Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Lied To Soldiers

Over the weekend, President Bush took a hard line against critics of the Iraq invasion, insisting they’re rewriting history by pointing out that he misled America about Iraq. Unfortunately, President Bush’s defense is just as misleading as his insistence that Iraq had WMD and al Qaeda connections.

For whatever reason, the media is (to some extent) no longer in thrall to the Whitehouse and the Washington Post printed an accurate analysis of Bush's speech.

Where Bush insists "a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs," the Post says sure... BUT, "the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions."

That report also points out that the Whitehouse created "an environment that did not encourage skepticism" about WMD claims in the intelligence community.

And to imply that Congress had the same intelligence the President had is also misleading. As the Post makes clear, "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material."

President Bush handed Congress a bunch of guesswork packaged as facts. Here's a good example from last year when an al Qaeda source recanted his story that Iraq trained al Qaeda operatives,

The Senate report says that a highly classified report prepared by the C.I.A. in September 2002 on "Iraqi Ties to Terrorism" described the claims that Iraq had provided "training in poisons and gases" to Qaeda members, but that it cautioned that the information had come from "sources of varying reliability."

By contrast, it noted that unclassified testimony to Congress in February 2003 from George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, had not included any caveats and thus "could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the C.I.A. believed the training had definitely occurred."

Most public statements by Mr. Bush and other administration officials on the matter described the assertions as matters of fact.

Subsequently, we found out that the administration had been alerted to the fact that the guy was probably lying. So President Bush and other administration officials knowingly lied to us when they passed off the stooge's claims as fact.

President Bush made misleading statements to rally support for the invasion of Iraq, and he misled those soldiers at the Tobyhanna Army Depot last Friday.

Posted by American Pundit at November 14, 2005 4:33 AM
Comments
Comment #92643

From the Washington Post Article: “The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.”

Huh? Lessee here, they’re saying that it was okay for Bush to use force against a hostile nation, but only if he promised not to depose the leader of that nation in the process?

Reading this Post article is like watching a game of Twister. And people wonder why journalists are held in such low esteem.

Posted by: Web Steward at November 14, 2005 6:22 AM
Comment #92652

A.P.

Below are a couple of salient quotes from the article you cited. The first states that Bush’s assessment about Hussein was essentially true; the second shows the unmitigated laziness and fecklessness of our elected officials.

The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003.

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 14, 2005 7:32 AM
Comment #92666

I presented two instances where President Bush clearly lied. That’s the salient point of this article.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 14, 2005 8:42 AM
Comment #92674

We are having this discussion on both sides. I think this also applies her.

I wondered why liberals are so interesting in saying Bush lied. I think it is cognitive dissonance that makes them so adamant about the Bush lied myth.

Support for the war was very high. Many of today’s Bush bashers must also be erstwhile war supporters. Now that things have not turned out as they hoped, they have two choices. They can admit that they were wrong and adjust their worldview accordingly. OR they can keep their worldview and find someone to blame, someone who misled them, an Old Nick so slippery that even the loyal, true and virtuous liberals would be tricked into supporting a war. That man is George Bush.

Bush should be flattered. In liberal eyes he is not only bad, but he is so clever that he was able to put one over on all the liberals (except Kennedy and a few others). We will have to change Old Nick to Old George.

So do you really believe Bush is so much smarter than all the Dems in the Senate that he was able to trick them all? Or are they so feckless that they just vote for anything they think is popular without even reading the titles?

A lot a baggage comes with the Bush lied myth. I don’t think you want to take it all on board your peace train.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 9:02 AM
Comment #92676

Bush knowingly made statements that were not true. That, in my dictionary, IS lying.

Unless you want to question the meaning of the word IS.

Posted by: German at November 14, 2005 9:09 AM
Comment #92677

Jack, that’s such a load of BS.

I presented two instances where President Bush clearly lied. Instead of just putting your hands over your ears and yelling, “Lalalalalala! I’m not listening! It’s a myth!” try addressing the facts.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 14, 2005 9:12 AM
Comment #92682

The Bush administrations only excuse to escape the charges of lying to the American public, and the whole world for that matter, was that the intelligence they recieved was “faulty”. Everyone knows this. The big problem I have is that this administration knew this information was faulty and still packaged, marketed, and sold it to all of us.

Posted by: Marko at November 14, 2005 9:36 AM
Comment #92692

A.P.

You made the same tired assertions. Jack is right in saying that the “Bush lied” mantra carries with it much baggage. As I showed, only 6 senators bothered to even read the text of the information they had—-yet you continue the canard that they didn’t have enough information.

“An environment that did not encourage skepticism” is far different from a coercive attempt to sway information. If you cannot see or understand the difference, then it explains hwo you reach your conclusions. And, if that is the kind of logic you use to reach your conclusions, then your conclusions have little merit.

AP, how in the world do you coincide your “Bush lied” mantra with the comments of prominent Democrats at the time. Sure, you can say they were misled, but it doesn’t wash. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons. In 1998, we bombed Iraq because of the weapons we thought they had. Operation Desert Fox was certainly a pre-emptive military attack on a sovereign nation. In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties were openly talking about the WMD’s that Saddam had.

The ONLY logical conclusions one can reach, based on the evidence, is that they were all lying or that the information was simply flawed, as all intelligence information inherently is.

Allow me one last question: Are you willing to declare Bill Clinton a war criminal for his bombing attack on a country that did not have any weapons of mass destruction?

I didn’t think so.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 14, 2005 10:06 AM
Comment #92694

“The big problem I have is that this administration knew this information was faulty and still packaged, marketed, and sold it to all of us.
Posted by Marko at November 14, 2005 09:36 AM”

So Bush lied to all of us so that he could send 100,000+ volunteers in harm’s way to accomplish…what, exactly?

