November 14, 2005
Bush lied?
Did Bush lie when he said:
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons…”?
Actually, Bush never said that, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, Democrat and Senator for the past 18 years said it. A man who is supposed to know something about the quality and accuracy of intelligence, and in particular the quality and accuracy of intelligence about Iraq.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources--something that is not that difficult in the current world. We should also remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction . . . But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East... weeklystandard
George Bush never said anything even remotely this apocolyptic. But it gets better! I remember what was being said in the run up to the war and I find it funny, yes funny, that the only people who actually used the words, "IMMINENT THREAT" were in fact democrats. Democrats who then turned around and accused Bush of lying by claiming he called Iraq an 'imminent threat'.
Senator Rockefeller, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was on Fox News Sunday today and it was an enlightening interview. I am tempted to copy and past the entire transcript for context, but I won't.
WALLACE: OK. Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did.In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
What is Rockefeller trying to say here? Isn't he trying to say that he was so completely incompetent that he believed the evidence that Iraq had WMD but at the same time was telling heads of state around the world that the evidence didn't matter? ie Bush has a reason to lie. Sounds fishy to me.
Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the presidential daily briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies -- like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power.They left that out and went ahead with, "They have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power."
WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate.
But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the president, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
ROCKEFELLER: The Silverman commission was absolutely prohibited by the president in his charge to them -- he appointed them -- from ever looking at the use of intelligence, whether it was misused, whether it was massaged to influence the American people to go along with a decision which he had long ago already decided to make.
WALLACE: But didn't they come to that conclusion which I just stated, that the presidential daily brief was, in fact, more alarmist and less nuanced than the intelligence you saw?
Note: "More alarmist and less nuanced" than the intelligence the congress saw.
Democrats did indeed come to the same conclusion. The same conclusion they came to under the Clinton Presidency. I don't say this to say Clinton lied about WMD, but to point out a simple fact. That when looking at the intelligence from before the war, there was only one conclusion you could come to: Iraq had WMD, Iraq continued to work on producing WMD, and Iraq continued to evade sanctions and inspections for the previous reasons.
After 9/11 the imperative for dealing with this fact had increased from when Clinton was President.
Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them both in the battle and against his people. - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years, and he could have it earlier.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?
ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.
WALLACE: OK. But you had read that, and now we've read a declassified...
ROCKEFELLER: But, Chris, let's...
WALLACE: Can I just ask my question, sir?
ROCKEFELLER: Yes.
WALLACE: And then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing the nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the president did.
ROCKEFELLER: Because that -- first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin.
We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote.
But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.
WALLACE: Well, but a lot of people are not -- that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.
ROCKEFELLER: Chris, it is always the same conversation. You know, it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops to...
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm...
WALLACE: You're not?
ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions.
Priceless.
The sad fact is that Democrats have only one issue here. Only one tactic to play, which is this charge that Bush lied to get us into war. What makes it sad is that they are parroting the far left's false charges in contradiction to their own public statements. All they have in their arsenal is the marxist anti-war chant, "Bush lied, people died." Desperate times begets desperate measures I guess.
What's the point?
Posted by Eric Simonson at November 14, 2005 04:20 AM | TrackBack (1)Chris Wallace did a masterful job of holding Rockefeller’s feet to the fire and making him squirm. It was almost like watching the elder Wallace in the early days of 60 Minutes, back before Andy Rooney went all senile on us.
Now, of course, the Rather/Mapes Network news readers simply create stories to back up their opinions. It’s really sad how far they’ve fallen.
Chris Wallace now represents the finest in take-no-prisoners interviews, in my opinion, especially when facing pompous political hacks.
Great interview!
Posted by: Web Steward at November 14, 2005 05:58 AMLOL! So it was the DEMOCRATS who lied to get us into this war! Now it all makes sense. Thanks Eric.
That when looking at the intelligence from before the war, there was only one conclusion you could come to: Iraq had WMD
By March 2003, there’s no way anyone looking at the intelligence could come to that conclusion — but President Bush invaded anyways.
Bush may not have used the words “imminent threat”, but this is the only circumstance that our armed forces should be used aggressively.
Instead, what we got was Bush scaring the bejeezus out of Americans to build support for his pre-emptive war.
I recall one “imminent threat” on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001. I believe the country was under attack and our fearless leader was either frozen solid or really interested in My Pet Goat.
(ok, you can bring up Clinton’s extramarital affair now)
Democrats, go back to Junior High - you fail the test to be 9th graders. Your Logical thinking and transparent fibbing demonstrates why you are the Children of politics and Republicans are the Adults.
After exposing people like Sen Rockefeller for making up “stuff” for political gain you make statements like this:
“Bush may not have used the words “imminent threatâ€, but this is the only circumstance that our armed forces should be used aggressively”.
“LOL! So it was the DEMOCRATS who lied to get us into this war!”
I rest my case.
Posted by: Chris at November 14, 2005 06:41 AMEric,
I find it funny, yes funny, that the only people who actually used the words, “IMMINENT THREAT” were in fact democrats. Democrats who then turned around and accused Bush of lying by claiming he called Iraq an ‘imminent threat’.
Bush may not have used the “imminent” word himself but many other synonisms like urgent threat, threat gathering against us. At end, the effect is the same, right.
His own team interpreted the same way. In mid October 2002, his Press Officer Ari Fleisher confirmed the imminent qualification of Iraq threat by the President:
Q: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
If the White House press secretary during pre-war think Bush was saying Iraq was posing an imminent, how mainstreams americans except antiwar ones could think it was not? Are you arguing that democrats were/are all antiwar? If so, why then did they voted yes to war in congress only few weeks after such official Iraq threat qualifications by the White House?
Or are you arguing that qualifying a thread as “urgent” doesn’t mean you think it’s an imminent one??? Bush didn’t say it, only the ones who said *this* exact word were lying or misleaded?!?
Please, stop this foolish rethoric now!
Your frenchly,
Goat:
Bush may not have used the words “imminent threatâ€, but this is the only circumstance that our armed forces should be used aggressively.
Based on your words above, I must then conclude that you opposed Operation Desert Fox in 1998 when the United States used our armed forces aggressively against Iraq. There was no imminent threat then either, though there was of course the same logic used as with Bush’s use of aggressive armed forces (The degree of aggression was different, but the logic for use of armed forces was virtually identical).
It’s so damnably easy to be revisionist. Its like the golfer who stands over a shot, then duffs it into the woods, and grumbles “I knew I was gonna do that.” Well, dammit man, then why did you hit the shot??? The Democrats right now are doing the same thing.
Good Eric
THe Bush lied idea is such a cherished myth among the Bush haters that they will never give it up. Truth will be no defense. It is part of their whole world view. If Bush didn’t lie, then they are wrong in most of their outrage and they love their outrage.
But consider this, if he lied George Bush sure must be a smart guy. He can trick all these experienced Senators. He can deceive people who have more experience in foreign affairs than he does. He can bamboozle powerful men and women who have access to intelligence and can ask any questions they want. Even someone like Hilary Clinton, who has a lot of first hand experience with presidential cheating, just take Bush’s word for everything. How stupid do you think leading Democrats are?
Of courese they are not stupid at all. They came to the right conclusions given the information they had. Just as Bush.
So let’s sum up. The Bush lied scenario requires:
Stupid, craven or dishonest Democratic leaders - almost every one of them.
Ditto for the leaders of France, Russia, UK,well almost everyone.
