"Evidence White House Knew It Was Lying About Iraq..."

[GreenPartyVoter]

If desperation is ugly, then Washington, D.C. today is downright hideous.
As the 9/11 Commission recently reported, there was “no credible evidence” of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting in an election year, the White House is grasping at straws to avoid being held accountable for its dishonesty.

The whitewash already has started: In July, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee released a controversial report blaming the CIA for the mess. The panel conveniently refuses to evaluate what the White House did with the information it was given or how the White House set up its own special team of Pentagon political appointees (called the Office of Special Plans) to circumvent well-established intelligence channels. And Vice President Dick Cheney continues to say without a shred of proof that there is “overwhelming evidence” justifying the administration’s pre-war charges.

But as author Flannery O’Conner noted, “Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” That means no matter how much defensive spin spews from the White House, the Bush administration cannot escape the documented fact that it was clearly warned before the war that its rationale for invading Iraq was weak.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm

[Stew225]

1. Their advantage is their lack of

shame. Our integrity, it seems, tends to work against us when trying to communicate to a public that needs simple sound bytes in order to "stay informed". Obviously, the repugs are quite adept at this game. Further, they know how to program through repition.

Their modus operandi: keep it short, keep it simple, and keep it dishonest. Thus far it has succeeded for them swimmingly.

What's the solution you may query? Hell, I don't know. Sadly, no one else (of the good guys/gals) in any position of power does either.