| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2007 10:45:32 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I was kind of thinking along the lines of examples. |
Abstract
ARTICLE
Did President Bush Mislead the Country in His Arguments for War withIraq?
* James P. Pfiffner
*
George Mason University
Abstract
President Bush has been accused by some in the popular press of lying in his arguments for taking the United States to war with Iraq in 2003. This article examines several sets of statements by President Bush and his administration: first, about the implication that there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11; second, about Iraq's nuclear weapons capacity; and third, about Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his ability to deliver them. Although the record at this early date is far from complete, the article concludes that from publicly available evidence, the president misled the country in important ways, potentially undermining the trust of the citizenry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, interestingly, the administration is mentioned in key words, but not the abstract. I suppose you'll argue (I admit, I didn't read the article) that it's the administration, and not W. Bush, but he is the one who appoints his administration.
Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, Vol. 5, No. 3, 298-308 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1532708605277005
© 2005 SAGE Publications
The Media and Election 2004
Douglas Kellner
University of California-Los Angeles
This study of the media and election 2004 is drawn from the author̢۪s Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy(2005) that argues that several convergent trends intersecting U.S. media and politics have seriously undermined U.S. democracy: the corporate control of mainstream media, which biases dominant media toward conservativism and profit; an implosion of information and entertainment and rise of a culture of media spectacle, which makes politics a form of entertainment; the rise of a right-wing Republican media propaganda and attack apparatus, which systematically deploys lies and deception to advance the agenda of conservative groups and interests; and an unparalleled assault on the press and manipulation of media by the Bush administration.
Key Words: Bush administration â€Â¢ corporate media â€Â¢ crisis of democracy â€Â¢ media spectacle â€Â¢ politics of lying
----------------------------------------------------------------
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
Volume 5 Issue 1 Page 189-196, December 2005
To cite this article: Eileen L. Zurbriggen (2005)
Lies in a Time of Threat: Betrayal Blindness and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 5 (1), 189–196.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00064.x
Prev Article Next Article
Abstract
Lies in a Time of Threat: Betrayal Blindness and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
* Eileen L. Zurbriggen1*1University of California, Santa Cruz*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eileen L. Zurbriggen, Department of Psychology, Room 277, Social Sciences 2, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [e-mail: zurbrigg@ucsc.edu].
*
1University of California, Santa Cruz
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eileen L. Zurbriggen, Department of Psychology, Room 277, Social Sciences 2, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 .
Portions of this article were written while the author was a Visiting Research Associate at Smith College.
Abstract
Exit polls from the 2004 U.S. presidential election indicated overwhelming support for President Bush among voters who said they valued honesty, even though the Bush administration had been sharply criticized for deceiving the public, especially concerning the reasons for invading Iraq. A psychological theory recently developed to help explain memory loss in trauma survivors sheds light on this paradox. Betrayal Trauma Theory (Freyd, 1996) states that memory impairment is greatest when a victim is dependent on the perpetrator. The theory also predicts who will be "blind" to signs of deception—those who are emotionally or financially dependent on the person who is lying. Although every American is dependent on the U.S. President to some extent, religious conservatives may be more psychologically dependent than others. Because they believe their core values are under attack, they depend on powerful leaders such as President Bush to defend these values. This psychological dependence may make it difficult for them to notice the administration's deceptions.
-------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 11:24:59 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I was thinking more along the lines of ... the president who had an affair while in office, then denied it when he was under oath in the courts |
I see. Yeah, that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, and put the US trillions of dollars in debt. What a national tragedy. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:02:00 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
WMD's, Declaring Victory in Iraq, Anytime he says he cares about someone who is not one of his business cronies, When he says he doesn't know who outed Valerie Plame, |
the last two are completely a matter of opinion and not even able to be proved, and the first one is wrong, we did find Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we didn't make a big deal out of it because we were the ones that had supplied them some years back, and Victory in Iraq is also a matter of opinion. I'm not saying that Bush is perfect by any means of the word, I have been disappointed with some of the things that he has done, but I don't know of anything that he has outright lied about to accomplish his own agenda |
Show me the WMD's.
If you define victory as continued fighting, the "troop surge" and a growing presence in the conquered country after several years, I think you need to review your dictionary. You win because you win, not because you say you win.