A grand deception that nobody has been able to create.
A super intelligent George Bush who can pull all this off (and still cover his tracks)
Who believes all these things?
I am glad Bush is finally hitting back. He let the clowns control the party for too long. That was his big mistake.
All
The point here us that the president acted on what he believied to be the best availaible intelligence that he had at the time,supported by various intelligence agencies through-out the world.
Did he cull out intelligence that supported his decision?
Probably yes.
However,as president this was the prudent course in light of 9/11.
That was then.This is now.
Now,he has to horse whip the military and catch the really bad guys…and soon.
We have intelligence that OBL and what’s his name from Jordan are the perps.
Catch them,for Christ sakes.
Or bring in someone who can.
Enough of the bullshit.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 14, 2005 07:23 AMI am glad Bush is finally hitting back. He let the clowns control the party for too long. That was his big mistake.
I’m glad he’s hitting back, too. He can’t win. The best he can hope to accomplish is to convince people he is an honest fool. Now only 42% of adults even think he is “honest and ethical” (Newsweek poll, 11/10-11/11).
Yes, many Democrats did support Bush. Like most Americans, they trusted him. Won’t get fooled again…
We have intelligence that OBL and what’s his name from Jordan are the perps.Catch them,for Christ sakes.
Or bring in someone who can.
Enough of the bullshit.
Amen, SE.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 14, 2005 08:48 AMMaybe, just maybe, there’s enough blame to go around for everyone - the Bush Administration, Congress, and the intelligence community all suck.
Was there flawed intelligence? Obviously. Was there accurate intelligence? Yes. Did the Bush Admin cherry pick intelligence to support the foregone conclusion that war with Iraq was the best move, post 9/11? Of course they did! The Bush Admin hatched the idea, marketed it, an sold it. Congress, not wanting to appear weak on national defense before the midterms, went along for the ride, shirked their constitutional duty to declare war, and gave one man authorization to invade a country (Charles Shumer and the rest, shame on you!). They should ALL be THROWN OUT! Then, maybe next time our government will think twice before going to war. Twice? Wait a minute, hopefully 3 or 4 times.
Any incumbent who voted for war should be voted out of office next election! On second thought, any incumbent should be voted out. Term limits rule!
Posted by: tom at November 14, 2005 08:50 AMWoody
I think you stumbled onto something. I think it is cognitive dissonance that make liberals 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.
Did Bush lie?
or
Does the Pope have a balcony?
Posted by: German at November 14, 2005 09:55 AMHitting back? It’s more like fighting for his (political) life.
You guys are in the distinct minority. Excusatory rhetoric and Attwater-style attacks on “liberals” doesn’t detract form the fact that BushCo misrepresented data in order to justify an attack founded in anachronistic neocon domino theory.
You act as if support for a war from a 9/11 traumatized public equates to the President speaking truthfully. Bush43 took advantage of our nation in the same way a pedophile takes advantage of runaway tweeners. And, to clarify, I hold him in the same esteem.
Dave
You can believe what you want, but the evidence is not on your side.
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 10:18 AMJack,
You can believe what you want as well, but, the majority of Americans agree with me.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 10:27 AMOr, perhaps, I agree with the majority. Doesn’t matter which.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 10:29 AMHitting back? It’s more like fighting for his (political) life.
What political life? Is he planning on running for a third term?
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 10:41 AMThis blog always shows me examples of logical fallacies. Yours is called ad populum (or the appeal to popularity)
The majority agreed at the time to go to war. Majorities are important in politics, but we don’t take a poll to determine the truth.
YOu also recall that a majority of the voter elected George Bush. I suppose that made you believe he was right at the time too.
If Bush lied, so did most prominent Democrats. Or they were so stupid that he could trick them despite their own extensive experience.
Bush advocated a policy he thought was right. And are you so sure it was wrong? You prefer Saddam in power? If he didn’t have WMD back in 2003, he would be working on it now. You might have postponed the war until it was harder to win.
Posted by: jack at November 14, 2005 10:44 AMThere is not enough time or room to expound on the intel now known by us common folk. There is enough evidence that Saddam was pursuing his nuclear program. There is enough evidence that his did have WMD’s. There is enough evidence that terrorism was a main thrust of his regime. And there is enough evidence to show that he was a threat to his neighbors. A name that has not come up at all is Mr. Khan from Iraq who was selling nuclear products on the black market. Or the airliner located remotely in Iraq where terrorists were training. What was know by past administrations and congressmen and leaders in the know is the same intel that the president used to go to war in Iraq. My only regret is that it didn’t happen sooner.
Posted by: tomh at November 14, 2005 10:59 AMJack,
You’re arguing with irrelevancies and talking points, all of which has nothing to do with my disgust with Bush43 or that the majority of Americans believing that Bush is neither trustworthy nor doing an acceptable job.
I believed Nixon the first few times he said he wasn’t involved in Watergate. After a while, you have to get a clue that perhaps continuing to believe in Bush43 is a mistake.
Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire.Looks like sh*t, smells like sh*t, tastes like sh*t. Must be sh*t.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
ad nauseum.
Reinhold,
Perhaps he doesn’t want to be remembered as the worst and most useless president since, ummm, ever? If so, his speech fees won’t be worth squat.
This is sad. The fact that many Democrats believed this does not mean that Republicans did not. Just because some Democrats lied does not mean that Republicans did not (All politicians lie!). Eric, your argument relies on an affirmative conclusion stemming from a negative premise. It has no merit.
In my opinion, a more reasonable argument here would be something like, ‘you can’t just blame Bush and the Republicans for lying to people about WMDs, Iraq, etc.; many Democrats are to blame as well.’
Also, Dave, Saying that most people are on your side does not prove your argument true. This point is ad populum and has no merit either.
Posted by: dbpitt at November 14, 2005 11:08 AMtomh,
Everything you’re quoting as ‘fact’ is unsubstantiated noise put out by BushCo and his proxy liars. Saddam wanted to be legitimate and had no use for international terrorism. He was not even a real threat anymore, much less imminent anything, other than to his own people.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 11:11 AMDave
If he did not want to international, then why was Mr. Khan exporting nuclear material and product on the black market? Why did he go to war with Iran and Kuwait? And more!!!!!
dbpitt,
The majority may not be right, but it certainly doesn’t make Jack right. I’m very confident in my conclusions and believe that they will be substantiated by time. All you have to do is open your mind and your eyes to see what’s going on.
As far as Democrats being wrong, who gives a crap? It has nothing to do with what the President did and that is what matters.
tomh,
Again, that is all a load of irrelevent untruth.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 11:17 AMDave
I try as much as possible use info that the opposition has to substantiate the info that I already have. BushCo was not the source of WMD’s. That information was common knowledge. He used WMD’s on his own people. He had them!!!!!
Jack,
I think the evidence was cherry picked and I think most democrats voted for war to cover their political A$$es. Does that make it right? I suppose missery loves company and that’s why you wish to prove to us that the democrats lied too. I agree with you on the point. When intelligence is manipulated or “cherry picked” its akin to a “white lie”. A lie is a lie. Both parties are guilty as charged.
Before taking our young men and women to war and sacrificing their lives we should be damn certain we have ALL of the facts, not just the “tailored” truth. Yes, I hold this administration accountable AND this entire congress. How many of these folks have children serving on the front lines in Iraq? I’m serious, I would like to know.
Posted by: Tom L at November 14, 2005 11:27 AMJack,
You also recall that a majority of the voter elected George Bush.