Posted by: Web Steward at November 14, 2005 10:08 AM
Comment #92697

Web,

So, since Dubya’s error was so monumental, it simply cannot have happened, right?

Posted by: German at November 14, 2005 10:24 AM
Comment #92701

I think it’s important to get to the bottom of what the Bush administration really new to be the truth and what they told the American public because it is a matter of life and death and should be of great concern to every American.

Posted by: Joni Todd at November 14, 2005 10:36 AM
Comment #92706

Jack
“Or are they so feckless that they just vote for anything they think is popular without even reading the titles?”

Of course they were feckless, we were attacked on US soil, everyone thought the president had the countries best intentions in mind. EVERYONE thought that Bush was going avenge our fallen. But boy were we wrong. I just want to know where do you get the gull to say it was a myth, do you live in a fairytale world or what. Trust me, if we were out to get Old George we wouldn’t have to create myths, there is more than enough evidence that he created by himself to convict him, or impeach him. By the way I will give you some credit on something though, I really like the Old George statement, it suits him.

-Einghf

“The White House has acknowledged for the first time that U.S. President George W. Bush used faulty intelligence reports…Iraq to a bid to buy uranium in Niger had been forged. ”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030709-rfel-151703.htm

Posted by: Einghf at November 14, 2005 10:44 AM
Comment #92707

Einghf

You all say George Bush rushed to judgement (or lied). The Dems in Congress seemed to rush too, or did they lie. They are all in the same boat. If Bush lied, so did Kerry, Clinton, Edwards etc. If they didn’t lie, neither did Bush.

It is very interesting that Dems use stupidity and fecklessness as a defense. The more likely explanation is just that in a complicated world of intrigue and deception, intelligence is never complete and sometimes wrong. But you have to make decision on incomplete information.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 10:50 AM
Comment #92709

I think anyone who still tries to stand on the ‘Bush was mislead’ argument is ignoring the facts and timeline of those facts. Also, Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Not Congress, not the FBI or CIA. Bush made the decision contrary to the UN Weapons Inspector’s reports.

Many people ‘guessed wrong’ on this one - but Bush was the sole person in charge - the sole person who sent these 2000 soldiers to their deaths. Many people should par for their bad judgment - but Bush should be the first to admit to this, and he should also admit that he was not upfront with the American public as to the veracity of the intelligence he based his decisions on.

“Not only do we know that they have them (WMDs) but we know where they are.” Colin Powell, United Nations report.

How can the above statement be anything but a lie? How can Bush be anything but responsible for it?

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 10:56 AM
Comment #92713

Jack -

2 thing separate Congress from the White House on this:

1 - There was a gap in time between Congress giving Bush the OK to use force (as a last measure.) Congress did not know how the weapons inspections would go - they gave Bush the OK to use force based on less information than Bush had when he made the decision to invade.

2 - Congress did not know the degree of information that was contrary to the ‘pre-war intelligence’ as presented by the White House.

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #92715

AP’s post is like a Saturday Night skit that parodies someone whose only way of processing information is to say “Bush Lied.” AP claims to have presented “two instances when Bush clearly lied,” but what he’s actually presented is two instances of turning his own inability or unwillingness to retain or process information into partisan talking points.

When you see somebody insisting that “Bush lied” because an Al Qaida member changes his story and partisan Democrats like Carl Levin grab ahold of it, you know you’re looking at a partaisan smear instead of an actual argument. And then you get Bush being accused of lying because of things George Tenet, a former Clinton appointee, testified to Congress. None of this passes even a basic smell test.

Thanfully, the White House isn’t sitting around and letting the partisan hacks get away with their revisionist history anymore. Here’s a direct and deteailed answer to the Washington Post article which utterly destroys the feeble spin of the Democratic party talking points as they relate to the handling of prewar intelligence.


Posted by: sanger at November 14, 2005 11:07 AM
Comment #92724

Jack
,blockquote>So do you really believe Bush is so much smarter than all the Dems in the Senate that he was able to trick them all? Or are they so feckless that they just vote for anything they think is popular without even reading the titles?

How about both?


joebagodonuts
The ONLY logical conclusions one can reach, based on the evidence, is that they were all lying or that the information was simply flawed, as all intelligence information inherently is.

I would say both. Politicians ARE liers from the get go. And intelligence aint, I can tell you that from experince.

Allow me one last question: Are you willing to declare Bill Clinton a war criminal for his bombing attack on a country that did not have any weapons of mass destruction?

If Bush is then Clinton is. No two ways around it.


Posted by: Ron Brown at November 14, 2005 11:22 AM
Comment #92726

OK - but the point still remains after all this smoke and dust settles:

Can Bush accept responsibility for his decision to invade Iraq or not?

No one else made that decision for him - it was his alone to make. Either he made a very inept decision based on the information that was available at the time, or he knew his information was weak and was hoping to be proven right after the invasion. If you go back and read his statements or others, the is no DOUBT, but we know the intelligence was full of DOUBT.

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 11:31 AM
Comment #92734

Tony

What do you mean by accept responsibility? Bush and the Dems who voted for the war made a decision based on incomplete information. That is the only kind of information we make such hard decisions. Otherwise they are not really hard decisions.

We know that intelligence can be wrong both in underestimating and overestimating. We didn’t know for example, about Pakistan’s bomb. That was a big omission. Libya was farther ahead than we thought. That was potential danger. We don’t know lots of things. If the situation is benign, we let such things go. We give the benefit of the doubt. In a situation such as with Saddam you have to set the decision criteria at a lower level. The doubt can be deadly.

So Bush and the Dems who voted for the war can take responsibility for trying to make sure any mistakes would be less harmful to the U.S. It is in the nature of risk. Minimize the maximum risk. We need to investigate how we gather intelligence and how we use it. Bush and the Dems who voted for the war can take responsibility for that.

