[Karibu]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If someone were to prove that Bush knew that Iraq had no legitimate WMD threat and that the war was only intended to line the pockets of Haliburton then I would say that goes way beyond propaganda. Propaganda is lying to gain tactical advantage over the enemy. This would be lying to your own people to cover up presidential malfeseance of a tremendous scale.

Geoschmo

Heh, this makes me remember one small scale (internationally insignificant) scandal here in Finland. We had a parliament election a year ago here in Finland. It is also about changing our government, for the biggest party in our parliament will have the authority to form new government (our government is then changed every 6 years). During the Last weeks of election campaign the 2 biggest parties (social democrats and bourgeois party) had a bloody fight over people's votes and the leader of bourgeois party got into possession of one secret document about our government's discussion of USA about Iraq war.

She knew that it would be very risky to publish it, for if published, it could bring victory to her party but could also cost her political career (publishing classified information is always invetigated). She decided to publish that she had such information and what it was, but would not reveal the source and actually lied about it (she claimed she got it "accidentally"). Her party won the parliament election, partially because of that, ans she was elected as prime minister. But little after election the investigation started and she could no longer hide her source. Also it became apparent that she had lied about things during election. I don't bore you with the details, but after less than 6 months as prime minister she resigned (othervise government would have collapsed) and the people were offered few other political heads in a plate along with her.

What was the point? Lying can get you only so far. And eventually, you have to face the consequences of your actions.