IIRC, not in 2000. Supreme Court did.
Dave
A recent study at Factcheck.org">http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html”>Factcheck.org explains better than I could about what the President (and almost everyone else) thought about Iraq.
Tom L
Bush and the Dems who voted for the war made a decision based on the information available. They picked the evidence they thought was most salient. Natural. All decision making is selection.
If you think they cherry picked to sell the war, you have to answer the question about what Bush and the Democrats who voted for the war wanted to achieve by their selections. If so many people on so many sides of issues misled “us”, why?
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 11:40 AMDave
What is unrelevant and untruth about Mr. Khan selling nuclear product on the black market or Saddam going to war with his neighbors? It is certainly relevant and truthful that he wanted to expand his boundaries and one of his henchmen selling nuclear materials was certainly a threat to all mankind.
Just a few quotes to bring into the discussion:
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
“Here’s what — we’ve discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions.”
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
“We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.”
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Sorry
http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
Fact check does not love Bush. The article is not favorable toward Bush in many ways. It just indicates that he didn’t lie.
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 11:43 AMSenate Intelligence
There’s an oxymoron for you.
I don’t think Bush was lying any more than Clinton was when he bombed sand hills to make himself look good.
One simple fact about intelligents that most don’t realize is that it aint.
When I was in Vietnam we recieved intellignece reports about the area we were flying into just before every mission. The one most reported piece of ‘intelligents’ that we got was ‘There’s no enemy activity in the area’. We would almost always recieve enemy ground fire when we reached our objective. Usually we were going after an aircrew that had been shot down. I asked one ‘intelligents?’ officer if there’e no activity in the area who in the hell shot the plane down?
Jack,
Again, so what? The article is clear that a single advertisement exagerated the circumstances of 6 quotes.
In the real world Bush43 used the political capital of 9-11 to go to war. A war Wolfowicz, Cheney, et. al. had planned for years before. A war that they had planned to implement from the day they entered office. A war that took precedence over the real world and the real threats.
There’s no doubt that BushCo is adept at plausible deniability.
There’s also no doubt that they walked an edge to make the people, who were depending upon the administration to lead them through a difficult period after 3k + of our fellow citizens were murdered, believe that Saddam was in league with the terrorists who had committed those murders.
There’s also no doubt that they are incompetent at doing the real work of running this country.
When is a lie not a lie? When it’s said by a Bush.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 12:06 PMAP,
LOL! So it was the DEMOCRATS who lied to get us into this war! Now it all makes sense. Thanks Eric.
Here’s the problem, you are walking right past the truth. Did I say Democrats lied to get us into war? I’m just giving you some of the facts you don’t want to remember. Some of the facts that Democrats hoped no one would remember.
By March 2003, there’s no way anyone looking at the intelligence could come to that conclusion — but President Bush invaded anyways.
And this new conclusion was because… Saddam continued to refuse inspections and continued to play hide and seek? Or because you oppose Bush and that’s all that really matters?
Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:16 PMDave
your argument that the planning for the war had been going on for years before should be titled the seive factor. A seive has so many holes that anything can and will go thru it. If your argument had any truth to it, then you would have to implement the Clinton administrations and his cohorts also. Thankfully your argument has too many holes.
The first step in being cured is to admit you have a problem. Once tomh, et. al. can admit to that, they can get better.
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 12:27 PMtom, Dave, et al,
Did the Bush Admin cherry pick intelligence to support the foregone conclusion that war with Iraq was the best move, post 9/11? Of course they did! The Bush Admin hatched the idea, marketed it, an sold it.
Please, do as this article suggests, go to google, and type in “Clinton Iraq 1998.”
Just go down the list and pick out some quotes like this one:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:32 PMThe president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.
…Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. cnn
Eric,
The Republicans have had complete and total control of the White house, both Houses of Congress, and the court system for the last five years. But you’re blaming the Democrats. How silly, and how very Rovian of you.
Why are you so full of hate for your fellow Americans that you feel the need to make the Democrats’ actions the issue? Is it that you can’t defend your own party? Is it to distract everyone from the fact that the war in Iraq had little or nothing to do with the war on terror? Is it to distract everyone from the fact that President Bush’s multi-trillion dollar deficits are actually helping Osama bin Laden accomplish one of his stated goals (to bleed this country dry economically)? Is it to distract us from the fact that Bush ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks, including the under-reported Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001 that specifically warned that al Qaeda was contemplating hijacking airplanes and was scouting out buildings in New York? Is it distract us from the fact that Bush had failed at the most fundamental task of government, to protect American citizens? Is it to distract us from the fact that the Bush administration’s incompetence (please pass the “freedom fries” and “torture is OK”) is isolating us from our allies and driving increasing numbers of otherwise uninvolved Muslims into the arms of our enemies, thereby making us weaker, our enemies stronger, making the world a MUCH more dangerous place, and making the war on terror increasingly difficult to win?
Make no mistake about it. We must win this war. But it’s the incompetence of the Bush Administration that’s the problem. The Dems are not the issue, Eric.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 12:50 PMDave
Now you have given up the lie thing, although maybe you don’t know it.
You say Bush used his capital to push the war agenda. Maybe he did. Maybe he thought it was necessary. There were lots of good reasons to see Saddam as a threat and want to get rid of him. But that is different from lying to accomplish it.
Maybe all those Dems who voted for the war were not dishonest and were not misled by Bush. Maybe they just looked at the similar information and came to similar conclusions.
We all know that the outcome was not what was predicted by the intelligence. People can have different opinions about the effacacy of the war. These discussion don’t require deception on any American’s part. Why is it so important to you to assert that your president lied?
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 12:52 PMesimonson,
Ummm, so what? Clinton did not go to war by ourselves. Bush43 did. Oh yeah, Reagan40 as well. Even Bush41, but we had allies back then.
Quite the trend your buddies are starting, eh?
Let’s take a poll:
(1) GOP = War
(2) DNC = Sex and funky cigar action with young interns.
I go with (2).
dbpitt,
This is sad. The fact that many Democrats believed this does not mean that Republicans did not. Just because some Democrats lied does not mean that Republicans did not (All politicians lie!). Eric, your argument relies on an affirmative conclusion stemming from a negative premise. It has no merit.
Sorry, you lost me there. Your assumption then is that Bush knew there were no WMD’s and yet knowing that we would never find WMD in Iraq he invaded Iraq on the premise that there were WMD?
Knowing the depths of my own depravity, I imagine that if I were as diabolical to lie in such a way, I would definately take some WMD with me during the invasion to ‘find’. Don’t you think?
Oooohhhhhhhh, I get what you’re saying. Knowing that we would naturally assume that if you were going to lie about WMD you might plant WMD in Iraq to find as proof you weren’t lying, Bush and Rove purposely didn’t plant any WMD in Iraq so that after no WMD was found we would believe they didn’t lie after all!
They don’t call them evil masterminds for nothing!!
But if one were to anticipate such diabolicity, one might assume that just such a ruse would be attempted by Rove… perhaps then you would in fact plant WMD in order to make everyone believe that you were not far too clever in outwitting everyone, but was in fact telling the truth all along… hmm… Someone give Howard Dean a call… or no— better yet Noam Chomsky.
Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:54 PMDave,
The first step in being cured is to admit you have a problem. Once tomh, et. al. can admit to that, they can get better.
You’re right, the first step is admitting you have a problem. There is a cure. You can beat this thing. I know you can. I believe in you.
Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 12:58 PMJack,
Lying was never the thrust of the argument. Maybe he avoided explicitly lying, or, lied but managed to maintain a level of deniability. That’s relevent only in a political arena and at his trial.
The issue I have with Bush43, the reason why I absolutely despise what he stands for, is his perversion of 9/11 for the enabling of a lousy political agenda and then failing at it so miserably. We went to war with excuses that meant he could not legally be held accountable for starting an illegal war. Whether he lied or not is secondary to the fact he wanted to start the war and would have found an excuse.
1. If the word immanent is so important and so critical to democrats then why did they stand by the first time the world trade center was attacked as well as the US embassy bombings plus the USS Cole bombing? If they did not see those as a sign of an immanent threat then they are fools. In addition these attacks are proof that you can not stand by and wait for a warning.
2. You incompetent liberals keep making it sound like Bush wanted to go to war. Well then tell us why? And don’t you dare say it was for money, after all it’s the UN who seems to be getting that.
3. Nothing lasts for ever!! Rome, even with its might fell. Life is fragile the world is fragile and the US seems to be the only nation whom respects that. There for we just can not take the chance of loosing it. After all, would you want to be an Iraqi living under an evil dictator? The reason I ask is because it could easily happen to us.
esimonson;
I especially like “They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times — they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor. “
After all, we all know how biased and untruthful those MSM guys are. Unlike Fox, Gannon, Coulter, Rush, et. al.
ElliotBay,
The Republicans have had complete and total control of the White house, both Houses of Congress, and the court system for the last five years. But you’re blaming the Democrats. How silly, and how very Rovian of you.
Complete control? Obviously that is a bit of a stretch. We are a divided country. A divided country at war. But what’s more important to democrats? Defeating Bush or winning the war? Can you put aside your desire for political revenge for the sake of the country? Or is calling your fellow Americans hate-filled and incompetent so that you can defeat them more important than winning the war on terror?
Why are you so full of hate for your fellow Americans that you feel the need to make the Democrats’ actions the issue? Is it that you can’t defend your own party?
It is unfortunate that Democrats have chosen to take all of our focus off of the war and instead have focused on defeating Republicans at all cost. I can’t fathom it. Are you claiming then that pointing out when someone is plainly and demonstrably lying is just a diversion?
Are you claiming that ‘defending your party’ is somehow wrong? Should all Republicans just be quite then no matter what the left says or claims?
Let me turn it around on you: Why would you rather make the President the issue?
Is it to distract everyone from the fact that the war in Iraq had little or nothing to do with the war on terror? Is it to distract everyone from the fact that President Bush’s multi-trillion dollar deficits are actually helping Osama bin Laden accomplish one of his stated goals (to bleed this country dry economically)? Is it to distract us from the fact that Bush ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks, including the under-reported Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001 that specifically warned that al Qaeda was contemplating hijacking airplanes and was scouting out buildings in New York? Is it distract us from the fact that Bush had failed at the most fundamental task of government, to protect American citizens? Is it to distract us from the fact that the Bush administration’s incompetence (please pass the “freedom fries” and “torture is OK”) is isolating us from our allies and driving increasing numbers of otherwise uninvolved Muslims into the arms of our enemies, thereby making us weaker, our enemies stronger, making the world a MUCH more dangerous place, and making the war on terror increasingly difficult to win?
What we have is a difference of opinon. I don’t see any of these issues this way Elliot. 1) Iraq has everything to do with the war on terror. Or why should we care about removing dictators and planting democracies and freedom in the middle east? 2) Yes, Bush is responsible for this deficit, as is the Republican congress. But there are several factors contributing to this namely: 9/11 itself, an economic downturn that started before 9/11, additional spending due to the war, wasteful Federal entitlements and programs, and of course pure pork, which should be cut. 3) The PBD was not a warning of impending attack. We can get into this further (again) if you like. 3a) If you’re saying that Bush failed to protect American citizens from the 9/11 attack, good luck with your lawsuit, I don’t think it will get very far. 4) Liberating Iraq makes us stronger, not weaker. The only way the war on terror can be won is by changing the environment in the middle east.
Make no mistake about it. We must win this war. But it’s the incompetence of the Bush Administration that’s the problem. The Dems are not the issue, Eric.
I have no doubt that if Clinton or Gore had been President during 9/11 that many Democrats would be wanting to win this war, but since it is Bush I think that it is more important for them to defeat and embarass Bush at all costs.
Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 01:30 PMIt’s important for the Democrats to emphasize and repeat that “Bush lied,” because if he lied that absolves them of responsibility for authorizing the war, which a significant number of their elected officials did, and on the basis of the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush did.
The truth is there was strong consensus within and without the US intelligence community that Iraq had WMD programs and capabilities before the invasion. This turned out to be largely wrong—programs yes, actual weapons, by and large, no.
There is an abuse of language here to say the weasel-worded charge that Bush misled the Americans, which is the most favored diction of Dean, Kerry, and other Democratic spokesmen. It’s frankly misleading to say Bush “misled” the American people. The words is meant to imply one thing—that he intentionally misled us—when in fact the evidence only shows he was mistaken. “Misled” has both meanings, as in, “The policemen misled us to believe it was only 3 miles to the next gas station. I guess he was mistaken,” versus “Why did you mislead me into believing we would continue to make love after we were married?”
The real question is whether Bush did so intentionally, that is, whether he actually lied. Most high profile Democrats have not crossed that line of accusing Bush of outright lies. Moreover, since a lot of intelligence services said what he said—recall Tenet’s “slam dunk” comment—Bush would have to have disbelieved these experts, for no particular reason, to have been proved to lie. Why? Because lying requries a present sense that one is not disclosing the truth.
It’s also a mistake to say that the war was preconditioned on some notion of imminence and that Bush’s case depended on such arguments. It was clear, and widely debated and in many cases criticized, that Bush was adopting a more aggressive policy in the wake of 9/11, the so-called policy of preemption. This policy may be good, bad, or indifferent, but it was hardly a secret. And the keystone of that policy, the thing that made it unique, was that threats in the past that would have been permitted to ripen to the state of “imminence” would now be dealt with aggressively before that stage had been reached. This was the essence of the case for the Iraq war: they are on the road to developing more dangerous WMDs and have not disclosed the state of their existing programs, so we should take him out before he does so, becausing failing to act aggressively and preemptively can lead to dire consequences, as we witnessed on 9/11.
There are many sound criticisms to be made of Bush, his administration, and its prosecution of the Iraq War. But, by getting bogged down in the unprovable and likely disprovable thesis that Bush lied, the Democrats demonstrate an obsession with party politics and personalities, as opposed to good policy.
Posted by: Roach at November 14, 2005 01:34 PMSo Dave -
You now don’t think Bush lied. You don’t like the war. That is a debate we could have logically and disagree logically. The lied part is just not needed.
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 01:41 PMEsimonson; you’re the one who has come to a republican bolg to attack us. Yet you want to say that you can’t imagine the democrats accusing bush of lying for their own political gain.
One more thing we did not go in alone just because the UN did not go in does not define alone. Plus as I recall the UN lead the way into Vietnam and look at how it turned out.
Plus I do not think that an old cripple such as Clinton could have done a better job than bush. Remember black hawk down. As for Al Gore were talking about a man who wanted to abolish our constitution, because he believed it was out of date.
Eric,
“The sad fact is that Democrats have only one issue here.”
This is a fallacy. There was not ‘one’ intelligence failure.
