Thursday, January 24, 2008

Neocons: Natural Born Liars



As I've said before on many occasions, it's easy to know when a neo-con is lying. He/she opens his or her mouth. Or, puts pen to paper or starts typing on a computer keyboard. Believe me, it really is that simple.

But anyone who still has their doubts, should take a look at a study released yesterday which found that President Bush (above) and his top officials ran roughshod over the truth in the run-up to the Iraq war lying a total of 935 times.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, eight administration officials "made at least 935 false statements" about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al-Qaeda, on 532 separate occasions.
"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
The publication of this report will not of course bring back the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their lives as a result of the neocons deceitful war of aggression. But as The Exile points out, it should help to persuade people not to believe a word that the political class says to them ever again.

Hat tip: The Exile.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great pic of Dubya!

Karl Naylor said...

Neoconservatism is itself a slight oxymoron because how can conservatism, devoted to conserving tradition institutions and society, be 'neo' ? Particularly, as neocon foreign policy has a messianic Utopian aspect to it.

The real driving force behind this ideology is merely an expansionist nationalistic militarism and apocalyptic crusade to liberate the world though using the US' undoubted superiority in conventional weaponry to spread 'regime change'.

However, the term 'neocon' is tending to be used in a silly way to refer to any opinion that just happens to believe that a militant and illiberal Islamism is no less potentially dangerous than neoconservatism.

Seumus Milne absurdly tries to call Martin Bright a 'neocon' and even the liberal Oxford historian Robert Service because he tends to emphasise the necessary level of coercion and terror than was part of the world communism based on the Leninist model.As well as the 100 million killed by Communism.

Sometimes those on the far left are no different to the neocons for in any case many neocons have connections to a Trotskyist past-Perle, Wolfowitz, and other. Regime change is a form of Trotsky's permanent revolution.

Neil Clark might want to research this topic. I find in a fascinating one and yet rather grim one.

Minden Jot...