minister, Falah Naqib, and include many Sunnis who worked in the repressive security organs of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. The Volcano Brigade was built up under the current, Shiite-led government and “is mostly made of (Shiite) men from the Badr militia”

Can anyone say, “what the f…………”? Are we really responsible for training the worst of the death squads on both the Sunni and Shiite sides of this crap?

More about Steele:

“James Steele was recently featured in a New York Times Magazine story as a top adviser to Iraq’s “most fearsome counterinsurgency force,” an outfit called the Special Police Commandos that numbers about 5000 troops. The article, by Peter Maass, noted that Steele “honed his tactics leading a Special Forces mission in El Salvador during that country’s brutal civil war in the 1980s.” And, as Maass reminded his readers, that civil war resulted in the deaths of 70,000 people, mostly civilians, and “[m]ost of the killing and torturing was done by the army and right-wing death squads affiliated with it.” The army that did all that killing in El Salvador was supported by the United States and US military officials such as Steele, who was head of the US military assistance group in El Salvador for two years in the mid-1980s.”

Makes you want to go, hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Posted by: KansasDem at February 3, 2007 11:38 PM
Comment #206544

Get YOUR facts straight
Schrub did NOT mention Global Warming in the SOTU address, he mentioned “Climate Change” a much more benign way of saying it as well as a mealy mouth way of not contridicting his earlier claims that Global Warming is not real, and hasn’t been “proven yet”

Posted by: Russ at February 4, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #206548


Yeah. Go ahead. Hum louder. He didn’t use your word, buy you probably understood what he meant.

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Posted by: Jack at February 4, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #206557

Jack: A few day’s ago I said I didn’t believe you were a neocon. I take it back. If you can still support this president, you must be.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2007 2:01 AM
Comment #206564


Your President changes names all the time. “Clean Skies”, “Save the Forest”, blah, blah…

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 4, 2007 6:58 AM
Comment #206565

Here’s some stuff I found:

“An initiative designed to reduce corporate accountability for pollution was dubbed the Clean Skies Act. A violent civil war is labeled sectarian violence. The systemic torture at Abu Ghraib was simply abuse by a few bad apples. Just this Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, presidential adviser, Stephen Hadley, told Tim Russert that the current quagmire in Iraq didn’t require a change of course, but rather an improvement. “

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 4, 2007 7:05 AM
Comment #206566

Here’s even more:

“The scientists’ report was signed by more than 60 scientists, including Nobel laureates. It challenged administration actions that:

-Suppressed an Environmental Protection Agency revelation that a congressional clean air bill had greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clean Skies Act.

-Downplayed scientific evidence that is important in identifying endangered species and protecting their habitats.

-Eviscerated an EPA report on climate changes and global warming.”

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at February 4, 2007 7:08 AM
Comment #206567

Schrub did NOT mention Global Warming in the SOTU address, he mentioned “Climate Change” a much more benign way of saying it as well as a mealy mouth way of not contridicting his earlier claims that Global Warming is not real, and hasn’t been “proven yet”

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept. The Globe as a whole is not warming. Parts of it are warming, while parts of it are becoming cooler. On the average, yes, the climate is heating up. However, different parts of the world function differently in relation to others. “Global warming” is a political concept (or has become one). “Climate change” is a more scientific way to discribe what’s going on.

Posted by: mark at February 4, 2007 7:12 AM
Comment #206573

Lets talk of Global Warming again. We only hear of supportive arguments in the MSM, and hardly the dissenting arguments. Thirty years ago, we only had ten years to live. About ten years ago, give or take, CA introduced added the dyno to their smog test and coincidentally, the EPA had reported that CAs air was getting cleaner and the dyno test is still in effect. The orchards in CA have been frozen and many have lost their jobs (I bet they are praying for Global Warming). Please, excuse me, I can probably rant all day about this. You know how it is when we argue about religion.

BTW, if you want to understand why people wont let go of this, think about the religions of the world. They are founded in “faith.” Asking someone to look at the opposing research, is like asking someone to convert.

Posted by: JoeRWC at February 4, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #206603

I guess for me the strangest “lie” of sorts is the little attention paid to the actual note Cheney wrote to Libby. In the note, the word “the president” is crossed out, as if the president ordered Rove to “stick his neck in the meatgrinder”.

Where’s the follow up on this? The only explanation other than that the president made the order is that Cheney somehow mistakenly thought he did, or that Cheney simply wrote “the president” in the note mistakenly. That’s beyond credible to me. You would think that would get at least some play in the media.

Posted by: Max at February 4, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #206608

Lies and Spin that Bother me?

Well, it bothers me that the democrats told us they would be financially more responsible and they just passed a major spending bill full of pork and there was no effort to apply “pay as you go”. From where I sit it appears that Pelosi and Reid are deep into deficit spending and making no effort at all to put a lid on things. When does “pay as you go” kick in? When will we hear the words “balanced budget”? When will the democrats sit down and show us their budget for this year and how they are “reigning in” spending? it seems they plan to SPEND MASSIVELY and pretend that they have solved the deficit problem while actually ignoring it and enlarging it.