There were no two dozen SCUDs in the western Iraqi desert.
There were no mobile chem warfare labs.
There were no drones capable of delivering weapons.
And so on. It’s a long list.
The UN inspectors entered Iraq before the invasion and found no WMD’s.
The US presented its best case in the UN. None of the numerous allegations proved true.
This represents a consistent pattern.
It is not a matter of one mistake, or one lie. It is a pattern.
This pattern extends beyond the issue of WMD’s. For example, links between Saddam Hussein & Al Qaida remain, at best, unsubstantiated.
The information flowed from the CIA, to the Executive Branch, and then to Congress.
Congress can be faulted for believing lies, no question. And lying to Congress is an impeachable offense, for good reason.
Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 01:51 PMphx8
“The information flowed from the CIA, to the Executive Branch, and then to Congress.”
So you admit that Bush did not lie because it was the CIA who lied to him
Who says the CIA lied? They might have been wrong, negligent, careless, overeager, results oriented, reckless, reliant on disreputable sources, and all the rest. But that’s not lying. That’s just doing a bad job. The real scandal is the incompetent CIA director who failed in his duty and who led the President to war on the basis of faulty intelligence was not fired, but instead given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
That said, the CIA also has its own agenda, which is a bad thing. It should be neutral, not peddaling anti-administration rumors, lies, and leaks in order to discredit an administration policy that it disagrees with, particularly after the same organization fed that intel to the administration. We don’t need subordinate branches of government running around mucking up the policies of the elected branches.
Posted by: Roach at November 14, 2005 02:12 PMJack,
Now we may begin? As for not liking the war, why would anyone “like” a war?
(I did not say Bush didn’t lie, what I said was: “Maybe he avoided explicitly lying, or, lied but managed to maintain a level of deniability.” Personally, I think he lied, lies, and will keep on lying. It’s his lifestyle.)
Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2005 02:18 PMEric-
The sad thing about your argument is that it concedes instantly the fact that you guys were wrong. Wrong about the terrorists, wrong about the WMDs. You can’t avoid these concessions, because the evidence is so public and so widely believed that only the fringe tries to argue that weapons existed in sufficient number to justify the alarm.
Your arguments instead do three things: They drag down the Democrats with them, They claim the emphasis was greater on defeating a dictator and ending his tyranny, and they also try and maintain that there was no wrongdoing involved in the making of the case for war.
The problem with the first argument is that the Executive Branch, which was controlled by Bush, had unequal privilege to information. Congress was not provided with full information, and even in the cases where reports indicated to Democrats the truth of the matter, the classified nature of most of the material prevented them from explaining why to the public. The NIE itself, supposed to be the authoritative document, was rushed according to the Senate Committee on Iraq, performed in an unusually small amount of time, and the declassified version of the document ommitted important qualifications to data, qualifications that would have seriously watered down the assertion that there was an imminent threat. If the Senate and the House depend on, and distribute to Americans information that mainly comes from the executive branch, there’s no need for the legislature as a whole to have a separate or conspiratorial role in deceiving America. Congress merely becomes the first in a long line of folks conned by the bad information.
The funny thing about the Bush administrations refusal to admit that they asserted (or at least implied) an imminent threat, is that an imminent threat is the standard by which the justification of a pre-emptive strike is judged. If there wasn’t a gun to our head, why did we shoot first? This question has no satisfactory answer, so long as the president hides behind the argument that he never said or implied that the threat was that close to making our lives interesting.
It becomes very important why we went in. The second argument running has us going to war for regime change. That, I can say with no equivocation, is an outright lie. One only has to look up The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq to determine this.
Now, some of you will get caught up in the Whereas clauses of the authorization, but as a lawyer’s brother, I can tell you that the “Whereas” clauses merely explain the purpose of the resolution. They have no binding effect on what justifies the war.
The Resolution, in it’s main body, authorized the president to go to war to do two things
1)Defend our national security against the threat posed by Iraq
and
2)Enforce the UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.
There’s no pick and choose. He was supposed to use the armed forces to do both.
Bush, to get his war, had to submit a determination, a kind of report, to congress and the senate stating that he couldn’t do what this bill was authorizing him to do, and that doing this was consistent with the War on Terror, especially as far as al-Qaeda and its supporters were concerned.
I highlight the “and” because it again means that the president has to do both. Nowhere does it mention that the main point of this war is to take Saddam out of power. That, of course, was a given of any such campaign, but it wasn’t what the people of the United States, represented by their Legislators, agreed to.
This was meant to be a war to disarm Saddam of his WMDs. That is inherent in the call to enforce all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. It is implied in the defense of our national security, because without weapons, Saddam is not a threat.
The president had to prove that this somehow related to taking on terrorists. Seeing as how the only real terrorist group of concern to most Americans was al-Qaeda, it did matter whether Saddam really was involved with al-Qaeda, not merely acquainted with them.
Finally, we come to the last situation, which is the matter of wrongdoing. Nobody’s been charged yet, but there is all kinds of evidence of manipulation. I know that you will try and cite the Silbermann-Robb report, but that Commission had no mandate or clearance to pursue matters of whether the administration manipulated intelligence. It’s did not and could not investigate that issue.
There is, however, a great deal of information about administration officials fishing for raw reports to back their claims, of evidence being accepted for the case, knowing that it was faulty. I’m not going to repost it- just head through the archives on the Democrat and Third Party columns.
The Bush Administration has tried to scapegoat the CIA for this, but the politicizing of intelligence is obvious when the Vice president’s own Chief of Staff believes that an argument over the validity of documents supporting the case for war requires such a political response as leaking the CIA connection of the dissenter’s wife to smear him.
The fact of the matter is, This administration at least knew that there wasn’t enough evidence to convince the American people to go to war on. That is why George Tenet had to assure the president that case that he had called thin was in fact a Slam Dunk. That is why Libby and Stephen Hadley were asked to give it the trial lawyer’s treatment.
If they had been determining threats through a skeptical inquiry into the facts at hand, they would have likely chosen another course of action than a War in Iraq. The trouble is, they came in with an agenda, and because of that, we ended up in a war for politics-related reasons, not security related. Ironically, it has served neither Bush’s political situation, nor our security concerns that well.
This was not a war we should have started. America had worse enemies doing worse things at the time, and America should not overlook real security concerns for sake of a poorly thought out attempt to change the political structure of a region.
We needed a government with greater deliberation and patience, one that could build our security on a solid foundation of knowledge and intelligence, rather than the undependable soil of speculation and stubborn preconceptions of what needs to be done.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 02:21 PMFrom Bush-sycophant Bob Woodward’s “Plant of Attack” (emphasis mine):
As I had been interviewing various officials and sources during the buildup to war, three separate sources said confidentially that the intelligence on WMD was not as conclusive as the CIA and the administration had suggested. This was troubling, particularly on what seemed to be the eve of war. I spoke with Walter Pincus, a colleague at The Washington Post, who had written extensively about the weapons inspections and intelligence in Iraq. Pincus said that he had heard precisely the same thing from a number of his sources. So I drafted the following five paragraphs for a possible news story and hand carried a copy to Pincus and the national security editor at the Post.“Some of the key U.S. intelligence that is the basis for the conclusion that Iraq has large caches of weapons of mass destruction looks increasingly circumstantial, and even shaky as it is further scrutinized, subjected to outside analysis and on-the-ground verification, according to informed sources.