Just because you don't believe he lied about them, doesn't mean he didn't. The White House was far from forthcoming in providing Federal investigators with record and other evidence they had in hand.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 01:04:43.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:06:48 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you define victory as continued fighting, the "troop surge" and a growing presence in the conquered country after several years, I think you need to review your dictionary. You win because you win, not because you say you win. |
Just curious, what would your definition of 'winning' be? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:16:39 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you define victory as continued fighting, the "troop surge" and a growing presence in the conquered country after several years, I think you need to review your dictionary. You win because you win, not because you say you win. |
Just curious, what would your definition of 'winning' be? |
It's not the current state of affairs in Iraq, nor is it the state of affairs at the time some years ago when Bush declared victory.
A significant decline in violence and fighting, both sectarian and against US troops. Stability adequate for US troops to significantly decrease their presence.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:27:07 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by ryand:
I was thinking more along the lines of ... the president who had an affair while in office, then denied it when he was under oath in the courts |
Originally posted by Louis:
I see. Yeah, that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, and put the US trillions of dollars in debt. What a national tragedy. |
Don't be pedantic. The fact remains that the man was an outright, flagrant liar in such a manner as to pretty much put anything that he said into the suspect category. The man had zero integrity in my and most Americans' minds. It's not like it was the first time a politician or other public figure couldn't keep his pants on......did he seriously think that once it happened that he was going to be able to keep a lid on it?
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 07:56:46.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:59:48 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you define victory as continued fighting, the "troop surge" and a growing presence in the conquered country after several years, I think you need to review your dictionary. You win because you win, not because you say you win. |
Just curious, what would your definition of 'winning' be? |
It's not the current state of affairs in Iraq, nor is it the state of affairs at the time some years ago when Bush declared victory.
A significant decline in violence and fighting, both sectarian and against US troops. Stability adequate for US troops to significantly decrease their presence. |
Victory defined by being an end of shooting and being able to leave? Interesting ideas, Monsieur Spazmo. Bonjour! |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:47:45 AM · #158 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you define victory as continued fighting, the "troop surge" and a growing presence in the conquered country after several years, I think you need to review your dictionary. You win because you win, not because you say you win. |
Just curious, what would your definition of 'winning' be? |
It's not the current state of affairs in Iraq, nor is it the state of affairs at the time some years ago when Bush declared victory.
A significant decline in violence and fighting, both sectarian and against US troops. Stability adequate for US troops to significantly decrease their presence. |
Victory defined by being an end of shooting and being able to leave? Interesting ideas, Monsieur Spazmo. Bonjour! |
Not exactly so simple as you summarize since it would be simple enough for the US to holster its weapons and march out of Iraq. That would be comparable to the USSR's march out of Afghanistan. I doubt that anyone would characterize that as victory and for the US to do so in Iraq now would leave quite a mess behind and certainly not a stable Iraq.
While I'll never concede that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in any way justified. The simple fact is that it happened and the US must deal with the consequences. The US broke Iraq, so now, the US must fix Iraq. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, un-American and just wrong. Like it or not. The Iraq of the future may not be the Iraq that GW, Rumsfeld and the other architects of the war imagined, but it needs to have some reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, it will all be for naught. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:59:54 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Otherwise, it will all be for naught. |
I suspect otherwise it would be quite a bit more negative than naught. Afghanistan is an instructive example of what happens when you dump a load of weapons into a country, create a power vacuum, then wash your hands of it. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:37:02 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:54:41 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I was thinking more along the lines of ... the president who had an affair while in office, then denied it when he was under oath in the courts |
I see. Yeah, that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, and put the US trillions of dollars in debt. What a national tragedy. |
How many lives did Clinton's affair save?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:57:54 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
WMD's, Declaring Victory in Iraq, Anytime he says he cares about someone who is not one of his business cronies, When he says he doesn't know who outed Valerie Plame, |
the last two are completely a matter of opinion and not even able to be proved, and the first one is wrong, we did find Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we didn't make a big deal out of it because we were the ones that had supplied them some years back, and Victory in Iraq is also a matter of opinion. I'm not saying that Bush is perfect by any means of the word, I have been disappointed with some of the things that he has done, but I don't know of anything that he has outright lied about to accomplish his own agenda. |
Dude your kidding right? What WMDs? Post proof of this statement.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 13:58:02. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:58:23 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I was thinking more along the lines of ... the president who had an affair while in office, then denied it when he was under oath in the courts |