But consider the opposite. What if they had not acted and the intelligence proved true? We only now know the outcome. We didn’t then. It was a good decision at the time it was made.

BTW - you evidently believe it would be a better world if Saddam was still in power. The decision not to act would have resulted in that outcome.

Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 11:56 AM
Comment #92736

I think that both parties need to admit that the data about going to war in Iraq was faulty. The dems have more or less said that. I am still, however, waiting for Dubya to admit to his first mistake about anything…admitting that he made a mistake about going to war in Iraq would be a good start.

Posted by: grouchodawg at November 14, 2005 12:04 PM
Comment #92742

AP

I think you’re piling on unjustly.

Call the president stubborn if you want or clueless about the war,but in the final analysis he is an honest man.

You and I have had this dance before but his character is not that of a liar.

I truly believe that he acted on the best information available at the time given the situation he was in.

I saw that interview last night on FOX where Rockefeller embarrassed himself.

That interview should give you pause to think a little….becasue there is plenty of blame to go around.

However,how about pitching in now and putting the heat on the military to find these guys.

The more interesting question is why haven’t these guys been caught yet.

If I had OBL’s address,I would take out a video at Blockbuster in his name and not return it…they would track him down…for sure.

Seriously,time to put it to rest and save your energy for the run up to the ‘06 election…you are drilling a dry hole here…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 14, 2005 12:12 PM
Comment #92743

Jack,

Support for the war was very high. Many of today’s Bush bashers must also be erstwhile war supporters.

I guess you’re talking on american scope here, right? Because worldwide, support for the war was very low.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 12:13 PM
Comment #92746

Jack -

If Bush had set out the invasion of Iraq in that manner, then he would not be feeling the heat now. He (and his people in the White House) laid out a worst case senario as factual. Not as’ what if?’ ot ‘It might be…’ but as ‘this is the way it is.’ Bush was also told by the UN and the weapons inspectors that they felt that Iraq had no WMDs. Bush jumped the gun with less than 30 days before the UN WMD final report, and had no justification for that decision.

That is the problem.

And yes - if I could put Saddam back in power in exchange for the 2000 lives lost, yes - I would take that choice in a heart beat. I know you might take that to mean that I liked Saddam, but only a moron would like Saddam. He was, however, taken out by a pre-emptive strike based on faulty intelligence or outright lies.

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 12:16 PM
Comment #92749

Web Steward,

“The big problem I have is that this administration knew this information was faulty and still packaged, marketed, and sold it to all of us. Posted by Marko at November 14, 2005 09:36 AM”

So Bush lied to all of us so that he could send 100,000+ volunteers in harm’s way to accomplish…what, exactly?

More than 20000 iraqis killed in “collateral damage”. Civilians. Some of them kids and elders.
Fan on the fire of world terrorism, too.

You’re asking the *right* question indeed: to accomplish… what exactly?

Your frenchly,


Posted by: Web Steward at November 14, 2005 10:08 AM

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #92753

In the run up to the war bush or his cronies never said things like we are almost postive, our intel is almost certain, it is highly likely… No instead we got Mushroom Cloud, Imminent threat, Grave and gathering threat, we know for a fact that Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear program. The latter leaves little room for doubt. I admit I was sold on going to war casue I was afraid. But if I knew now that the adminstration was overhyping all the intell I would have never agreed that this war was a good idea.

Posted by: Doctor Shopper at November 14, 2005 12:26 PM
Comment #92758

Doctor Shopper,

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

So, you were sold on going to war because what Bush said made you afraid. Maybe now you see the real meaning behind “War On Terrorism” expression: just take it litterally.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 12:37 PM
Comment #92766

sicilianeagle:

These Are Only My Humble Opinions

AP:
I think you’re piling on unjustly.
Call the president stubborn if you want or clueless about the war,but in the final analysis he is an honest man.
You and I have had this dance before but his character is not that of a liar.

I truly believe that he acted on the best information available at the time given the situation he was in.

sicilianeagle did I read your quote correctly?

Emporer George II acted on the best inteligence available at the time? Oh well, Your entitled to your opinions as well. I am sure that you’d find many, many other readers and posters who’d disagree with you.
As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at November 14, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #92771

Yes, Bush Lied. He continues to Lie all the time. The entire Bush administration lies, and continues to lie all the time. To our soldiers, to our Congress, to all the American people.
We must impeach the entire lot, if justice is to be served.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 14, 2005 1:14 PM
Comment #92784

Wayne,Adrienne,et al

Ya,you read my quote correctly.

Picture yourself as the president for a moment(that may be a stretch as most of you are liberal democrats and that will never happen in our lifetime,but humor me anyway)…and you are on the job nine months.

While you are getting up to the job of the presidency(remembering all too well the hate and poison that the Democtats were spewing…claiming that the election was stolen from them),both World Trade Centers are attacked,and over 3000 people die.

Trying to figure out what to do,you get information from Scotland Yard,Isrealli Mossad,Jordanian intelligence,Egyptian intelligence,Russian intelligence and your own director of the CIA (appointed by the way by your Democratic predcessor) that Iraq had WMD.

Looking even further back,the immediate past president had come to the same conclusion.

To nothing would have been criminally negligent.

That’s pretty much it.

He made the call based on what he saw.

He had balls to make that call,and I respect him for it.

No,he is not a liar.

Clinton was a liar.My hero Nixon was a liar.But him? No.

Now,did he screw up?

Yup.

A lot?

Yup.

But a liar?

Nope.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 14, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #92791

Sicilian Eagle,
You said that Bush is an honest man. If so, then why did he cover up his DUI for so long? Was that honest?

