237 Bush Administration Lies About Iraq

[Chris Alger]

Lest there be any doubt about the veracity of the “He Lied, They Died” bumper stickers, the House Committee on Government Reform has published a searchable data base af false and misleading statements the Bush Administration made to justify the war against Iraq. In contrast from the mainstream line that Bush was fooled by “bad intelligence,” the report explains how all such statements were unsupported by the very intelligence the White House purportedly relied on.

“The Iraq on the Record (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/) database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.”

Some of these are so outrageous that if it weren't for all the dead bodies and coming decades of repurcussions, they'd be comedy. Here's Rumsfeld in September 2002:

[ QUOTE ]
"They have amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas."
"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas."
"He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
"He has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."
"His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

[/ QUOTE ]
Now here's Wolfowitz in March 2004:

[ QUOTE ]
"We never said there were stockpiles."

[/ QUOTE ]
The database reveals only the tip of the iceberg of the most documented campaign of lying-for-war in American history. The database omits, for example, hypothetical or implied statements (except for a few egregious examples) and the thousands of reiterations made off the record or privately to journalists and those by uniformed or lower-ranking officials. It also doesn’t consider the thousands of times such statements were repeated, paraphrased and amplified by media commentators, sometimes claiming “independent” corroboration, or the wild exaggerations and hyper-spin routinely dished up by the partisan right-wing press. It doesn't mention the media calumny directed at those who demanded good evidence to justify something that otherwise amounted to mass murder.

The report is a damning empirical proof of the mendacity of Bush and "patriots" who want to put keep this pathological liar in power to wreak further havoc. More than this, however, the report shows up the abject corruption and failure of the American press. Instead of reacting to alarmist claims with intelligent skepticism, the media sold the war like toothpaste. As a result, thousands of innocent people died because most Americans falsely believed that Saddam sent the 9/11 terrorists and was on the verge of deadlier attacks.

If the media whores had been doing their job, even badly, the war would never have occurred. If they were doing their job now, the thought of even nominating Bush for a second term would be laughable.

[natedogg]

"If they were doing their job now, the thought of even nominating Bush for a second term would be laughable."

I know this may be hard to believe, but the war in Iraq is not the number one issue for everyone who is voting. Maybe it is for you, but that doesn't mean someone else may not be more interested in his stance on taxes for instance.

I am not going to vote Bush but it has nothing to do with Iraq. I'm frankly much more concerned about domestic policy, which is why I'm not voting for Kerry either. But I just wanted to point out that some people may not consider the Iraq issue to be paramount the way you do.

natedogg

[juanez]

Sounds just like all of the statements that Clinton, Daschel, Kennedy, etc. said when Clinton tossed a few cruise missles around...just before he was impeached for lying to a Federal Grand Jury.

[Utah]

"...and coming decades of repurcussions"

You mean like the fact that Saddam is gone and that there will shortly be a democracy is Iraq and for once the Iraqi people have a chance to be free?

Man, I just know that so burns you and you terrorist buddies. I bet you all constantly tell each other, "well, we still have Iran" to console each other.

[andyfox]

You don't think there will be repercussions that the United States will have to deal with because of the invasion of Iraq? The CIA has a word for the usually unforeseen consequence of its meddling called "blowback."

A free and democratic Iraq is, of course, to be hoped for, but the record of the United States, when toppling governments it dislikes, in creating subsequent democracies does not give cause for optimism. The record of disastrous results for both the people of those countries and for the United States is, rather, worrisome. In Iraq, our activities are much more out in the open than in most other cases, so one hopes that the democracy and freedom you predict will indeed come true. But history makes me less optimistic about it than you seem to be.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

Of course - every action has a reaction. The US does not a good track record with installing governments. However, the people in Iraqi have a far better chance of a free and thriving country as a result of the US action. Also, I think the ass kicking we delivered has absolutely increased or leverage around the world with hostile regimes. Just look at China's revision of its Taiwan policy for an example.

I dont think the end justifies the means and I dont know if all the Bush Administration actions were noble or in our best interest. However, you simply cannot ignore that a terrible and murderous regime is now gone. People like Alger, who root for the enemy, couldnt give a damn. They just want to see the US fail at all costs.

BTW - how do you handicap the bet? I am now thinking Bush wins in a big way barring and major events. Kerry simply hasnt shown a single thing to insire anyone on either side. The anti-Bush vote will not carry him. Also, the Reagan death helped Bush a lot.

[andyfox]

Any change China may have taken in regard to its Taiwan policy has absolutely nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. There are factions in China that are beginning, finally, to recognize the increasing economic and cultural importance of Taiwan and the stupidity of the past policies. The recent elections in Taiwan has underlined the changed conditions in Taiwan itself and the consequently increasingly irrelevance of China's outmoded belligerence.

It is becoming incrasingly obvious that what some of us lefties were saying at the beginning of the invasion--namely, that an invasion by foreign armies is not the ideal way to bring about deomcracy--should have been more evident to the Bush administration. But I don't think that was ever something they were truly concerned about.