“A senior Bush administration source briefed last month on the intelligence said it was ‘pretty thin’ and might be enough to reach the legal standard of ‘probably cause’ to bring an indictment but not enough for a conviction.”
I think it is clear that in October 2002, most people truly believed that Saddam had WMDs, Democrats and Republican alike. But I also think that it is clear that after numerous inspections were showing the sites that the CIA claimed to have WMD were coming up empty, on the day we went to war, the Bush administration knew it was more than likely that there were no WMD to be found - and yet they sent us to war regardless.
clb
Both good and bad information flowed from the CIA to the Executive Office. The latter filtered the information. The Executive Office manipulated the information for political purposes, presenting information supporting their decision, and ignoring information which undercut their decision.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
By the way, people usually say ‘Bush lied’ as shorthand for ‘the Bush administration lied.’ Of course, when it comes to slogans, ‘Bush lied and people died’ sounds much snappier than ‘The Bush administration lied and people died.’
When it comes to war, a president must be held accountable. Mistakes in this field cannot be accepted.
Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 02:24 PMto Stephen Daugherty
Ohhh I see you think that the terrorist will send us a letter and say were going to attack.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 02:28 PMEric,
You folks on the Right are so obvious. When support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was high, you crowed about your overwhelming support, claiming a mandate. But now that the tide has turned and support for the Bush administration is eroding faster than a barrier island beach during a hurricane, you’re trying to share the blame.
Several of you folks have made the claim that “the Dems saw the same intelligence as the White House”. Since the burden of proof is on the accuser, let’s see some proof to back up that claim. Show us evidence that proves that the White House shared ALL the intelligence, not just SOME of the intelligence, with the Dems. Otherwise this claim is just bilge.
Why would you rather make the President the issue?ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha ho ho ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha ha haaa Thanks for such a great laugh - that’s one of the funniest things I’ve seen here! Who led us into Iraq? Who claimed that Saddam was such a threat that we couldn’t wait for the WMD inspections to finish? It was the President of the United States. Since when is he not the issue?
The only way the war on terror can be won is by changing the environment in the middle east.Silly me. I thought the only way to win the war on terror was to find the terrorists and bring them to justice, not invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no operational links to the terrorists, thus giving the terrorists a training ground with easy access to conveniently-provided American targets. Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 02:31 PM
The main point of the Authorization of Force was to put pressure on Saddam to become cooperative to inspections. And it worked. Saddam became as cooperative as he had ever been in history as he saw the seriousness of a united Congress. If the Democrats had not joined in that effort and helped to present a unified front, most of you on the right would be calling them traitors, appeasers, etc., etc.
Despite their votes for the Authorization of Force, many of them clearly stated that the military action should be a very last resort, because of the quagmire it could generate. Unfortunately, it was not a last resort, but for this President it was a forgone conclusion.
Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 02:33 PMBurt
A real man would stand for what he believes no matter what any one thought. According to you and your friends the democrats knew that this war was a bad idea yet they supported it any way for fear of criticism this means they a cowards.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 02:39 PMclb-
Since the terrorists aren’t mailing us letters about this, we would be well advised not to cloud intelligence issues with the stubborn preconceptions and arbitrary political agendas.
clb,
So, Hitler was a “real man”, wasn’t he?
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 02:43 PMphx8
I find it funny that the link you provided could not be found.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 02:44 PMElliottBay
Why do you liberal think that Hitler is the measure of all things.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 02:46 PMclb,
Did you know Bush was a cheerleader in college?
I’m just saying.
Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 02:47 PMI detect the scent of wild troll.
I tell you what, when you find the perfect world where the Democrats in congress could explain their actions to their constituents without revealing classified information, come back and talk to me. In this country, elected representatives have to explain their actions.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 02:48 PMStephen Daugherty
The problem with your link is that it provides no credible information. After all if you’re going to use evidence you must provide proof that the evidence exists, and was not made up otherwise it is hear say.
clb
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
Stephen,
No point in responding to clb with more than two sentences. Maybe we can narrow it down to one sentence. Or even just one word.
clb-
These conclusions, are based on documentary evidence. If that’s not good enough for you, I don’t know what is.
Great article.
Too many facts and quotes for the liberals - they won’t actually read them and all your hard work is wasted on them.
Facts don’t seem to be that important when they are so busy chanting, “Bush lied!” - of course “Rockafeller lied!” doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily.
Kudos for you for at least trying to inject logic, reason and fact.
Posted by: Ilsa at November 14, 2005 03:04 PMclb,
1. What makes you think I’m a liberal?
2. I don’t think that Hitler is the measure of all things any more than you think that being a “real man” is the measure of all things. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
Let’s stop with the Hitler thing. National Socialism existed from about 1920-1945. It was defeated decisively.
Liberal Americans are not Nazis. Conservative Americans are not Nazis. Even Nazis are not Nazis anymore. Those little pissants who parade around in brown shirts these days are just annoying and silly. And there are not many of them around.
The historical and social conditions that created National Socialism do not exist today and never existed in America. Talking about Hitler allows us all to avoid talking about real issues.
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 03:27 PMBush didn’t lied about Iraq threat imminency. Because nobody could have exactly estimated it with full accuracy. Not even Saddam.
However, he did lied about the lack of doubt of what he called an urgent threat. He said Iraq *was* posing a grave nuclear threat where it should have been “*may* pose (in the future, that is)”. He said (thru poor Powell) he knows were Saddam WMDs *are* where he should had said he *may* know where they *could* be. And so on…
The lie proof is that he was/still is doubtless, while we all now know that several intelligence sources had casted doubts and reported to him *before* his decisions… and speeches.
I never could trust doubtless people. Nor fearless, BTW.
Your frenchly,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 14, 2005 03:33 PMphx8 in respnse to your link athttp://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
From your link
1.Bush went into Iraq with 39 nations by his side
2.Only union workers become disgruntled due to unemployment.
3.John Kaey was the one who voted against providing our troupes with armor remember the statement “I voted for it before I voted against itâ€
4.We have never had fewer casualties of war.
5.If the intelligence existed stating that their were no WMDs then why didn’t the Dems use it in the beginning. Ohh wait it didn’t exist at that time.
6.Dreading nation building during the 2000 debates. We weren’t in Iraq in 2000 and 9/11 had not yet accord. Even the Dems admit that we are now in a different world then we were then.
7.We were greeted as liberators did you not see the toppling of sudoms statue.
8.When did Bush predict that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
9.Underestimating the cost of the war is a silly argument. Secondly there is no price to high for our troops
10.Disbanding the Sunni Baathist. That ones funny. They were apart of sudams dictation.
11.The UN inspectors had 15 years to do their job and they failed.
12.Including discredited intelligence Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union. Clinton also used this. And according to the British it has not been discredited.
13.Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Bush announced the end of operation Iraqi Freedom not the end of Iraq’s restructuring.
14.Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food. Now this one is absolutely absurd. This accusation is just a liberal vendetta against capitalism, and completely based on Sheehan rhetoric.
15.As for failing to give the UN control of the post war restructuring, I say after what the put our solders through in Vietnam the UN is lucky I’m not the president.
The rest I’m not even going to waste my time on. Because they have already been disputed through this blog
phx8 in respnse to your link athttp://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326
Let me repost that one
From your link
1.Bush went into Iraq with 39 nations by his side
2.Only union workers become disgruntled due to unemployment.
3.John Kaery was the one who voted against providing our troupes with armor remember the statement “I voted for it before I voted against itâ¼¢
4.We have never had fewer casualties of war.