To all you folks on the Right:
Many of you have repeated the claim that the Dems saw the same intelligence. Since you made the claim, let’s see some proof. Show us the FACT that the Bush administration shared ALL the intelligence, not just SOME of the intelligence, with the Dems. Show us the proof, otherwise this claim is just blather.

Did Bush lie? I really don’t think he knew, or cared, about what the real situtation in Iraq was. I think he and his co-conspirators (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby and others) used whatever they could find to justify the war on Iraq. And I think they invaded Iraq for political reasons - to give Bush the aura of a commander in chief in wartime. Why? Simple. Because they knew that a wartime commander in chief has NEVER been voted out of office. Bush himself said during the 2000 campaign that he wanted to gain the political capital of a wartime commander in chief in order to accomplish his agenda.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #92797

Oh…”Support for the war was very high”…HUH? That was because we were all LIED to! I myself even supported it at first, until I realized I’d been shucked and jived by Bush & Co….
If we have hard evidence that he lied, which seems to be the case, then let’s impeach this jackanapes and get him outta there. Beyond that, as C-in-C, he RESPONSIBLE for what he says, at a level that, as “leader” of America, goes far beyond the demands of everyday honesty. And he has abdicated that responsibility.

What, BTW, is this constant referral to Bill Clinton that the Repuglicans keep dragging out??? Even if Clinton DID lie (and about a totally inconsequential and personal act that was none of anybody’s business but his own) that is PAST HISTORY and NOT AN EXCUSE! There is a big difference between being a philandering liar and a MURDERING liar!

Posted by: capnmike at November 14, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #92799

“Show us the FACT that the Bush administration shared ALL the intelligence, not just SOME of the intelligence, with the Dems”

Can you show he did not? Just wondering.
Blather is right, but its coming from BOTH sides of this corrupt govt.

Posted by: kctim at November 14, 2005 2:15 PM
Comment #92803

Somalia, 1993: Clinton pledged never to deploy American troops overseas unless U.S. strategic interests were threatened and there was a clear military goal with a firm exit strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_3,_1993_Battle_of_Mogadishu

Just a philandering liar? Yeah, right.

Posted by: kctim at November 14, 2005 2:22 PM
Comment #92814

kctim,

The folks on the Right are the ones who made the claim several times that the Dems saw the same evidence. I want to see evidence that backs them up. Otherwise, this is just more right-wing bilge.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 2:40 PM
Comment #92823

Elliot:
“Did Bush lie? I really don’t think he knew, or cared, about what the real situtation in Iraq was. I think he and his co-conspirators (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby and others) used whatever they could find to justify the war on Iraq. And I think they invaded Iraq for political reasons - to give Bush the aura of a commander in chief in wartime. Why? Simple. Because they knew that a wartime commander in chief has NEVER been voted out of office. Bush himself said during the 2000 campaign that he wanted to gain the political capital of a wartime commander in chief in order to accomplish his agenda.”

Good points, but at this point I think it is very clear that they did nothing but lie to Congress and the American people into the Iraq war. And that is just the beginning of the lies they’ve told. They lied before the UN. They’ve lied about how the war has been going. They’ve lied about getting our troops the armor they (still) need. They’ve lied about the number of Iraqi troops that have been trained. They’ve lied about the use of torture. They’ve lied about practically everything that has taken place at Guantanamo. They’ve lied about the secret gulags and other “extraordinary rendition” activities. They’ve lied to Patrick Fitzgerald. Really, I could go on and on here.
This is a gang of nothing but LIARS and THUGS. And we must remove them from office.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 14, 2005 2:51 PM
Comment #92826

kctim:
Who was President when our troops were commited to Somalia? OH THAT’S RIGHT, BUSH THE ELDER, just in case you or others forgot!
Your history seems to fail you, or are you like the rest of the GOP; Deaf, Dumb(mute), and Blind?
I’m not saying that Clinton did not have his share of blunders in the Somalia fiasco, But it was not his decision to put troops there in the first place. Poor Clinton takes alot of blame for that, however he did NOT make the decision to deploy to Somalia. No, That BLAME rests Solely on Bush the Elders Shoulders. Clinton did however, set us up in Bosnia-Herzegovina 15 DEC 95 and Promised the American Public that we’d be out in 5 years. Well those 5 years have come and gone, it is approaching ten years and we are still there. How many of our Service Members have Died In Bosnia as a result of Hostile Fire? Any Guess?
Answer ZERO that’s correct a GREAT BIG GOOSE EGG, no US Service Member has lost their life to Hostile Fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina since we arrived on 15 December 95. How many did we lose in Iraq Since 15 September 05?
These are the FACTS as I see them.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at November 14, 2005 3:00 PM
Comment #92829

ElliotBay-

For your scenario to be correct Bush had to know that no WMD’s would be found before he ordered the invasion. Why then would he base the case on going to war on something that he knew would, has, and did cause so much controversy? If the primary motive of a politician is to get re-elected, certainly Bush knew that not finding WMD’s would hurt his re-election chances.

In fact I give Bush credit for having the political savvy to survive the no WMD issue (in addition to having the good fortune of getting Kerry for an opponent). But he couldn’t have predicted either, and that is a serious blow to the Bush lied theory.

Posted by: George in SC at November 14, 2005 3:03 PM
Comment #92832

I aploogize to anyone ofeended by this sentance in the above post.

Your history seems to fail you, or are you like the rest of the GOP; Deaf, Dumb(mute), and Blind?

It should have read as follows:

Your history seems to fail you, or are you like most members of the GOP: Deaf, Dumb(mute), and Blind?

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at November 14, 2005 3:07 PM
Comment #92833

EB
The folks on the left are the ones saying Bush lied to Congress. So either the Dems lied along with him or they were not shown the same evidence.
You are asking for the right to provide “proof” about what happened behind closed doors but yet you cannot provide the same level of “proof” supporting the lefts theory that Bush lied to Congress.
Is it not the accusers duty to provide the fact driven evidence to support their claim?