On our bet, I still think my man is a slight favorite. He took time off this last week and went up in the polls! I suppose that's a bit frightening for the Dems, but overall, I would think it's too early to say. Too much could happen between now and November. I was struck by the polls that showed such a wide disparity on beliefs about the war between Democrats and Republicans. The improving economy should be a plus for Bush.

[Utah]

there was just a recent report that China had significantly increased, in its assessments, the likelyhood of U.S. intervention if China attacks Taiwan. I wish I could find the report. It is far from conclusive that it has anything to do with Iraq. However, that is where I would place my money.

"It is becoming incrasingly obvious that what some of us lefties were saying at the beginning of the invasion--namely, that an invasion by foreign armies is not the ideal way to bring about deomcracy--should have been more evident to the Bush administration. But I don't think that was ever something they were truly concerned about."

That might be true. However, what is the correct way then to bring democracy to a brutal dictorship when there is almost zero chance of an internal uprising? This all might be bad for the US. But I dont see how you can look at this as anything but a massive win for the Iraqi people.

"He took time off this last week and went up in the polls!"
I think that is the exact problem. At the end of the day, I just dont think people will be able to vote for him. There is simply nothing under the hood. I didnt like gore, but at least there was something there and he had passion about some things. I watch a ton of news and I cant tell you one thing that Kerry truly stands for. I listen to him and often say, "did he really use all those cliches?".

either way, it will be fun to watch.

[juanez]

You'll all find this interesting:
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

Sorry to burst your bubble Chris. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[theBruiser500]

Utah, your argument, "You mean like the fact that Saddam is gone and that there will shortly be a democracy is Iraq and for once the Iraqi people have a chance to be free?" irks me. A lot of people use this argument to justify the war on Iraq but if our goal is to save lives and improve the quality of life for people there are much more effiecent, effective ways to do it.

This really isn't even what you're debating about, I just wanted to point that out as an aside.

[John Cole]

What irks me about this argument is that once the putative reasons for the war had been seen as, at best, "bad intelligence," we fell back on the ancillary benefits of deposing a dictator. Either use moral reasoning to topple dictatorships--or don't invade. We don't accomplish good--nor does anyone--without the proper moral reasoning.

[Utah]

You both are reading way too much into my comments.

The original poster clearly implied that the repurcussions of the war were lots of dead and bad things to come.

Well, that simply is not true regardless of the reasons we went to war. I cant see any argument that shows this invasion is bad for the Iraqi people.

If I was an Iraqi I might be irked that you would consider my freedom of ancillary importance.

Lets say that we stipulate that Bush and Co. purposely lied to the american people so that Halliburton could get juicy contracts (or whatever other vile scenario for going to war you can come up with).

That still does not change the fact that a terrible dictatorship has been elminated and that a democratic government is soon going to be in place in Iraq. This is fact - and cant be denied. We can argue all day about reasons, motives, etc. But facts still remain facts.

I am not saying that this excuses Bush and Company for any sins or mistakes they might have made or that the ends justify the means. I am again simply stating fact.

I think liberals want to think - "well, reasoning for going to war was wrong so results must be bad". When, if fact, you can have - "reasons for going to war were wrong but the results were good".

[andyfox]

The Bush administration has, if anything, been more sympathetic to China and less so to Taiwan. There is zero chance of China attacking Taiwan. All their posturing is just that. If you placed your money on their thinking about Taiwan having anything to do with our policy in Iraq, you'd be mistaken. If anything, they would think the opposite, with so much of our military tied up in Iraq now. Plus the Chinese don't look at their military abilities as being in the same minor league as what Iraq possessed.

I don't think we can bring democracy to Iraq. I hope I am wrong.

[Chris Alger]

This is an extreme example of the right-wing disinformation I mentioned. According to your source, "the United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

Most people don't even have to read the article to know it's bullshit. "Saddam Hussein shipped . . . medium-range ballistic missliles before, during and after" the war? He shipped missiles from his spider hole? You can only read stuff like this in places like WorldTribune.com presumably because the intenational liberal press is part of big conspiracy to make Bush out to be a liar. You see this on TV everyday when all the commentators refer to Bush & Co. as "liars."

The only source for the report is the June 9, 2004 testimony by UNMOVIC inspector Demtrius Perricos. Perricos is on record as having denied that WMD existed in Iraq prior to the war. According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-01-perricos-findings_x.htm) on 3/1/04: "Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the United Nations weapons inspection program, can't disguise his satisfaction that almost a year after the invasion of Iraq, U.S. inspectors have found the same thing that their much-maligned U.N. counterparts did before the war: no banned weapons." Reports of the same testimony in the mainstream press hardly suggest that Perricos has changed his mind.

In fact Perricos probably didn't say anything about Saddam shipping anything anywhere. The gist of his testimony was another dig at Bush, claiming that under careless U.S. eyes various dual use items that UN inspectors had found and tagged have since been looted and sold as scrap since the war. As the antiwar movement argued, the war has increased the risk of WMD proliferation.

