From Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly

In its first stage, mental standstill fixes the principles and boundaries governing a political problem. In the second stage, when dissonances and failing function begin to appear, the initial principles rigidify. This is the period when, if wisdom were operative, re-examination and re-thinking and a change of course are possible, but they are rare as rubies in a backyard. Rigidifying leads to increase of investment and the need to protect egos; policy founded upon error multiplies, never retreats. The greater the investment and the more involved in it the sponsor's ego, the more unacceptable is disengagement. In the third stage, pursuit of failure enlarges the damages until it causes the fall of Troy, the defection from the Papacy, the loss of a trans-Atlantic empire, the classic humiliation in Vietnam.

[...]

For a chief of state, admitting error is almost out of the question. The American misfortune in the Vietnam period was to have had Presidents who lacked the self-confidence for the grand withdrawal...

Refusal to draw inference from negative signs...was recognized in the most pessimistic work of modern times, George Orwell's 1984, as what the author called "Crimestop." "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments...and of being bored and repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Check this out...

Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

'Bout friggin' time. Use the majority!

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

we know there were no wmd's, and no connection to 9/11, etc., etc.; so why did bush start the iraq war? is this some kind of mystery?

it seems that we who want the war to end, and soon, need to address this underlying, fundamental issue/question if we are to have credibility. otherwise, we are open to the criticism that we are just cut and runners.

everytime i raise this q on this and other websites someone half-heartedly ejaculates the throw-a-ways of "$" and "oil," but no one seems ever to come to grips with query.

bush lied to get the u.s. into the war; why did he lie? why did he get the u.s. into the war?

Democrats and liberals love to throw around the 'lie' accusation, so much so that some people could believe it's true. Telling something you know is false is a lie. This has been debated ad nauseum (and I won't beat the dead dog, yet again), but Bush, Powell, European nations, etc., etc. all believed the intelligence was correct, i.e. Saddam had WMD's and would use them. Was Colin Powell a liar? Tony Blair? The Poles, Australians? There were contrary views, even back at the time of the start of the Iraq war. But, that's true on many issues. It doesn't make the person a liar.

In the end, the President put forward what he believed to be in the best interest of American security. Members of Congress had the same information. Congress voted for the war. Democrats now running for President voted for the war. They will spin, explain away their vote and supporters will now call Bush a liar. In point of fact, they were all wrong. I'm more interested in what we do about it now.

1. The motives of Bush, Cheney, and the neocons that drove the Bush's foreign policy (Perle, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith, et. al.) were clear long before 9/11 and had nothing to do with al Qaeda or bin Laden. See Tamara's link, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of evidence. An iceberg that was not even hidden from anyone. The neocons made no secret of any of this.

2. Bush and company had to use 9/11 and al Qaeda to sell the war in order for the public to accept it. That's easy and obvious to see.

3. You cannot hide from history. Bush and his administration knowingly used false and misleading information to scare the country into invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. And they have constantly changed the reasons for doing so ever since.

If that's not a lie, there is no such thing as a lie and there is no truth. Just BS.

Telling something you know is false is a lie.

Just like Bush, you're being dishonest by what you omit. Lies can be of commission or omission. Lies do not require stating a falsehood outright (though Bush has done that too*). Lies can be through words that are misleading and deceptive--though arguably not inaccurate.

Deborah Tannen, a Georgetown University professor of linguistics who has studied Bush's rhetoric, said it is impossible to know but "plausible" that Bush's words furthered such public impressions. "Clearly, he's using language to imply a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th," she said.

"There is a specific manipulation of language here to imply a connection." Bush, she said, seems to imply that in Iraq "we have gone to war with the terrorists who attacked us."

Maybe Bush has never flat out stated unequivocally that Sadam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. But he intentionally encouraged and fostered that notion as best he could, even after it was obvious that many people drew that conclusion. Duh! That's what helped him sell his war!

And many times Bush has said, and continues to say, we went to war in Iraq in self defense because "they" attacked us. Who is "they"? Do these Google results occur by accident? Coincidence from the most manipulative and secretive administration at least since Nixon? Well, it did help sell Bush's war. Again, duh!

* Here's an example of a Bush lie of commission (emphasis added):

... Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. ...

That was after he'd OK'd warrantless wiretaps. So how is that not a lie?