Posted by: kctim at November 14, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #92842

ElliotBay

You can’t prove a negative…you know that.Despite what AP says in this piece,the left has zero chance…no less than zero chance..of ever “proving”that the president lied.

Yes,he did have an OUI,as a matter of fact he was an alcoholic up until age 40.

So what?

Since that time he has lead an exemplary life…so much in fact that he won the presidency twice,not once despite being subjected to the most intense scrutiny of any presidential election.

Let it go,Elliot…let’s push the military to catch the bad guys and end this thing

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 14, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #92843

Wayne
Wouldn’t Bush’s part in the Somalia fiasco be “past history” or does that only count when defending clinton?

BOSNIA, 1995: Clinton said he would deploy troops to Bosnia for only 18 months, and then they would come home.
BOSNIA, 1998: The Clinton administration confirmed plans to maintain thousands of troops on an open-ended peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina with no exit strategy.`The policy is to remain there. It’s open-ended.

More lies from “poor” clinton.

“How many of our Service Members have Died In Bosnia as a result of Hostile Fire? Any Guess?
Answer ZERO that’s correct a GREAT BIG GOOSE EGG”

US soldiers have died there. Using the words hostile fire for that but not Iraq shows your bias my friend.

http://www.pstripes.com/dec00/ed122000n.html

Those are the facts as they have occurred but you are free to keep seeing them as YOU see them.

Posted by: kctim at November 14, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #92855

Adrienne, kctim, george, eagle

Yikes, I’m getting it from both sides. Must be proof that I’m in the middle.

Adrienne,
I personally wouldn’t go so far as to say that Bush lied. Did he at least spin the issues? Yep. No doubt about it. I know that some members of his administration lied, and I hold Bush as the head of the Executive branch liable for that. Cheney said that he KNEW that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld said that he not only knew that Saddam had WMD, he knew where they were. Those were demonstrably false. Aside from the recent “we don’t torture” claim, I don’t know for sure that what Bush said can be proven false. But I *DO* think that he knew that his reasons for invading Iraq were at best flimsy, and wanted to put the best spin possible on them. My personal opinion is that he new that his case for invasion was exagerated. If he knew it was false, then that’s grounds for impeachment.

George,
What scenario are you talking about? I don’t think Bush CARED whether there really were WMD in Iraq, he just needed the appearance of a threat to scare Americans into supporting the invasion. If (as I suspect) Bush invaded Iraq solely for political gain, then IMO that constitutes justification for his impeachment and removal from office, along with his co-consprirators. But I don’t think that can ever be proven, one way or the other.

kctim,
Those who claim that Bush lied have at least presented some (circumstantial) evidence to support their claim. Those who say that the Dems saw the same intelligence as the White House haven’t presented ANYTHING.

The accusers in this case are those in here who have repeatedly claimed that the Dems saw the same evidence as the White House. Why would anyone say something like that without knowing if it was true or not? If it’s true, lets see the evidence. If there isn’t any available evidence, then at least be honest enough to admit it.

Sicilian Eagle,
You didn’t answer my question. If Bush was so honest, why did he cover up his DUI? Was that an honest thing to so?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 3:51 PM
Comment #92866

The administration, if not lying, so manipulated the evidence against Iraq that it is difficult to know now why were are dying over there.

Consider the issue of the aluminum tubes. The Energy Dept., The State Dept., the IAEA and the foremost scientists on nuclear centrifuges in the world all told he administratiion that it was HIGHLY unlikely that these tubes could ever be made into a centrifuge to create weapons grade nuclear material.

Yet, Bush, Rice and Cheney all told us this is what the tubes were for without once mentioning the considerable dissent on this issue. Even the Brits concluded the Aluminum tubes were unlikely to be used for a centrifuge.

Then of course you have this issue of the AQ prisoner that Sen. Carl Levin recently exposed, showing us another example of the administration ONLY telling us what they wanted to us to hear and see.

The REAL question is: Why would the administration hide the intel that didn’t boalster their argument for war? Why was it SO critical to them, so critical that lies and subterfuge was necessary, to get us into Iraq?

Posted by: tom at November 14, 2005 4:09 PM
Comment #92868

Elliot Wrote:

“What scenario are you talking about? I don’t think Bush CARED whether there really were WMD in Iraq, he just needed the appearance of a threat to scare Americans into supporting the invasion. If (as I suspect) Bush invaded Iraq solely for political gain, then IMO that constitutes justification for his impeachment and removal from office, along with his co-consprirators. But I don’t think that can ever be proven, one way or the other.”

Elliot,
Clearly BushCo decided to do and say whatever was necessry to get us into Iraq. I dont’ think there is any disputing this unless you are simply playing a zero sum game of “My guy is right.”

However, i dont’ think it was done purely for political gain as you suggest. It was done for geopolitical gain. For years the neo cons have been desiring a forward presence in the Gulf region for the reason of assuring that Gulf oil continually flows to the west. This is what this is all about. With China and other developing country’s coveting and needing that oil as much as we, it is critical to many that its flow be maintanined.

I don’t buy this strategy. But this is what we are talking about when it’s argued we need to be in the middle east..not all the hooey about liberating people and stopping terrorists from obtaining WMD.

Posted by: tom at November 14, 2005 4:14 PM
Comment #92872

To answer your question, perhaps it was a matter of family honor. I don’t really know what(if anything)goes on in Bush’s head. I wouldn’t want to know either. Much of this pre-war intelligence admitted to inconclusive evidence. Bush and his administration then attempted to make it conclusive and use it as a just cause to enter into a war with Iraq. Remember Colin Powell standing before the UN waiving satellite pictures of supposed WMD’s that were taken from the Desert Storm conflict? That was nothing more than a direct lie. It was another piece of the whole “lie to make it believable” campaign.