According to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/international/middleeast/09CND-NATIONS.html?ex=1087444800&en=8e426f86eddf9356&ei= 5062&partner=GOOGLE): "Equipment and material that could have been used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been emptied from Iraqi sites since the war and shipped abroad, the head of the United Nations inspectors office told the Security Council today." The London Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086445589393) had the same take: "Rocket motors and equip-ment potentially usable in chemical and biological weapons programmes have been streaming out of Iraq since the US-led invasion, United Nations weapons inspectors say.

The appearance of some of this material - some of it radioactive - in scrapyards outside Iraq suggests the breakdown of order in the country has allowed widespread looting of sites holding sensitive equipment."

I haven't read Perricos's testimony, but I bet that he never said or implied that Saddam exported anything and that this whole story by the right-wing WorldTribune.com (who's owners prefer to remain secret) is another well-financed lie.

[John Cole]

Utah,

I said "ancillary benefits." I would have much preferred we had invaded Iraq with the intent to liberate Iraqis. And, yes, reasons for actions do matter.

While attempting to shoot you between the eyes, I misfire and kill a gunman armed with a semi-automatic weapon about to open fire on a group of schoolchildren. Am I a hero?

[Chris Alger]

The difference was that every sentient person knew that Clinton lied about his realtionship with Lewinksy (although probably not before a grand jury) but a slight majority of Americans still consider Bush to be "honest and trustworthy," according to a recent poll.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
what is the correct way then to bring democracy to a brutal dictorship when there is almost zero chance of an internal uprising

[/ QUOTE ]
You might want ot consider the usual ways. Ask the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Argentines, Brazilians, Chileans, Urugauyans, Indonesians, etc.

One guaranteed way not to do it, however, is for the dictator to be replaced by the military dictatorship by a country with a long track record for supporting autocracy in virtually every other Arab country, especially those where it has oil interests.

Otherwise it's a brillian argument: Bush shows his contempt for informed consent in his own country by lying about WMD but it's okay because he's so devoted to building institutions of informed consent in Iraq, although most Iraqis want us to leave, in part because we insist on picking their leaders. We know Bush is serious about democracy in Iraq because the TV talkers say so.

It's like debating about Eastern Europe during the 1950's with someone who's main argument is DIDN'T I ALREADY TELL YOU, YOU STUPID NAZI SYMPATHIZER, THAT STALIN SAID HE LIBERATED THOSE COUNTRIES?

[ACPlayer]

What exactly have you been smoking?

There is virtually no chance that the Iraqi will be free in the near future. Unless of course freedom includes 150,000 nervous trigger happy troops from foreign countries on your land.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference was that every sentient person knew that Clinton lied about his realtionship with Lewinksy (although probably not before a grand jury) but a slight majority of Americans still consider Bush to be "honest and trustworthy," according to a recent poll.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you have no problem with Clinton killing dozens of folks at that Iraqi asprin factory just to get his name off of the front page for a few days? After all, every sentient person knew he was guilty anyway...

[ACPlayer]

OK, so Saddam is gone and that is a good thing. But I think you are far too optimistic in your thinking if you think that there are not going to be major repurcussions of the way.

Already:

1. Iraq has turned from a non Al Qaeda threat to a breeding ground for more Al Qaeda nut jobs. That is a negative against us.

2. We still have strained relations with various friendly countries. That is a negative against us (even though the war at any cost nuts keep saying who cares about the French, the Spaniards, The Germans, etc).

3. The middle east is even more polarized against us. If you think that the current plight of the Palestinians and Iraqi's are not tied to together you are wrong. If at all the bind is tighter now.

Now for the consequences to the Iraqi:

1. For the foreseaable future there will be a foreign army calling the shots in the country. There is no way that Bush (if reelected) will pull the troops out even if the new government would prefer it.

2. The strong likelihood that the Iraqi Kurds will be worse off under the new arrangements.

3. The strong likelihood of civil war between the various groups at some point. Specially if the Kurds decide to try and go their own way, at least a possibility if not quite likely.

4. Iran is involved in Iraq as is Syria. If Bush and company decide to go to war with these countries then the Iraqi population will be badly hurt.

So, to cavalierly say that an assertion of future bad repercussions is wrong is dumb. There will be plenty of them and the chances that they will be good for the Iraqi or for us is not great.

Lastly, the original poster's implication that there are a lot of dead is something that he would, most likely, be able to simply state and not leave it as an implication. It is a fact. There are a lot of dead and there will be plenty of bad things to come, some are underway and others we dont know will come as time moves on.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
“The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.”



[/ QUOTE ]


First Point: This is almost as silly as the people that count the times four-letter words are used in movies or the number of times a bare breast is shown. The people that compiled these 'facts' are both pathetic and fatuous.


Second Point: '237 misleading statements' 'Ten of the statements were simple false'. This works out to only 4.22% lies out of the total 'misleading statements’ This is a rather anemic number and I am grossly unimpressed. Clinton, in his grander moments, could outpace that percentage in a trice.

Third Point: ‘Misleading statements’ is itself a misleading nebulous concept and can be defined by anyone in just about any manner that fits their own preconceived notions and political agenda.

Fourth Point: By now, Bush and Company should be at 10 or 100 times the numbers in the above quote. They need to up the propaganda machine to match the quixotic drivel of the pedantic lefties.