5.If the intelligence existed stating that their were no WMDs then why didnt the Dems use it in the beginning. Ohh wait it didnt exist at that time.
6.Dreading nation building during the 2000 debates. We werent in Iraq in 2000 and 9/11 had not yet accord. Even the Dems admit that we are now in a different world then we were then.
7.We were greeted as liberators did you not see the toppling of sudoms statue.
8.When did Bush predict that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
9.Underestimating the cost of the war is a silly argument. Secondly there is no price to high for our troops
10.Disbanding the Sunni Baathist. That ones funny. They were apart of sudams dictation.
11.The UN inspectors had 15 years to do their job and they failed.
12.Including discredited intelligence Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union. Clinton also used this. And according to the British it has not been discredited.
13.Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Bush announced the end of operation Iraqi Freedom not the end of Iraq’s restructuring.
14.Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food. Now this one is absolutely absurd. This accusation is just a liberal vendetta against capitalism, and completely based on Sheehan rhetoric.
15.As for failing to give the UN control of the post war restructuring, I say after what they put our solders through in Vietnam the UN is lucky I’m not the president.
The rest I’m not even going to waste my time on. Because they have already been disputed through this blog
Dave,
You act as if support for a war from a 9/11 traumatized public equates to the President speaking truthfully. Bush43 took advantage of our nation in the same way a pedophile takes advantage of runaway tweeners. And, to clarify, I hold him in the same esteem.
Wasn’t Hitler a pedophile too?
Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 03:49 PMIf you do not believe that we were lied to by this administration to go to war you never will? The question I pose is: What are the sixty percent of the people that do believe we were lied to suppose to do? The people that lied to us are the one’s in power. If our democracy was even slightly functional we would have at the very least impeachment hearings going on at this very moment. Why is the Democratic Party not calling for impeachments? What the hell is going on. I almost believe that this administration has already destroyed this country and we are as red as Soviet Union. Habeus Corpus has been taken away. Republicans who find their beliefs so intertwined with tradition refuse to say anything about a law that has been in place in Western Civilization for 800 years. What the hell is going on? God help us.
Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 03:51 PMto wow
Were did you get that poll from?
It sounds to me like your the only one lying here.
A real man would stand for what he believes no matter what any one thought. According to you and your friends the democrats knew that this war was a bad idea yet they supported it any way for fear of criticism this means they a cowards.
That’s not what I said at all. I said they back the Authorization of Force for what it meant at the time - a unified front presented to Saddam to get him to comply with the UN inspectors. They also strongly advised the President not to use mistake it as carte blanche to start a war with hard evidence of a threat or support from a true worldwide coalition.
Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2005 03:55 PMBurt this is what I was responding to
“If the Democrats had not joined in that effort and helped to present a unified front, most of you on the right would be calling them traitors, appeasers, etc., etc.”
clb
I’m sorry 57%.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr051111-1topline.pdf&id=2862
Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 04:04 PMIlsa-
Oh, we read them. We understand them too! A miracle, I know. Despite what the more elitist of Republicans think, Democrats are actually able to think for themselves. We also know somthing about Logic, reason, and fact, and so we don’t fall so easily for fallacious arguments, emotional appeals, and incomplete or inaccurate data.
That, of course, wouldn’t be such a sexy bit of propaganda, though, so you folks stick to calling us illogical, unreasonable, and ignorant of the facts. It’s easier than actually answering the questions.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2005 04:16 PMcbl,
So many inaccuracies, so little time. Most people know the toppling of Saddam’s statue was staged. Take a look:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 04:17 PMphx
I have never seen that site before. That is a damn good website. It has everything. Thanks for the post.
Posted by: wow at November 14, 2005 04:20 PMPhillipe
Often wrong, but never in doubt. It is not a joke re leadership. Conditions are always uncertain. You have to make decisions based on incomplete, misleading or totally lacking information. The consequences of doing something are serious, but so are the consequences of doing nothing. You make the best choice you can. The time for doubt is before you make the committment. Once you started the dive, there is not use in wavering.
One more metaphore. What is the difference between being involved and being commmitted? In a bacon and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved and the pig is committed. Once you ass is in that’s it.
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 04:20 PMAccording to that poll Bush was hated by America before the election so how could he have won with a record breaking margin. Apparently there is fawlpley. As for that photo there are others that show a completly different story and are mush clearer.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 04:23 PM
Wow,
Yes, good site, but careful. It’s from May 2004. Since then, more information has come to light on the Bush administration lies. Interestingly, nothing has arisen this past year to justify the Bush administration’s positions.
Even in this post, Eric is reduced to saying ‘Rockefeller believed the lies! We gave him bad information, and he believed it! So he’s a liar too!
Mmmmm.
A few will support Eric, such as Ilsa, but they avoid debate. Am I such a scary person?
cbl,
“4.We have never had fewer casualties of war.”
Remember Yugoslavia? Clinton overruled Wes Clark, and critics such as McCain, by refusing to put ‘boots on the ground’ into Yugoslavia. Instead, the US accomplished all of its goals through the use of air power alone. No US casualties. None.
That, cbl, is leadership.
Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2005 04:32 PMclb
Your exactly what i was previously talking about. There is no changing your mind. Why are there so many people like you? When did it all of the sudden become such a bad thing to challenge the things you believe in? This is why our country is in trouble. We no longer learn from our mistakes and we think we are never wrong.
The Problem I have with your remarks about mistakes is that there was no Mastak!!!
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 04:37 PMYou must have run out of so called evidence to resort to that language. And to be so ashamed of it that you could not use your own name but stole mine.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 04:42 PMclb,
1. If the word immanent is so important and so critical to democrats then why did they stand by the first time the world trade center was attacked as well as the US embassy bombings plus the USS Cole bombing? If they did not see those as a sign of an immanent threat then they are fools. In addition these attacks are proof that you can not stand by and wait for a warning.The only thing the Clinton administration did following the 1st WTC attack was to catch, try, convict, and imprison those responsible. Maybe you could visit them in prison and ask them how that constitutes “standing by and waiting”. Furthermore, after the Cole attack in the fall of 1999, Clinton directed his administration to come up with a plan to defeat the terroritsts once and for all. Richard Clarke completed the plan later that year, and presented it to the incoming Bush administration when they took office in January 2000. You know what the Bush administartion did with that plan? They ignored it. Just like they ignored repeated and specific warnings about al Qaeda’s plans to hijack planes, and warnings that al Qaeda was scouting out buildings in New York City. And you know something else? The plan that the Bush administration implemented following 9/11 and takes credit for was the very plan developed by the Clinton administration. With the notable exception of the invasion of Iraq. So, the Bush administration not only “stood by”, they also IGNORED the multiple warnings.
Perhaps you’d prefer to respond the way President Reagan did when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon in 1983. You know what Reagan did, don’t you? He ordered the complete withdrawal of the Marines. Of course he also ordered an invasion of a small Caribbean island to distract us. And to make the Caribbean safe for American medical students.
2. You incompetent liberals keep making it sound like Bush wanted to go to war. Well then tell us why? And donâ´ you dare say it was for money, after all itâ³ the UN who seems to be getting that.First of all, the “incompetent liberals” line violates the policy of this blog, which is to critique the message, not the messanger. Second, it’s my opinion that Bush invaded Iraq solely to gain political capital as a wartime commander-in-chief, and to use that wartime political capital to achieve his agenda. He said exactly that during the 2000 campaign.