Posted by: Marko at November 14, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #92875

As far as Dems knowing the same info as the administration concerning intelligence, it is now a known fact that that is not true. Members of Congress were NOT shown all the reports that Bushco had and in some cases not the same reports.

Posted by: Marko at November 14, 2005 4:22 PM
Comment #92878

EB

Probably not,but it doesn’t go to character.

That was probably a politicial decision,and I do not recall that he denied the OUI,rither failed to disclose it.

In the law that might be called a material non-disclosure,but that is the thing…..was it material to his being elected to the presidency?

Clearly no,plus he has spoken of it a zillion times since.

I don’t see a black heart here,EB,I really don’t.I see a guy who loves his country and has been witness to the most horrible catastrophies in perhaps the history of America.

Personally?You couldn’t pay me enough for the job.

Although an ambassadorship to Italy wouldn’t be bad.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 14, 2005 4:25 PM
Comment #92888

kctim:

I have never hid my disdain for this Administration, you of all people should realize that because we have often been at loggerheads on issues. You seem to forget that I am a recent Army retiree, who just retired this past June (2005) after almost 20 years of Service. I arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina on 13 March 96 from my home station in Germany and spent the better part of the next 9 months in country returning to Germany 23 December 96. In January 98 I returned to BH again, this time only staying until early August 98, Same Camp, Same everything.
I read the same paper you have quoted from which btw….was a real lifeline. OK enough of my reminiscing. Now I’ll address your claims:
The Death of SFC Donald Dugan was unfortunately his own fault read more here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/feb96/nbos148.htm
If the link does not work, please cut and paste.
Though SFC Dugan, had only the safety of children in mind, he actually disobeyed orders by handling UXO (unexploded ordinance) which was covered in all of our Situational Training Exercises. You had to show proof that you had completed that training before you could enter Bosnia. Also it was on our Rules of Engagement (ROE) cards, which we were all required to have in our helmets at all times. So you might say his own disregard for Established Standard Operating Procedures, caused his death.
We could go on and on about this, but I am all for putting this puppy to bed, if you are kctim.
We agree that we don’t always agree with one another and let it go at that and keep our bantering out of this current thread.

As Always,
Wayne

Posted by: wayne at November 14, 2005 4:49 PM
Comment #92901

Eagle,
Lying doesn’t go to character? That’s really funny!

Tom,
I think Bush & his co-conspirators cynically MADE UP reasons for invading, without caring whether the reasons were true or not. I think they were so confident in their ability to shout down any opposition that it really didn’t matter to them what reasons they used. I think that’s why the rationale for the invasion kept changing

“Hey, they aren’t buying the Saddam - 9/11 link!”
“Well try ‘Saddam supports terrorists’”
“They aren’t buying that either”
“Well, try using WMD”
“They aren’t buying that either”
“OK. Hang on, Lemme think. OK, I’ve got it! Try ‘we’re spreading freedom’ Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
All they cared was that the ever-changing reasons sounded plausible. I don’t think Bush personally knew what the truth was, but more importantly, I DON’T THINK HE CARED.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #92905

Fraud in intelligence on Iraq mounting

Posted by: Adrienne at November 14, 2005 5:16 PM
Comment #92915

What, BTW, is this constant referral to Bill Clinton that the Repuglicans keep dragging out??? Even if Clinton DID lie (and about a totally inconsequential and personal act that was none of anybody’s business but his own) that is PAST HISTORY and NOT AN EXCUSE! There is a big difference between being a philandering liar and a MURDERING liar!

A liar is a liar, that’s why I have so little respect for politians. They’re ALL liars.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 14, 2005 5:30 PM
Comment #92916

“I think Bush & his co-conspirators cynically MADE UP reasons for invading, without caring whether the reasons were true or not. I think they were so confident in their ability to shout down any opposition that it really didn’t matter to them what reasons they used. I think that’s why the rationale for the invasion kept changing”

Elliot,
I’m not tryng to pick on you.

I DO think the administration understood perfectly how critical it was that their explanation and justification for invasion in the run up was very scary. Let’s face it, few people would have agreed to a war of liberation. The only way you could get congress and Americans to agree to a full scale invasion, even after 911, was to claim America’s and American’s safety was in the balance. Let’s face it, very little puts this country in the balance…………except…..threats of monumental destruction.

Notice that nearly every thing BushCo got wrong was in regard to WMD. Niger, Tubes, Iraq Training AQ, etc.

They cared very much as to the reasons they gave us to war because only one reason was suitable: We are in grave danger.

Posted by: Tom at November 14, 2005 5:32 PM
Comment #92918

Jack,

Just a few things of interest to me.

You are correct that many Democrats and all of the Republicans voted to use force in Iraq. However, most of the dems have admitted they were wrong. A few of the repub are now admitting they were wrong too. BUSH won’t admit he was wrong. That is the difference between he and other people.

You ask why Bush would send 100,000+ into harms way? MONEY-GREED!!!

2,000+ American soldiers dead. Over 40,000 Iraq’s dead.

All over faulty intelligence?

Bush is president. He needs to take responsibility for his war. Face the American people and say he was wrong. If people want to believe him or not is one thing. Clinton at least stood in front of the American people and said he was sorry for lying to the American people about Monica. Remember, Clinton said he didn’t have sex with Monica… We later found out he was lying. Republicans said, oh he has made out country the laughing stock of the world. He has tanted the American presidency.

If it is found out later (as Clinton’s was) that Bush lied to America, Clinton’s actions while in the white house will not even be on the radar.

I’m tired of talking about 1998 or the Clinton presidency. We are talking about what is going on today and who is responsible. If mistakes were made in 1998 or 1991 to bad. My cousin, Marine Sgt. Troy Waddell, was not sent to Iraq until this war 2003. I am concerned about today’s soldiers and today’s president.