-Zeno

[Utah]

There is zero chance of China attacking Taiwan. All their posturing is just that

Well, game theory will tell you that all the posturing has a nasty little way of leading to actual conflict. Kinda like a big game of chicken when all of a sudden neither side decides to swerve. And, we also know - there is no such thing as zero chance.

Do you believe that China watched the U.S. attack two countries with ferocity - one on its border - destroyed those countries right quick, and showed a new willingness to use military might and this didnt affect their thinking about U.S. miliary abilities and the U.S. willingness to use force in Taiwan?? Doesnt seem possible. I really wish I could find that report.

I don't think we can bring democracy to Iraq. I hope I am wrong.

You might be right, but I would rather be an Iraqi now than an Iraqi before the war. Also, we did install legitimate govenments in many countries after WW2.

[Utah]

Sure - your arguments are fair enough. And, there are certainly some bad repurcussions. However, overall the net effect is a huge gain for the Iraqi people.

Lets say you were an Iraqi in the current situation and you have the power to reinstall Saddam's regime. Would you do it? Because, that is what you are implying when you argue the bad outweighs the good.

[Utah]

While attempting to shoot you between the eyes, I misfire and kill a gunman armed with a semi-automatic weapon about to open fire on a group of schoolchildren. Am I a hero?

Exactly my point and I agree with you. But, we must admit, the gunman is still dead.

[Chris Alger]

I didn't imply that at all, but it has nothing to do with the topic I raised.

Clinton had no right to bomb anything. He was reportedly warned repeatedly that the target was what it turned out to be: a pharmaceutical plant, I think the only in Sudan. It was a war crime, an atrocity for which he should have been tried and punished.

The only thing this has to do with Bush and Iraq is that leaders of obth parties and the mainstream commentators either ignored or accepted Clinton's excuse at face value. It played no role in his impeachment.

But it doesn't excuse Bush's conduct, anymore than greater atrocities by Johnson and Nixon (or Hitler or Stalin).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I said "ancillary benefits." I would have much preferred we had invaded Iraq with the intent to liberate Iraqis. And, yes, reasons for actions do matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to disagree, but to take it a step further in this light: reasons for actions do matter in evaluating the party performing the actions. From the standpoint of the passive party, howewer--i.e. the victims or beneficiaries of an action--the reasons for the actions are of minimal importance compared to the effect of the actions (so the benefits that are ancillary in evaluating our motives are a primary consideration from the Iraqis' perspective). This is why I have repeatedly argued that our motives have little to no bearing on the validity of the humanitarian case for action in Iraq--a point which I am sure you have already considered but which I feel certain others may never have fully grasped. The exception to this may be when the motives are not only ulterior but perniciously so--as I suspect Chris Alger would argue--and my response would be that in this case we will have to wait and see, but I think it highly likely the Iraqis will soon be far better off than under Saddam (and may be better off already).

[andyfox]

The guys that run China are idiots, but savvy enough to know Iraq has a much different meaning to us than does Taiwan. They know, as well, that we know the meaning Taiwan has to them. And there is a younger generation of leadership in China that realizes that accommodation with Taiwan, rather than confrontation, is inevitable, given the economic realities of the relationship.

In fact, Bush's Taiwan/China policy has recently shifted towards accommodation of China. Bush scolded Taiwan for putting two initiatives on the ballot in their recent election which China opposed, because it would upset the status quo. The hawks in the Bush administration see Chen Shui-bian as a troublemaker and most likely wish he would have lost the recent election (he won by a narrow margin).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
n fact, Bush's Taiwan/China policy has recently shifted towards accommodation of China. Bush scolded Taiwan for putting two initiatives on the ballot in their recent election which China opposed, because it would upset the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

And even more recently China has been doing things to make both Taiwan and Hong Kong nervous or uncomfortable. Didn't save the articles but bet you canb find some via search.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
First Point: This is almost as silly as the people that count the times four-letter words are used in movies or the number of times a bare breast is shown. The people that compiled these 'facts' are both pathetic and fatuous

[/ QUOTE ]
While there's nothing magic about the specific number, its magnitide is significant, obviously. It shows Bush and his right-hand people to be a serial liars, rather than just Keystone cops. Second, it demonstrates the disconnect between public perceptions of Bush and the reality of his dishonesty. A recent poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm) poll shows a majority of the public (52%) believing that the phrase "honest and trustworthy" applies to Bush. Although some people might agree that this could apply to someone who lied only a few times, very few people would apply this phrase to someone who lied, and allowed his subordinates to lie, scores and even hundreds of times about the same vital policy matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Second Point: '237 misleading statements' 'Ten of the statements were simple false'. This works out to only 4.22% lies out of the total 'misleading statements’ This is a rather anemic number and I am grossly unimpressed. Clinton, in his grander moments, could outpace that percentage in a trice.

[/ QUOTE ]
You accuse the compilers of being pathetic and fatuous but then quibble over demonstrably false statements of fact and misleading statements?