It bothers me that the democratic party told us they would END THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION..then they turned around and KEPT EARMARK SPENDING. If they had eliminated Ear Marks, we could have believed they were going to seriously stop some corruption. They also left a loop hole in their “lobby reform bill” so those lobbiests could keep taking them on those golf trips…whataya know? Then we heard Pelosi exempted that manufacturer in her district from the increase in minimum wage. Opps, she got caught. And the democratic party leader of the Senate took Abramoff money, got caught peddling his influence taking a million bucks in a shady land deal in Vegas, and his family is paid to lobby…him!

So I’m sorry to see the lies and spin from the left about ending corruption when it appears democratic party corruption is alive and well. Oh, did Pelosi get it all set so her family could travel the globe on military jets? I hear she’s demanding the US military service her far more than the republicans needed, and her family, and her staff. Talk about Corruption.

I’m disappointed Pelosi declared that from day one she would be working with the republicans, then came out on day one and canceled that. Talk about spinning and lying…democrats even believed her on that one…didn’t they?

I’m sorry the left is spinning and supporting the Iranian nuclear bomb program. This is a terrible threat to all of us. But the cultural war demands that the US be defeated and that means that, even if they don’t like the smell of it, democrats will continue to lie, spin, and from a distance put out all the propaganda it takes to keep Bush from stopping Iranian nuclear bombs.

I’m sorry the left is spinning their support of millions of Illegal aliens crossing the boarder and taking millions of jobs away from our LEGAL entry level workers.

I’m sorry that the Democrat party that told us when Bill Clinton was in power that Iraq had a WMD program now claims Bush lied about Iraq having a WMD program. And yet they feel Bill and Hillary didn’t lie and that Hillary didn’t lie when she voted to remove Sadam because of the WMD program she and Bill always told us he had. Its’ clear whoes lying and smearing and it’s not Bush.

I had hopes, and fears, that the democrats would sweep into power and really balance the budget, really stop corruption, really fix social security, really fix medicare, really seal the boarder, really fight the war against terrorists. Well, no fears about that happening anymore.

Anyone hold out hope for them on the big issues? I think it’s clear….they don’t have an agenda, aren’t going to fix them.

Posted by: Stephen at February 4, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #206676

It is hard to determine whether Scrub is a liar or is delusional. Delusional thinking is one symptom of his psychiatric diagnosis according to the DSM-IV. As for the rest of BushCo, it is probably a mixture of both. Certainly the modern GOPs ideology is delusional, where facts are irrelevant when they contradict ideology, and it is here that we see the terrible danger of ideology replacing philosophy.

Posted by: Allen at February 5, 2007 9:23 AM
Comment #206693


Not hard to determine at all; Bush is a liar. He will say anything necessary to promote his agenda. You can say delusional given the abject failures of his policies but is it delusional if there are other people reinforcing the decisions? Well, maybe “stupid liar”.

Fun 3 quarters last night though.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 5, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #206719

Frankly I don’t think it matters which is worse. The mere fact that the lies exist presents a problem to me.

These were not the sweet, “I love your dress” lies. Instead these lies:

Have put our soldiers at war, leading to many of their deaths;

Destroyed our integrity, cost us to ‘lose face’ as the Orientals might put it.

Our economy has been based on of such lies could unfortunately fail;

Our climate, and those around us is a mess;

And our own country has been torn into many segments;

Violence is running rampant in our own homes;(and why not - if it’s okay for the President and our leaders to lie,do harm, and otherwise cheat and kill, why not me…)

And most importantly

Posted by: Linda H. at February 5, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #206729

Stephen… Thats alot of ranting now how much do you think these newly elected people can get done in 30 days? bush and the neo-cons have had six years to make a total mess of things. Come back in two years and rant by then you might have something to base your rants own. And I did say neo-cons not Republicans there are some leveled headed Reps up there but you can’t here over the neo-cons.

Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #206771

Global Warming refers to the mean temperature of the earth, promulgated from many readings from all over the planet. Not the temperature of separate, individual areas of the planet. It includes those areas where the temperature is dropping as well as where it is rising. So global warming is the upward trend of the mean temperature of the entire planet as a whole. It’s not a political term at all. It is a term which describes an outcome without attributing causation. Saying that the global mean temperature is on the rise is stating a simple fact which cannot be disputed if it’s supported by evidence. Therefore, the term, “Global Warming” is something that cannot be disputed if it is supported by long term temperature readings all over the planet.

Climate change is a general term which includes many parameters. If you put the word “global” in front of it, then you should also further specify which parameter you are discussing, as it is a very general term. For example, “Global Warming” is a term which is a subset of “Global Climate Change”.
In other words, climate change can refer to a previously arid region becoming very humid and tropical, or the reverse. For example, due to “climate change”, the sahara desert region changed from a tropical region with lush vegetation, to an arid, desert region. It may also include many parameters like rainfall, temperature, solar radiation, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, and others.
The term “climate” is frequently a localized reference which is broad in terms of parameters considered, unless the term is modified to suggest global or continental references.

Posted by: Cole at February 6, 2007 12:20 AM
Post a comment