Talk:Bush lies and deceptions

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The yawning boy seems like such a trifling matter that I haven't followed it. Is there any substance of value or merit, or use to this article, in this matter to regard it as anything other than a petty distraction?? --Maynard 17:49, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)

  • Lisa de Moraes, "White House Spins The Boy Who Yawned," Washington Post, April 2, 2004. Comment from BuzzFlash: "After CNN Says White House Claimed Yawning Boy Didn't Exist, Yawning Boy Becomes 'Property' of White House. CNN Now Claims White House Didn't Make Claim. Are You Following This CNN/White House Lie About a Lie?" Also see April 5, 2004, BuzzFlash Op-Ed"CNN and the Truth: It's Nothing to Yawn About": "If there is television news programming that operates independently of the White House spin-of-the-day, please let us know. ... Let's just look at a few recent examples of the Karl Rove television news media stenographic pool at work."

Comment: Sorry that I did get to your comment sooner, M... but, yes, there is definitely "value or merit" to this issue. I feel that it is illustrative to the lengths of deception that the Bushies will stoop to in order to come out on top.

AI 4/6/04: Trumped once again!

Well, I'll concede on the limitlessness of GOP deceptions, including of course the relatively   trivial. In this particular case, I'd wager that it was trivial enough to not have ever come to the attention of POTUS. -M

Place this as you will, if deemed appropriate, M:

  • Richard Cohen, "The Buck Doesn't Stop," Washington Post, April 6, 2004: "But from the president on down, no one in this administration ever admits a mistake or concedes having been wrong. ... If, say, a Japanese government had performed as badly as the Bush administration has, there would be no one left to turn out the lights."

While presently distracted, an appropriate place for this isn't coming to mind just yet. It doesn't seem to fit under any of the existing "characterizations" indexed in the Bush regime article. There may be another place; or perhaps yet another new article should be generated for, ...pondering..., "denial of accountability" perhaps?

My association with the SourceWatch does not include a pressing need to catalog every news item which interests me; though I frequently consider if an existing article might beneficially incorporate an item ready at hand.

Now, back to my distractions. -M

Sunday Times - May 01, 2005

I haven't seen it listed anywhere in American Press, and I happened to pick-up the link when visiting the Memory Hole blog yesterday, looking to see if they had the unredacted Sgrena report. It may be about as damning of evidence for both Bush and Blair that I have yet to see proving that the War Upon Iraq was a premeditated act of deception.

Michael Smith, "Blair planned Iraq war from start", The Sunday Times (UK), May 01, 2005
INSIDE Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and advisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public was told war was inevitable.
The discussion that morning was highly confidential. As minutes of the proceedings, headed "Secret and strictly personal - UK eyes only", state: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents."
[. . .]
AS a civil service briefing paper specifically prepared for the July meeting reveals, Blair had made his fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.
"When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April," states the paper, "he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change."
[. . .]

Given the libel laws in the UK, it is extremely unlikely that an established newspaper of note, such as the Times would publish a story with content such as this without some heavy-duty proof secured under lock and key.

They also offered a transcript of the secret "civil service briefing paper":

"The secret Downing Street memo", The Sunday Times (UK), May 01, 2005

This is proof that Bush had decided to wage war upon Iraq at least as early as April, 2002, with the expressed intent of regime change, an Internationally recognised unlawful cause for war. It is strongly indicative, albeit circumstantial, of a conscious effort to distort intelligence abput Iraq's WMDs.

I feel that the Downing Street memo should be marked-up and put on Source Watch, but it comes impaired with a copyright from its present source.

Comments anyone?

--Hugh Manatee 11:34, 3 May 2005 (EDT)

"I'd never met a man
 who could tell so many lies.
He has a different story
 for every set of eyes.
How can he remember
 who he's talking too?
I know it isn't me,
 and I hope it isn't you..."
- - Neil Young - "Ambulance Blues"

--Hugh Manatee 01:34, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)

See The secret Downing Street memo, July 23, 2002


The explanation for the deletion of the link really requires more justification. Without having delved into the issue myself, the blog post linked to addressed the issue of the lack of links to early WH radio broadcasts. Deleting the link based on the statement that there is no evidence links ever existed doesn't really negate the point of the post, which was querying the discrepancy in what is linked and what isn't and changes to the site. --Bob Burton 17:09, 4 March 2007 (EST)

following an email query, I looked at this a bit further. It seems to me that the post is reasonably clear about what the author saw and a specific recent experience of scrubbing at the White House website and what they were speculating about re earlier Bush radio interviews. While there is an element of speculation to part of the post, I think on balance it is worth retaining the link so readers can decide for themselves or investigate further. So on balalnce I think the link is worth keeping. --Bob Burton 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, on reading the following links I'm persuaded it's not worth keeping the link.

--Bob Burton 15:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)