It seems to me that we should be able to judge the honesty of an elected leader by at least the standards by which we imprison people for fraud in the commercial realm. It is no defense in such cases for the defendant to argue that his statements were not actual "lies" but merely "misleading." Moreover, the 10 statements that were lies means that Bush & Co. lied outright and then did it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. If I were prosecuting a fraud claim against your client and you raised this argument, my first instinct would be to withdraw any plea bargain I had offered, seeing the fish in the barrel.

[ QUOTE ]
Third Point: ‘Misleading statements’ is itself a misleading nebulous concept and can be defined by anyone in just about any manner that fits their own preconceived notions and political agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are we fishing blindfolded in the poststructuralist pond? I doubt that Sokol would attempt a hoax where he said something as idiotically circular as "the word 'misleading' has no meaning because any defintion would be misleading." If true, we should live our lives as if we had no political leaders (they having nothing to say which we can reliably connect to experience), refrain from voting, legalize fraud, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Fourth Point: By now, Bush and Company should be at 10 or 100 times the numbers in the above quote. They need to up the propaganda machine to match the quixotic drivel of the pedantic lefties.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what this means. Your suggestion that only "pedantic lefities" want high officials to be accountable for what they say boils down to a crude attempt to intellectualize some sort of personal glorification of the tribal patriarch.

[andyfox]

If indeed this is so, then the theory that our aggressivenes vis-a-vis Iraq is not so worrisome to China as Utah asserts it should be. But I think China's policies towards both Hong Kong and Taiwan ebbs and flows as suits China. Taiwan recently had elections and there have been recent issues in Hong Kong concerning further democratization as well. I'd really be surprised if anything we did in the middle east figured in China's calculations.

[jokerswild]

I'm sure that you thought the Soviet people would be better off under Yeltsin. They aren't.

Better still, I bet that you would have blindly followed a quasi elected leader that reacted against "terrorism" to enact limitations on civil liberties, and invade without provocation countries that he convinced his deluded countrymen posed grave threats to the Reich.

[MMMMMM]

Well guess what, jokerswild...even if the Russians weren't "better off" financially under Yeltsin (and I don't know that that is exactly true) there is still a great deal to be said for not having to worry about whether the KGB or the GRU will be coming to take you away in the middle of the night. Are you suggesting they should have remained under totalitarian communist rule? Would you prefer to be under a dictator or totalitarian system if it meant you could have a few more shekels in your pocket? And what about the bread lines, etc. in the USSR? Life was not good there anyway.

You somehow seem to consistently miss what I an arguing for. I am arguing against fascism,; in this case, the fascism of Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime.

[ACPlayer]

Comparing the ills of living under Saddam vs the ills of living under a foreign occupation is a bit like comparing snack of a maggot infested apple to one of a rotten pear. One may be worse, both are likely to give you indigestion or worse for some time.

Having said that, if the Bush Admin was a bit more responsible in putting the Iraqi interest first, rather than its own political and financial interests, there may well have been a chance that the war would have produced a better outcome for the Iraqi. It is patently obvious to the Iraqi that our interest is in staying there for reasons that have nothing to do with their freedom and it is also obvious that our plans are being made reactively to events rather than proactively. This makes and will continue to make the average Iraqi more cynical.

Ultimately, freedom cannot be handed to a people. They have to want it enough to fight for it. History has shown that stable free societies can emerge from under a iron fist when appropriate leaders have emerged, rallied their people and won the battle.

The Iraqi had not demonstrated a real want for freedom under Saddam, IMO. Because they dont want it, they will continue to be ruled with an iron fist - from within or without.

[Utah]

Comparing the ills of living under Saddam vs the ills of living under a foreign occupation is a bit like comparing snack of a maggot infested apple to one of a rotten pear. One may be worse, both are likely to give you indigestion or worse for some time.

Well, first, the Iraqi's will run their own government. What makes you think it will be a U.S. puppet regime? How do you expect the U.S. to accomplish that with the entire world watching?

So, lets even say your right. A U.S. puppet regime is a hell of a lot better that a Saddam murderous regime. I think the problem with many liberals is that they think of their own government as completely evil that being ruled by the U.S. is a terrible thing. What a shame.

Are you saying that being ruled by the U.S. is equivalent to being ruled by Saddam? hmmmm........ Are liberals going to break out "Bring Back Saddam!!" bumper stickers?

History has shown that stable free societies can emerge from under a iron fist when appropriate leaders have emerged, rallied their people and won the battle.

That is simply f#%#$ing hilarious. Oh man - LMAO ROTF. So, we should have let the Iraqi's free themselves. Brilliant!!! Just a few more decades of misery and torture and they would be almost there. Too funny.

[ACPlayer]

Any country with a foreign occupation is not free -- by definition. Intent is irrelevant when you are living at the point of a gun.

Having a government tell a people what is good for them is the ultimate in liberal thinking. This is exactly what the Teddy Kennedy's of the world do with their idiotic welfare ideas. They know what is good for you if you are poor and oppressed or in need of racial quotas etc. It is one thing to give a people a helping hand (like we did against Apartheid in South Africa, or against the communist bloc in eastern europe, or are doing against the regime in Burma -- not enough there, separate discussion), it is quite another thing to give them a hand out the way you and your kind want to do in Iraq.