Posted by: Rusty at November 14, 2005 5:39 PM
Comment #92934

OK… so no one can really prove that Bush was lying vs. just trying to prop up his argument for invading Iraq. But how does anyone reconcile these two facts:

- We initiated a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country… a precedent I dare anyone to consider a positive based on the fact that we were DEAD wrong.

- We were told, in very certain terms, that the danger was real and imminent.

An honest, transparent leader is blatantly up front with people as to what in known, unknown and what various options are. No other option other than war was ever presented by this administration. No other opinion was offered up other than a real threat from Iraq (WMD.)

Even if you can’t prove in a court of law that Bush lied to get us into Iraq, you have to admit that is then shear incompetence in our leadership.

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 6:07 PM
Comment #92940

Tom,

nearly every thing BushCo got wrong That’s why it’s appropriate to call them the wrong wing instead of the right wing - because they’re wrong about almost everything.

;-)

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #92947

kctim,

The proof is in the pudding. I’ll answer your question and give you the proof you need to know that BUSH LIED!

Go to CNN/FoxNews/MSNBC or any of the news agency and pull up the archives. Look up Bush State of the Union Speach 2003.

After you listen to the speach you will know Bush lied.

The one that stands out most with me is the link in which he tries to place on Iraq and Osama’s orginization.

Thanks to the 911 commission we know there was no connection between Saddam and Osama. We know Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We now know Saddam had no WMD’s. The list goes on and on of what Bush said, and what the facts now show.

Another thing that is funny from some of the other posts. The conservitive side keeps bringing up the fact that the intel came from a Clinton appointee. True this is. But George T. was a supporter of the war. The people who spoke in the admin that were against the war were republican’s. Wilson (Rep.), Clark (Rep). Both of these guy’s gave info to the president which were reasons for not believing the build up to war. You can’t call them pundits or partisan hacks.

Posted by: Rusty at November 14, 2005 6:30 PM
Comment #92948

One more point to drop in the mix:

What were the main discussions going on at the time Congress voted to give Bush a military option?

The rationale was basically to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq by the threat of a military strike. Bush kept saying that he was not pursuing regime change, but a disarmament of Saddam. In that mindset, agreeing to a military option is one of a threat to force action into allowing inspectors into Iraq. But Bush continues to say that Congress voted for the war in Iraq. How the hell do you come to that conclusion based on the mindset of that time? Congress voted for a military option to show Saddam that we were united in forcing him to disarm.

He couldn’t disarm because we know that he had no WMDs. And, with only 30 days for the inspectors to finish their work - and a strong possibility of them finding nothing, Bush forced them out of the country in favor of the invasion. Now that’s quite a different time and mindset… isn’t it?

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 6:31 PM
Comment #92952

Also - can anyone make a single point that Bush used for invading Iraq that has held true? Something that would justify the war we know face?

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 6:42 PM
Comment #92953

sorry, that shoudl read ‘the war we now face.’


Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 6:43 PM
Comment #92956

AP: You are right! Bush lied! AND the majority of the people were not swayed by him.

On March 6, 2 weeks before the March 20 start of the Iraq war, the CBS poll said:

“The public is divided on whether the Bush Administration has yet presented enough evidence against Iraq to justify military action right now. 47% say they have, 44% say they still have not.”

Clinton did not make Bush do it. The Democrats did not make Bush do it. He did it all by himself. He put one over on the American public who did not want war. Even after war was declared a good portion of the public was against it.

It’s time for Republicans to speak about facts and not try so hard to explain away Bush’s failings.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 14, 2005 6:49 PM
Comment #92977

AP,

Jack posted on a similar topic on the red side. Why focus on a he said - she said topic? Most folks have already made their mind up about this topic anyway. I don’t think any amount of proof will change minds.

Personally, I could give a rat’s A$$ less about it. I would rather focus on some real issues…like forcing our elected representatives to make this a safer country, reduce our budget deficit, alternative energy, health care cost, etc.

Let’s not muddy the waters by talking about such a partisan issue. Let’s have some legitimate conversations about legitimate problems.

So, BUsh lied….half of the democratic senate voted along with him. I don’t care if evidence was cherry picked or not.

Let’s take back our country from lifetime politicians, corporations, and PACs.

Posted by: Tom L at November 14, 2005 7:38 PM
Comment #92981

Tom L -

I agree that there is a ton of work that needs to be done… and that we need a major house (and senate) cleaning in DC. However, I just can’t see looking past lies and incompetence that led to the expense in life and resouces we’ve seen in Iraq.

Posted by: tony at November 14, 2005 7:48 PM
Comment #93041

It is sad for me to say that do to the out and out lies that have and continue to come from this administration, along with the appointment of purely political hacks, I can not trust anything that comes out of the mouth of our President nor his toadies. Hell, I had more trust in Richard M. Nixon than I do with just about everybody connected with this White House

Posted by: C. T. Rich at November 15, 2005 12:01 AM
Comment #93053

As the rationalizations contained in some the postings to this article in defense of GWB demonstrates, never has a political party been so in touch with the integrity of their constituency as has the GOP, if you know what I mean?

A premeditated marketing scam, nothing more!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at November 15, 2005 1:50 AM
Comment #93061

Amazing. Sixty-some posts into this topic and you guys on the right still won’t acknowledge the fact that President Bush lied.

Let’s just take one example: the Saddam/al Qaeda connection lie from my original article. President Bush knew the intelligence was probably wrong, but he told Congress and America that it was a fact. Is that a lie? C’mon JBOD, SE and sanger and the rest of you. Is that a lie?

Jack is excluded, because he implicitly acknowledges the lie but believes the ends justify the means:

…you evidently believe it would be a better world if Saddam was still in power. The decision not to act would have resulted in that outcome.