3. Nothing lasts for ever!! Rome, even with its might fell. Life is fragile the world is fragile and the US seems to be the only nation whom respects that. There for we just can not take the chance of loosing it. After all, would you want to be an Iraqi living under an evil dictator? The reason I ask is because it could easily happen to us.Yes it could easily happen to us. Some of “us” worry that it is in fact happening now. In this country.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 14, 2005 04:47 PM
Wow,
I’m not the Site Manager, but I’m sure you risk being banned from the site for violating the policy of critting the message, not the messenger. Not my call- just a friendly word.
ElliottBay
If Clinton did something to then why did it happen again? That alone makes it obvious that he did not do enough which is why Bush did not make a mistake.
I am not a member and therefore can not be banned.
Posted by: clb at November 14, 2005 04:54 PMphx8,
Seriously, I really didn’t think you were that far off of to that extreme to be buying into that kind of stuff.
Between watching the whole event unfold on live television to the report and how it is ‘edited’ on the link you provided, it’s a prime example of what is so wrong with what a lot of people call ‘journalism’. I’m not the biggest fan of news channels either, but at least there are times when you get unedited live coverage of something and can see it before someone with an agenda can ‘make their point’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 04:56 PMOver 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.
The only thing the Clinton administration did following the 1st WTC attack was to catch, try, convict, and imprison those responsible.
You should put the word ‘SOME’ in there… You know, the ones we were meant to catch? Seriously, trying to get the deposit back on the truck? You’d think the guy was Oswald…
Perhaps you’d prefer to respond the way President Reagan did when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon in 1983. You know what Reagan did, don’t you? He ordered the complete withdrawal of the Marines.
And we know Clinton would never pull out of a ‘hot zone’ after US Marines were killed like that jerk Reagan.
Please, before we start trying to say that Reagan and Bush I and II were horrible on terrorism and Clinton was the bomb, let’s be realistic and admit that all administrations, starting with Carter when we were first forced to deal with the issue, have failed the United States and stop making political points?
Al Qaeda was in the US for years before Bush took office and Clinton did not act on the ‘nebulous’ information that was countered with plausable other information just as Bush didn’t. And when we were attacked we started trying to ‘connect the dots’ so we didn’t fail at that again and now many condemn Bush for doing just that and turning out to be wrong. It’s all political, he didn’t care about the dead and possible death of tens of thousands more americans.
I understand you’re in a heated debate with someone who has a very very tiny grasp of sensibility and reality but it’s best to take an evenhanded view of this and examine our failures honestly and not try to make political hay out of them or we will not better ourselves at all.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 05:07 PMMatt,
Why are you cutting and pasting American Pundit’s post from the Democrats column in the comments here? If you want others to read them it would be better to link to them, not post them as if they are your own words.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 05:09 PMStephen,
No one can deny that the intelligence was wrong. We did not find any significant quanties of WMD to say Saddam had stockpiles. However, that does not negate the fact that they were there at one time, they were never fully accounted for and Saddam went to a lot of trouble to hide what was apparently nothing.
What we are talking about are slanderous political charges that are demonstrably false. It is ludicrous to say, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush lied to take us to war.
Your arguments instead do three things: [1] They drag down the Democrats with them, [2] They claim the emphasis was greater on defeating a dictator and ending his tyranny, and [3] they also try and maintain that there was no wrongdoing involved in the making of the case for war.
1) What my arguments are intended to do is disprove these false charges, scurrilously broght forth in an effort to sling mud. Or would you prefer (as a proponent of truth and justice) to perpetuate obvious lies in order to gain some political advantage?
2) In fact, I do not claim a greater emphasis for liberating the Iraqi people, I claim an equal emphasis. Despite the attempt, by you and the left, to try to disregard this truth, Bush has made defeating tyranny in the middle east the central doctrine of the Bush war on terror. How hard is that to admit? You don’t have to agree with it, but you have to agree that Bush has made it clear.
Whether you believe in it or not the Bush Doctrine is that removing dicatators in the Middle East and creating democracy and freedom for Muslims in their own lands is the war on terror as well as killing and capturing terrorists. WMD is not the only case for war, but it was one of the central reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam was threat as Clinton himself recognized, and in the same way.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,†Clinton said.
…Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. cnn
After 9/11 the situation with Saddam becomes more imperative to deal with because he was funding palestinian terrorists!! Clinton did the right thing when he bombed the hell out of Saddam’s facilities in 1998, Saddam was also reeling from sanctions (for which the Iraqi people bore the brunt of the pain by the way) but then we had something called the Oil-for-Food program which enabled Saddam to reconstitute a steady cash flow.
Once again, Ladies and Gentleman, Jay Rockefeller:
We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States. http://rockefeller.senate.gov/
3) You are substituting characterizations for truth. For all that’s worth, you can also characterize Mother Theresa as a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud if you wanted to.
There was no rush to war, and no rushed intelligence, this is more than a twelve year ordeal with Saddam. There is history of our participation including using force to remove him from Kuwait and sanctions on Iraq for 12 years that killed far more civilians.
Posted by: esimonson at November 14, 2005 05:09 PMesimonson,
Don’t forget that Russia had also warned the US that Iraq planned to attack US interests with terrorism after 9/11 befor we invaded.
Neverminding that Iraq *DID* have cells here, they were Iraqi Intelligence and were doing a pretty good job of terrorising former Iraqi citizens into keeping quiet about anything they knew.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2005 05:12 PMStephen,
No one can deny that the intelligence was wrong. We did not find any significant quanties of WMD to say Saddam had stockpiles. However, that does not negate the fact that they were there at one time, they were never fully accounted for and Saddam went to a lot of trouble to hide what was apparently nothing.
What we are talking about are slanderous political charges that are demonstrably false. It is ludicrous to say, in the face of overwhelming evidence that Bush lied to take us to war.
Your arguments instead do three things: [1] They drag down the Democrats with them, [2] They claim the emphasis was greater on defeating a dictator and ending his tyranny, and [3] they also try and maintain that there was no wrongdoing involved in the making of the case for war.
1) What my arguments are intended to do is disprove these false charges, scurrilously broght forth in an effort to sling mud. Or would you prefer (as a proponent of truth and justice) to perpetuate obvious lies in order to gain some political advantage?
2) In fact, I do not claim a greater emphasis for liberating the Iraqi people, I claim an equal emphasis. Despite the attempt, by you and the left, to try to disregard this truth, Bush has made defeating tyranny in the middle east the central doctrine of the Bush war on terror. How hard is that to admit? You don’t have to agree with it, but you have to agree that Bush has made it clear.
Whether you believe in it or not the Bush Doctrine is that removing dicatators in the Middle East and creating democracy and freedom for Muslims in their own lands is the war on terror as well as killing and capturing terrorists. WMD is not the only case for war, but it was one of the central reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam was threat as Clinton himself recognized, and in the same way.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,†Clinton said.
…Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. cnn
After 9/11 the situation with Saddam becomes more imperative to deal with because he was funding palestinian terrorists!! Clinton did the right thing when he bombed the hell out of Saddam’s facilities in 1998, Saddam was also reeling from sanctions (for which the Iraqi people bore the brunt of the pain by the way) but then we had something called the Oil-for-Food program which enabled Saddam to reconstitute a steady cash flow.
Once again, Ladies and Gentleman, Jay Rockefeller:
We also have to acknowledge that any military operations against Saddam Hussein pose potential risks to our own homeland, too. Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States.