Human beings must help lift themselves out of their current situation (whether poverty or corrupt regimes). Besides this has been tried and tested all over the world and done all over the world. And in the cases where we came to the "help" of the people against govts we did not like we got: the Iranian Mullahs, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to name just two.

So, you can laugh your keister off, but all it does is let the readers know that you are off your rocker.

[Chris Alger]

Your source appears to be a disinformation outlet for the Moonies. See New Yorker article. (http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?030908ta_talk_mcgrath)

[Cptkernow]

Youre point being that if someone else has lied it is ok for you to lie.

Please explain how Clintons lies make Bush's lies Ok.

Cheers

Kernow.

[Zeno]

All your responses strike me as nothing more than a quirky idealism by a self-appointed guardian of the world. Idealist’s live in large shinning ships that float high up in the water and then leave port with high hopes, usually under the loud hosannas and praise of the people they have blinked money out of to build the ship, steam out of the harbor and promptly sink beneath the waves.

It is my opinion that any group that spends its time counting 'misleading statements' and 'lies' by politicians is pathetic. Politicians are all liars and 5,000 years of recorded history is amble proof of this fact. Why spend time counting? Bush and company needed to go to war and they achieved there objective by a tried and true method. I think you are just jealous that they succeeded so well. And as you pointed out in the poll, Bush is still seen as an honest man - a stunning Victory for Bush. I am voting for him and I think you should too. It might stem your too earnest idealism.

Politics must be streamlined to what is practically achievable given the nature of the human species and a certain amount of fraud and roguery is inevitable to this end. Everyone practices it in this manner, whether on the right, left, center, and so on.

I was thinking of Dirrida and was smiling when I typed out my second point. But I submit that any group with a political agenda will bias their counts of ‘misleading statements’ high so as to pad the count. And misleading statement is a foggy notion and can be easily manipulated as to definition to again bias the count high. This is, I think, obvious. Not that it really matters, as you pointed out, the precise count is not all that important.

As to my wonderful fourth point if you did not understand it, could you at least not appreciate its gifted propagandist properties? You are a deft propagandist yourself and I think you should have a grudging admiration for ‘….the quixotic drivel of the pedantic lefties.’

I think Bush could lie even more and thus swindle more votes than Kerry and get reelected. Thus, he can up his propaganda to this end. He is still regarded as honest by the majority of the electorate as you so wonderfully pointed out. This means that he can push the envelope even further.


It is my opinion that you are a too earnest idealist. You expect too much of people, probably as much as you expect in yourself. This is just unrealistic and you are beating your head against a brick wall. Why you keep harping on the lies of Bush is a mystery to me. It is just a waste of your time in my opinion; you are not going to change anyone’s outlook on this board with your constant attacks along this line. Why not put effort into more important matters, such as the current quagmire in Iraq, the terrorist war without end, tax breaks for the rich (which I fully support), and other liberal selling points.


An Ideaist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will make better soup. - H. L. Mencken.

-Zeno

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, game theory will tell you that all the posturing has a nasty little way of leading to actual conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, game theory tells us that compromise is invariably the ultimate outcome.

[CORed]

The aspirin factory in Sudan was definitely a major screwup. But Clinton also sent cruise missiles to Afghanistan to try to get Osama Bin Laden. The only bad thing about that is that they missed. Clinton tried to retaliate for terrorist attacks on American embassies in Africa. You can certainly criticise his choice of targets in the case of the Sudan bombing, and you can make the case that he should have done more, but in my opinion the charge that he did it solely to draw attention away from the Lewinsky affair is shameful political slander.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
He took time off this last week and went up in the polls!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Kerry's best strategy would be to run no campaing at all. Every time he opens his mouth he loses votes. OTOH, the Bush administration is imploding to such a degree that it makes it unnecessary for Kerry to run a campaing at all.

[Cyrus]

"Even if the Russians weren't "better off" financially under Yeltsin, there is still a great deal to be said for not having to worry about whether the KGB or the GRU will be coming to take you away in the middle of the night."

That's right.

But, two sentences forward, you seem to forget what you wrote before and argue thus :

"What about the bread lines, etc. in the USSR? Life was not good there anyway."

Even if life was "good" (as defined my material abundancy, I guess), the point is that man does not live by bread alone. As you wrote but seem to forget when you want to argue something.

"I am arguing against fascism,; in this case, the fascism of Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime."

You cannot be arguing against fascism and, at the same time, arguing for arbitrary acts of military action that are justified only by the invocation of Divine Right and Knowing What's Good For You. That was the very definition of fascism, if you didn't know already.

So, one post, two contradictions. Are you honoring Reagan's memory by this?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
M: "Even if the Russians weren't "better off" financially under Yeltsin, there is still a great deal to be said for not having to worry about whether the KGB or the GRU will be coming to take you away in the middle of the night."

Cyrus: That's right. But, two sentences forward, you seem to forget what you wrote before and argue thus :

"What about the bread lines, etc. in the USSR? Life was not good there anyway."

