He's a Gamer, That's For Sure

A study determines that the Bush Administration lied in order to get the Iraq War started. The innovation of this study: statistics. Administration officials, according to the study, lied 935 times.

Remarkably, the President lied more than the Vice President. I'd have bet against that, myself, but it seems Vice President Cheney -- while lying less -- lied well with men in scoring position.

Comments

[Lee]

Depends on what your definition of what lying is.

If they knew what they were saying "Iraq has WMD" is false, that's damning.

If they were merely wrong, and said "Iraq has WMD's" in good faith, but misread the intelligence (just like the rest of the world, and the previous Clinton administration) then this whole study is nothing more than an exercise in word count.

This study appears not to really engage itself in that question, so what's the point?

PS: According to their count, the second biggest 'liar' in the whole Bush Admin is Colin Powell. That eeevill neo-con Powell!!

[Frank]

Another point worth mentioning is that the Center For Public Integrity, like Media Matters and a few others, is yet another George Soros funded operation.

You know, that guy with the deep pockets who happens to think George Bush is the devil incarnate.

But I'm sure that this fact in no way influenced their decision making process.

[Squidley]

Right, Frank. Just like the Soros-funded study, written by anti-war partisans, which "found" that over 650,000 were killed in Iraq due to the American-led invasion and occupation. This number flies in the face of common sense, yet was swallowed by credulous anti-Bushites.

Just to put some perspective on it, the death toll for the US Civil War, in which large armies faced each other and battlefields were covered with dead, was around 620,000. However, there were no battles in Iraq comparable to Civil War battles. There were no days of fighting in Iraq that came anywhere near the death toll of the Battle of Antietam (23,000 casualities). 650,000 is patently absurd--but because it appeared in The Lancet, it must be true, right?

Oops! Turns out that the study's methods were designed to artifically increase the death toll, and The Lancet is now distancing itself from the article. Reputable sources vary, but they say the death toll was between 30,000 and 151,000--one-twentieth to one-fifth the outlandish Soros claim.

Tom, perhaps you need to file this in your "no liberal bias in the media" file. It must be getting pretty fat by now....

[fish]

30,000 to 151,000?!

Whew is that all?

Shit! Gotta go, "Idols" on!

[Squidley]

It sounds like a lot, but when you consider that Iraq has been in civil war mode for several years now, you begin to understand why so many Iraqis have been killed: it's mainly Iraqis killing each other.

Gee, who could have imagined that removing Saddam's jackboot from the necks of the Sunnis and Shiites would have resulted in so much bloodshed? Arab-on-Arab violence--what a shocker that was!

[fish]

Yeah Squid but Sunni v Shiite cage match without US intervention means that I, as a US citizen bear no responsibility! Its a case of you boys have fun....give me a call when one of you is dead! We as US citizens own this one....we are the new Germans!

And perhaps while you're at it you can explain to me why its worth it to me, as a taxpayer (hypocrisy alert as I sit at my taxpayer provided desk) why pulling Saddam out of his spider hole wasn't sufficient to end this thing?

[Wally]

Uh-oh Fish. You're in for it now.

[Frank]

Pulling Saddam out of the hole didn't end this because their are too many neighboring states who have a concerted interest in NOT seeing Iraq become stable. You think Iran wants a happy democracy right next door when it's citizens are pushing for more and more individual rights as it is?

The way to end this thing is exactly what we've been doing since Gen. Petraeus took over; kill the bad guys, reward those that help. The bad guys in Iraq are on the run and on the verge of extinction. I don't think it will be completely stable for a few more years, but a year ago who could have foreseen the progress that has been made thus far? I mean, Sunnis and Shi'a attended service at a Christian church to encourage the Christians to return to Baghdad and Sunni's are being allowed back into government. I think these are definitely steps toward what those of us who supported the war would call winning.

[fish]

I don't think it will be completely stable for a few more years...

Yeah, like a hundred years if President McCain gets his way! Perhaps less if President Clinton gets hers!

The artificial entity that was Iraq can't exist without sufficient exerted on the top of the pot. For a while Saddam (and his minions) was the pressure. Now we are....and expensive pressure it is!

Please don't think for a minute that the lull in the fighting means anything long term! The locals nursed their grudges for the years that Saddam was in charge! Those grudges, despite the photo op haven't gone away!

[fish]

The artificial entity that was Iraq can't exist without sufficient exerted on the top of the pot.

Pressure...for the love of god pressure! I should proofread these little pearls of wisdom before I post!

[Pursuit]

Actually Fish, you should just stick with Idol.

[Squidley]

Actually, fish, I more or less agree with you. Saddam Hussein was not the biggest threat in the Middle East, but we went after him anyway. Although I'm glad he's gone, in retrospect, I think the region would have been better off with him left in power--just thoroughly punished for his truculence.

Regardless of the "couldas" and "shouldas," I agree that the US does not have responsibility or interest in what's going on in Iraq--as long as what they do doesn't threaten us or our interests, like access to oil (essential for the world economy and all that), or sponsorship of anti-Western terrorism. We--and they--would be better off with US forces withdrawn to regional bases; Saddam built one in the western desert that would be perfect, and the Kurds would probably welcome one in their region. Then, let the Iraqis determine their fate on their own--what a concept! We would intervene only to topple an unacceptable leader (i.e., one who posed a credible threat)--and then back out once he was gone. Let Iraqis choose their own government, and get us out of the Byzantine mess of the world of Islam.