The War of lies

[Mocker Wall]

Or is it just a "matter of emphasis"?

It seems that Bush and Blair weren't entirely telling the truth about the WMD's in Iraq. (I know, you're just as shocked about it as I am).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html ( ABC News

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=400805 ( The Independent

[zakur]

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18256

[RichardR]

http://www.robertscheer.com/

But we now live easily with lies. "As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war," writes Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times. The pro-administration rationalization holds that the noble end of toppling one of the world's nastier dictators — assuming that the Iraqi people end up freer and not ensnared in an Iranian-type theocracy — justifies the ignoble means of lying to the world. Or, as Friedman puts it, "Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue.)"

Hyping? Is that how we are now to rationalize the ever more obvious truth that the American people and their elected representatives in Congress were deliberately deceived by the president as to the imminent threat that Iraq posed to our security? Is this popular acceptance of such massive deceit exemplary of the representative democracy we are so aggressively exporting, nay imposing, on the world?

It is expected that despots can force the blind allegiance of their people to falsehoods. But it is frightening in the extreme when lying matters not at all to a free people.