Even if life was "good" (as defined my material abundancy, I guess), the point is that man does not live by bread alone. As you wrote but seem to forget when you want to argue something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er, Cyrus, the two points are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive. Why shouldn't I mention the bread lines, especially since I was not convinced by jokerswild's assertion that the Russians were not better off under Yeltsin, even financially?

[ QUOTE ]
M:"I am arguing against fascism,; in this case, the fascism of Saddam Hussein's sadistic regime."

Cyrus: You cannot be arguing against fascism and, at the same time, arguing for arbitrary acts of military action that are justified only by the invocation of Divine Right and Knowing What's Good For You. That was the very definition of fascism, if you didn't know already.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, if one is against fascism and totalitarianism, it follows that one is against such regimes. If such regimes cannot be removed peacably (and they usually can't, at least not in the foreseeable future), force may be required in order to bring freedom. By your reasoning, using force to overthrow the Nazis would have been out of bounds, apparently (except perhaps in self-defense). At least, under your logic, using force to overthrow the Nazis would itself be fascism. Sorry but I can't agree. Also, I don't think the invocation of Divine Right is required in order to correctly assert that totalitarian regimes which rule by force and terror are not good for the people.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Youre point being that if someone else has lied it is ok for you to lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I did not write that it was OK for me (or anyone else) to lie. ALL politicians lie - been that way since there's been politics.

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain how Clintons lies make Bush's lies Ok.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that Bush (or any of the other folks who said basically the same thing that Bush said about Saddam for the last decade, including Blair, the UN, etc.) really "lied". Bush relied on the same intelligence, blah, blah, blah, that Blair, the UN, and the rest of the earth knew about for a decade at least. If he was "wrong", that's one thing. To call him a "liar" when he was given bad information is a bit different.

We'll see...I imagine it's pretty easy to hide a few hundred gallons of anthrax in a country the size of California.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
To call him a "liar" when he was given bad information is a bit different.

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't been paying attention. Bush and his still-in-office subordinates lied because the statements they made weren't supported by the "bad information."

[jokerswild]

You are a fascist. Everybody knows this to be true. You might as well admit it.

Gorbachev is so popular that he finished last in public opinion pols.

The standard of living for the average Rusian has fallen the last 10 years. Just as many are imprisoned(though the USA imprisons more per capita). Putin is the new Tzar.

You believe that life is better for the average Russian becasue your Goebbels like hero, Limbaugh, tells you to believe it.

Your hatred of Islamic culture rivals the hatred of the Nazi's for Jews.

[jokerswild]

If you checked the poll results, 2/3 of the posters on this board plan to vote for Kerry.

Of course fascists like you favor giving the wealthy the Social Security trust fund. You and MMMMMMMMM would make a good couple.

[Cptkernow]

I still dont understand the relevance of refering to Clinton in this context.

Try again.

[ACPlayer]

Given -

1. The level of resources available to the President of the Free World
2. The supposed enormity and risks of any decision to go to war


The President of the US:

1. Either knew that there was little or no direct threat to the US, in the form of WMD, Al Qaeda. -OR-
2. Demonstrated extreme incompetence and recklessness in rushing to make the decision in the face of heavy opposition from many quarters

You take your pick.

[MMMMMM]

Again you seem to misunderstand greatly. Allow me to explain:

First, are you sure of your facts, that the standard of living has declined in Russia in the last ten years? If so, it is news to me, but I haven't kept up on such things, so you might be right.

Standard of living, anyway, is not the most important measure of desirability of a lifestyle or society. Freedom trumps standard of living. If you would prefer to be a well-fed dog in the pound, rather than a wolf ranging the Canadian wilds and sometimes going hungry, then I can see your point. If you would prefer to be wild and free then perhaps you might reconsider what you are suggesting.

I don't listen to Limbaugh; I've only heard him a few times; I get my news from multiple sites on the internet.

I don't hate everything about Islamic culture. Some aspects, such as a love for poetry, and a sense aesthetic sense. I only hate those aspects of Islamic culture which: 1) oppress women 2) oppress non-Muslims 3) are incompatible with democracy and lead to totalitarianism 4) are aggressively expansive in a warlike manner, and which seek to subjugate or eliminate everything which is not Islamic.

My opposition and hatred for such things stems from a deep-seated revulsion of tyranny. Yet I am worldly enough to know that sometimes the evils of tyranny can only be resisted through the use of force.

If Islam was not aggressively expansionist, and did not seek to place itself above all other religions and cultures, and did not oppress women and non-Muslims, then I would have no problem with it. My complaints about Islam are specifically related to those areas, and are in keeping with my revulsion for anything which is totalitarian or fascist. Identifying and resisting totalitarianism is not itself fascism, and is actually necessary in order to maintain freedom.

[Chris Alger]

You're going to vote for someone who's explanations about what he's doing and why he's doing it are meaningless because he can't be trusted to utter any semblance of truth. Since you don't dispute Bush's propensity to lie, this means one of two things: (1) you are an irrationalist who votes for no reason or (2) you believe you have a special bond with Bush, like a fetishistic compulsion to worship the top dog, or some mystical belief that Bush speaks truthfully to you and falsely to others, perhaps on some sort of special frequency.

