Quoted from uggabugga:

Remember June 28? Here is how PBS’ News Hour reported what happened that day: (emp add)

The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq transferred sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government two days ahead of schedule, in an effort to avert possible insurgent attacks.

The unexpected handover ceremony came at mid-morning Baghdad time, the middle of the night in the U.S. The event was convened hastily and secretly inside Baghdad’s heavily guarded green zone.

Sounds grim, doesn’t it? But here is what Bush had to say about it in today’s radio address: (emp add)

We’re making steady progress in implementing our five-step plan toward the goal we all want: completing the mission so that Iraq is stable and self-governing, and American troops can come home with the honor they have earned.

The first step was achieved on June 28th, not only on time, but ahead of schedule, when the coalition transferred full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens.

Not only was it “ahead of schedule” but it was done in such a manner that the people in Baghdad were not inconvenienced. Since the handover was performed “secretly”, that meant no traffic jams or other problems that a public event would have caused. But somehow Bush failed to mention that this morning.

Is anyone prepared to defend this by arguing it depends on what the meaning of “lying” is?

This entry was posted in Iraq. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Shameless

  1. Chris says:

    All right, Michael, I’ll take the bait.

    Premise #1: Bush is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
    Premise #2: Jesus Christ never told a lie.

    Conclusion: Bush didn’t lie.

    I dare anyone to refute the ironclad logic of this syllogism!

  2. nigel says:

    Well since you cited the totally unbiased PBS Newshour as your source I must agree. I mean the media has done such an excellent job in being unbalanced during this administration! I have been so impressed by the way CBS has done the hard work to give both sides of the issues!

  3. Pingback: Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

  4. Brett Bellmore says:

    I’m unclear what you point is; Is it that “two days ahead of schedule” isn’t “ahead of schedule”?

  5. Michael says:

    My point is obvious: the transfer – which should have been a moment for public rejoicing, and which had been announced for the 30th – was done “hastily and secretly” as the news put it, without warning. Bremer bugged out early, tail between legs, because neither he nor the new government could control the “security situation”. We looked frit. We were. To suggest by implication now that this is something to brag about, some sort of success story rather than a humiliating symbol of disaster in progress — is to mislead.

    It is, in effect, to perpetrate intellectual and political fraud: To say something false with the intention of misleading the hearer, in this case the US public.

  6. Wait a minute, I’m confused. Wasn’t the mission accomplished 5/1/03? That would make this somewhat late, Brett…

    But in all serious, I have to agree. We bugged out of Iraq about as fast and with about as much preevac preparation as in the fall of Saigon…check it out, Bremer was out of the country by helicopter within 2 hours of joyfully handing over sovreignty…and these claims that everything was just ready to be turned over to a brand new but fully in control and sovreign ruling body are simply ridiculous, especially given the fact that our troops never left on the ground of needed stability, said GWB…

  7. Mojo says:

    nigel; Are you claiming that PBS misquoted the President? The video is still available on their site if you’d like to check it out; or do you think they doctored the recording as well? If they accurately quoted him, and this post looks only at his words, not some media outlet’s interpretation of them, what the heck difference does their political orientation have to do with anything? It’s a straw dog.

  8. Mojo says:

    Brett; The “two days ahead of schedule” statement was made in the context of “making steady progress”. Within that context it would appear that the changeover occured early because we’re ahead of schedule. In actual fact, we’re far behind schedule in every measurable area and actual reason for the early handover was that the situation was worse than expected. It’s like if you ask your kid if they washed their hands before dinner and they answer “Yes”. If you later find out that they actually meant they washed their hands two weeks ago and that is technically “before dinner”, you don’t congratulate them for their honesty. You can lie while stating only facts and this administration makes a career of it.

  9. Brett Bellmore says:

    Yes, indeed, Christopher, the mission of that ship was indeed done back then, which is why it was headed home.

    Do politicians not tell enough unambiguous lies, that it’s necessary to harp on marginal things like this? You set the lie threshold this low, and your guy isn’t exactly a paragon of honesty, either.

  10. Barry Freed says:

    I agree with Brett that we’ve set the lying threshhold too low. Afterall, it’s not like Bush said that the tranfer of sovereignty happened ahead of schedule and under budget.

  11. Barry, I’m pretty sure mentioning the word “budget” between now and the end of November can get you arrested under the Patriot Act…I have to check, but I just assumed that was why we weren’t talking about it…so be careful!

  12. nigel says:

    My point on this subject is the media portrayed the event as “secretive”. When the fact isthe media had hyped the date so much that anything less than a chinese New year celebration would have been secretive. Did we celebrate when we gave back berlin to germany? Or how about when the southerners were allowed back into Atlanta? This is war. It is the most horrible thing on earth i don’t rejoice in it’s beggining or it’s end. Only celebrate when we don’t HAVE to do it at all.

  13. Mojo says:

    Brett said, “Yes, indeed, Christopher, the mission of that ship was indeed done back then, which is why it was headed home.”
    Then why did the administration lie about who made the banner in the first place? They didn’t come up with this particular excuse for months! (Of course, when that ship heads back to the Gulf, they’ll have to explain that this is a brand new mission.) Yes, “Cruise Completed” would have been far too ambiguous. At risk of being accused of focusing on marginal things, you’re also wrong about the “which is why it was headed home” part. They were actually headed away from home at the time because they had to turn around to avoid getting to port too early. (Bush wouldn’t have been able to fly in then.)
    You’re right that this is a minor thing compared to all the other lies Bush has told, but it’s symptomatic. And it really illustrates that, if he can’t admit even a minor mistake like this, that we can’t expect him to ever recognize more significant mistakes and change for the better.

  14. nigel says:

    Let me get this straight, Bush uses info from the Brits that shows the Iraqis have WMDs. Uses that intel to show reasons for war with Iraq. The intel is wrong so therefore Bush is LYING? Being wrong and LYING are two entirely different things. I’ll give that Bush was wrong. Forget that, WE ALL WERE WRONG. We all thought Saddam had WMDs. Tony blair thought so, so did the weapons inspectors. He speaks to the troops on a carrier where they have a banner that says “Mission Accomplished”. So he’s a LIAR. Not wrong, a LIAR. Our president says in a radio address that the transfer happened ahead of schedule, which it was, and he’s a LIAR. Just because he didn’t speak about bombings and U.S. losses he’s a LIAR. I trust the man in the White House. He’s goofy, a terrible speaker, and out of touch with the common man. But a LIAR he’s not.

  15. Chris says:

    I think we can reasonably conclude that someone is lying when they are (1) sane and (2) allege something that isn’t so, especially when faced with evidence to the contrary. I think Nigel was even defending presidential lying as a means of keeping up morale for the good old cause in some of his other posts, so–forgive me–I thought we had gotten past the question of whether Bush was lying and had moved on to whether it was a good thing for a president to do or not.

    If Bush isn’t a liar–and that’s a big “if”–he sure is wrong or self-deluded an awful lot. And lots of people get hurt when a president of the United States is wrong. That in itself should be reason to fire the man.

  16. Barry Freed says:

    I wonder how nigel felt concerning a President who lied about, say just to pick a hypothetical situation, receiving blow-jobs from an intern in the Oval Office? Nigel, did your panties get in a twist about that? Well, no one died (unless we’re counting a few million spermatazoa) in that great earth-shaking affair of state.

    Jeebus I’m shrill.


Comments are closed.