That’s probably the best excuse you Bush-fans will come up with. On the other hand, I believe Saddam would have been run over by a bus crossing the street a couple years ago and by invading Bush ironically saved Saddam’s life and doomed Iraqis to years of violence and deprivation. The beautiful thing about Jack’s argument is that no one will ever be able to prove he’s wrong — or right.

But it still leaves us with the fact that President Bush lied.

BTW, Jack, I pick on you because you tend to make the most rational arguments. Although, your initial “blame the victim” argument, that Congress and Americans are dupes and should have known the President was lying, is really really bad.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 15, 2005 3:34 AM
Comment #93068

All
To lighten up the conversation,and to show that even Republicans possess a keen sense of humor,enjoy this diddy:


After numerous rounds of “We don’t even know if Osama is still alive,” Osama himself decided to send George Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game.

Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded message:
370HSSV-0773H

Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condi Rice. Condi and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NASA.

With no clue as to its meaning they eventually asked Israel’s MOSAD for help. Within a minute MOSAD cabled the White House with this reply “Tell the President, he’s holding the message upside down.”




HELLO-ASSHOLE

Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 15, 2005 5:53 AM
Comment #93200

Bush cannot help himeself. Being dishonest seems to be second nature to him.

Posted by: political blog at November 15, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #93244

In this entire thread, the central theme of which is “liar, liar, pants on fire” I glean the information that roughly half the posters believe that Bush lied and half have other theories. Coincidentally that is about the same percentage of age eligible people who vote in Presidential elections and, historically very close to the percentages of people who vote for one or the other main party.

Arguably one could conclude that a very high percentage of politicians lie. Based on Adrienne’s quote below (which in fairness to her I believe refers primarilly to Bush administration folks)

“This is a gang of nothing but LIARS and THUGS. And we must remove them from office.”

I believe that her statement reflects the same basic truth regarding politicians of both main parties.

“And we must remove them from office” interestingly is the primary goal of VOID.

When we vote out the incumbents, the lies will go with them.

Posted by: steve smith at November 15, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #93258

steve smith,

Normally, I’d agree with you. But from personal experience, I know that sometimes the people who get voted into office are at least as bad as the incumbents.

In 1994, the citizens of my state (Washington) were given a choice between the Democratic Speaker of the House (Tom Foley) and his Republican challenger George Nethercutt, who decried Foley as “a creature of Washington, DC, born and raised in that system.” Nethercutt said the campaign was about changing the system in Washington, and campaigned as a term-limits activist. To drive the point home, Nethercutt promised to serve only for six years. For years, his Web site declared: “Term limits was one of the defining issues of my 1994 campaign.”

In June 1999, Nethercutt announced he would run for a fourth term, thus breaking his promise from six years before and proving to one and all that he was a liar and had been from day one. (source) Voting the incumbents out doesn’t necessarily lead to better government.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 15, 2005 6:40 PM
Comment #93324

Come on folks, get with it. It’s called “mis-remembering”.
Just as Bush claimed to have watched the first plane hit the trade towers before he went into the classroom that fatefull morning. Once it was proven that no footage excisted nor a television in the hallway to see it. The WhiteHouse stated that the President mis-remembered. Gives a whole new meaning to a “White Lie”.
We the people, are caught up in arguing a falacy and are being asked to prove the negative in it.

Posted by: Justin Anderson at November 16, 2005 10:19 AM
Comment #93567

Get a grip on reality. Your all a bunch of Gary Busey’s. lol
Sincerely,
A none whining contributor to society.

Posted by: robert at November 17, 2005 1:28 AM
Comment #94139

Ummm, by the way, where’s Osama?

Posted by: Robert Marley at November 19, 2005 5:51 AM
Comment #95235

Let me see if I understand the ramblings of the looney left correctly. At the end of the Clinton administration, it was believed that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program. From what I can tell, President Clinton never lied about this. However, within the 9 months after Clinton left office and the war with Iraq had begun, the Bush administration received information that all the intelligence gathered in the previous 8 years was all wrong and they used it anyway to go to war, hoping that nobody would ever find out.

Posted by: Steve at November 23, 2005 4:05 PM
Comment #95238

I also keep hearing over and over again from the looney left, that President Bush used as one of his reasons for going to war that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. When and where exactly did he say this or is this just another of the myths the left keeps perpetrating on the uninformed and the ignorant (code for “liberal) in this country?

Posted by: Steve at November 23, 2005 4:07 PM
Comment #380620

bad, chi hair straighteners choosing a coach purses stylish case longchamp can also soccer shoes be karen millen a asics running great option. tory burch outlet Thin rubberized lululemon outlet cases supra shoes can provide coach outlet a fun oakley sunglasses splash of prada handbags color, valentino shoes or coach outlet eye-catching design to your true religion jeans device. These soccer jerseys items will mulberry allow louis vuitton handbags you hollister to express true religion your personality through your phone and also new balance shoes can north face outlet be insanity workout used michael kors outlet in ray ban outlet keeping your phone clean and free from chanel handbags cosmetic coach outlet store defects. longchamp Furthermore, reebok shoes in burberry such cases, birkin bag an additional amount is herve leger added to the device.



This louboutin phone is one of ghd hair the most coach factory outlet versatile options when marc jacobs it toms shoes comes ralph lauren to modern juicy couture outlet Smartphone. However, this converse shoes device mont blanc can be louboutin improved true religion outlet by adding appropriate accessories. Choosing mcm handbags the bottega veneta right polo ralph accessories louboutin is the perfect longchamp outlet way to salvatore ferragamo get the best experience louis vuitton outlet online with any Smartphone.

nfl jerseys

Posted by: korsu001 at July 7, 2014 12:23 AM
Post a comment