I see. Yeah, that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, and put the US trillions of dollars in debt. What a national tragedy. |
How many lives did Clinton's affair save? |
What does this have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:03:33 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I was thinking more along the lines of ... the president who had an affair while in office, then denied it when he was under oath in the courts |
I see. Yeah, that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, and put the US trillions of dollars in debt. What a national tragedy. |
How many lives did Clinton's affair save? |
What does this have to do with anything? |
What does Bush have to do with anything, we were talking about Al Gore, then when i attacked him, yall decided to attack George Bush, which is way off what we were even talking about.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:04:28 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
WMD's, Declaring Victory in Iraq, Anytime he says he cares about someone who is not one of his business cronies, When he says he doesn't know who outed Valerie Plame, |
the last two are completely a matter of opinion and not even able to be proved, and the first one is wrong, we did find Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we didn't make a big deal out of it because we were the ones that had supplied them some years back, and Victory in Iraq is also a matter of opinion. I'm not saying that Bush is perfect by any means of the word, I have been disappointed with some of the things that he has done, but I don't know of anything that he has outright lied about to accomplish his own agenda. |
Dude your kidding right? What WMDs? Post proof of this statement. |
I stated that incorrectly, there are speculations that that happened, but there is proof that they were there at one point, and got shipped out to syria.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:13:42 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:58:30 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by ryand:
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad? |
it's been what, almost 7 years now since George W. Bush took office. You'd think there would be something to hold up as an achievement, rather than going on about what the last president did last millennium ?
Politicians break oaths all the time.
Some take oaths to preserve a constitution, others promise to tell the truth. Most never make good on their oaths.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 15:00:17. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:01:37 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by ryand:
I was thinking more along the lines of ... the president who had an affair while in office, then denied it when he was under oath in the courts |
I see. Yeah, that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, and put the US trillions of dollars in debt. What a national tragedy. |
How many lives did Clinton's affair save? |
Zero, but on the other hand, it didn't cost any lives either.
GWB's ill-informed decision to invade Iraq has cost several thousand American lives, several times that in Iraqi lives, and, has saved zero lives as well. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:05:39 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad? |
No, a lie is not a lie.
If a girl you're dating asks you, "How do I look?", you aren't going to answer, "Like a troll, dear." unless you're unusually cruel, or totally clueless.
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:10:56 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad? |
No, a lie is not a lie.
If a girl you're dating asks you, "How do I look?", you aren't going to answer, "Like a troll, dear." unless you're unusually cruel, or totally clueless.
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
okay, we will agree that telling your girlfriend that she looks like a troll would be a bad idea. I don't know that that can really be classified as a lie.
but how bout saying an oath in front of the entire country and then lying, are we just gonna let that slide as something that he had to do.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:11:11 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
//www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-war_ad_says_bush_cheney_rumsfeld.html
You may think Bush lied, and you may be right, but a lie is not a lie if you can't prove they knew it was a lie when they lied :)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:32:57 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public ... |
Your post reads in the singular (bold emphasis mine). Perhaps some research into the multiple victims of this predator might clear things up.
edit to add The same predator that Al Gore said was the greatest President ever. Kind of puts into perspective how much we can believe AG.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 15:35:29.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:42:44 PM · #173 |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:18:08 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars? |
a lie is a lie. Are you saying that presidents should be able to lie under oath if they think that the consequences won't be that bad? |
No, a lie is not a lie.
If a girl you're dating asks you, "How do I look?", you aren't going to answer, "Like a troll, dear." unless you're unusually cruel, or totally clueless.
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
okay, we will agree that telling your girlfriend that she looks like a troll would be a bad idea. I don't know that that can really be classified as a lie.
but how bout saying an oath in front of the entire country and then lying, are we just gonna let that slide as something that he had to do. |
Explore the consequences.
One is an extramarital affair, really a personal matter of great consequence to no one but the husband, wife and their marriage and family, regardless of their elected position.
The other is a war costing tens of thousands of lives, many times that in casualties and saddling this and future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.
Which would you say is more serious? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:18:56 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
However, if you're justifying invading another country and starting a war that may cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, you better be telling the truth. |
//www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-war_ad_says_bush_cheney_rumsfeld.html
You may think Bush lied, and you may be right, but a lie is not a lie if you can't prove they knew it was a lie when they lied :) |
In that case, it's just ignorance. Either way, there's no excuse. |
|
