Comments on: Bush admits to lying over Iraq

By: iambrian

iambrian — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:44:26 +0000

Bloggers need to stop generalizing people. Whoops, generalization.

By: Rhea

Rhea — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:31:49 +0000

I wish I could apologize for the United States inability to look outside fear, hate and ignorance in any decision process. But the reality is that Bush bought the votes for both presidential elections through direct fraudulent actions of the GOP and or ignoring the reports of tampered elections.

The United States is slowly becoming a fascist government, and the rest of the world is just watching. Is there no hope? I fear that even Obama, with his serious lack of experience, will prove too late.

Rupert Murdoch said the best thing that will come out of the Iraq war will be gasoline at $20 a barrel. I personally am glad it is not $20 a barrel. The United States must start to see themselves globally, and not some isolated pimply face teen wanting to have money and sex.

By: nicepaul

nicepaul — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:32:00 +0000

I disagree. To me, it sounds like he’s saying there was credibility to their claims before, despite what he’d said. Anyway, it’s all water under the bridge – he’s forgiven for everything now that he’s given up his golf in solidarity for those who’ve given up their lives to fight his battle.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:22:16 +0000

Sorry, but this simply doesn’t hold water. To say “War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing the war…” he is simply asserting that this argument is no longer credible. This does seem to imply that the degree of credibility has changed. It might have been credible to argue that before, or simply a little bit more credible than now, but his assertion is that it is not at this point credible.

This credibility is, presumably, in the eyes of the public. By seemingly implying that it was previously credible to say that we’ll lose the war, W. is not saying that *he* believed before that we would lose the war, but simply that someone might have been persuaded at one time by arguments that we would lose the war.

Therefore the conclusion that Bush is lying seems to be completely unfounded. You may not like the guy, but is that a valid reason to falsely accuse him?