[ QUOTE ]
It is my opinion that you are a too earnest idealist.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm a pragmatist. If a politician asks for my support with sentences that can't be reconciled with my experience, no apparent bearing on "reality," I tend to oppose them. This doens't amount to "beating my head against a brick wall" or "wasting time," but just the opposite. Why waste time standing in line to vote for someone who refuses to communicate with you on any rational level? Why beat one's head against a brick wall searching for an exculpatory reason to support them, like you do?

[MMMMMM]

"You're going to vote for someone who's explanations about what he's doing and why he's doing it are meaningless because he can't be trusted to utter any semblance of truth."

Problem is, Chris, very few politicians are truly honest. Are you suggesting that your quote above does not also apply fairly well to Kerry?

I would guess of all the candidates, Nader is probably the most honest or only honest one. Maybe the LP candidate is too; I don't know, haven't read up on him. Honesty, however, isn't the only criteria for ability to lead effectively and productively, and if we wait for a truly honest candidate, we may be waiting a very long time indeed.

[CORed]

I think Bush may well have believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, he cited the Niger uranium deal in the runup to the war in spite of the fact that the CIA had informed him it was bogus. That, IMO qualifies as a lie.

[Chris Alger]

You're either joking, writing without thinking, or have no concept of ethical responsibility. One doesn't excuse a clear violation of the public trust, one of which much of the public is unaware, on the grounds that "very few politicians are truly honest." It's as silly as excusing fraud or robbery because so few people are saints.

In fact, anyone can postulate some metaphysically highest standard of conduct ("true honesty"), point out that hardly anyone meets this standard, and then use it as grounds to overlook every ethical lapse. It's silly and self-contradictory because it uses the presumption that ethical standards have value as grounds to ignore ethical standards entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
Honesty, however, isn't the only criteria for ability to lead effectively and productively

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it's the "only" criteria (Zeno thinks it's no criteria at all), but some minimal level of honesty is an absolute prerequisite in any political system based on consent of the governed. In such systems, "effective and productive" leadership implies (1) that policy bears some relation to public preference and (2) that leaders' statements concerning what they're doing and why they're doing it make sense, that instead of putting leaders in a box for four years and never inquiring about what they're up to, that we can communicate with them in some fundamentally rational way. If you ignore the popular component of "effective and productive," you can substitue all manner of non-atrocities for "honesty" in your sentense -- willingness to tolerate elections, abeyance from imposing martial law, refraining from building death damps -- to highlight its meaninglessness.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I'm actually not joking. First of all I'm still not completely convinced that Bush actually lied or violated his entrusted duties.

Second, I have in the past suggested that a clever tricky President might better serve our country when it comes to dealing with even more roguish foreign powers. I once defended Nixon in this regard to some extent, calling his crafty dishonesty a peculiar strength when it came to dealing with a formidable and devious adversary like the USSR. Call me a bit of a paranoiac if you will regarding our overseas enemies, but I think I'm just being realistic. I believe our foreign enemies have to be dealt with from a position of strength and not be trusted, and that we have to "get inside their heads" and see how they are planning to do us ill or benefit at our expense--because they often are scheming to do just that. As the saying goes, it takes a thief to catch a thief, and I think it takes a fox to sniff out a fox's plans against us (note: I'm not trying to say Bush is a fox).

Yes, I'd rather have an honest Abe--but only if he is also a crafty honest Abe, who will also be sure to look out for our interests--and there just aren't too many of those around, especially in politics. So I'm more or less resigned to voting for whomever I see as the least of all evils. Honesty is one quality amongst many.

[Zeno]

Chris,

I think that I am as much a pragmatist as you are; I just come at it from a different angle than you do.

Your statement that I am voting for Bush as an either/or stance is, in my opinion, misguided. But I do not wax personal very much on political issues so I understand why you said what you did. I, for the most part, stay away from most of the political posts. I read a few but mostly I ignore then. I usually find no real interest in them except as entertainment.

To wax a bit personal, after the Mondale/Reagan election I simply stopped voting for many years. I remember going into the voting booth after studying all the political issues and feeling extremely empty - Reagan or Mondale I thought. Is this what Democracy has come to? This is a choice - An ignoramus or a bleating goat with no backbone and no character, except for what was made up for him by others so he could garner enough votes to win. I never even marked the ballot for the presidential choice. I voted on all the other issues and candidates and then left. I did not vote again until Uncle Billy Bob Clinton lurched onto the scene and then only because of the prodding of my wife, who I have since booted out of my life.

I am a misanthrope plain and simple and almost apolitical.

I can assure you I have no fetish for Bush. He is a simple-minded man that sees things in either/or terms -something similar to the way you postulated about my reasons for voting for him.

I will vote for Bush. I have my reasons. I do not feel compelled to state why or think I have any required need to expound on the subject. I will no more evangelize someone to vote for candidate A or B (unless I wish to poke a fun jab at them) than I would go door to door handing out tracks for the latest fashionable New Wave God, Mullah, or Shaman out to bilk the public.

Bush & Co. spew out some misleading comments and a few lies; I do not think the amount of blather that has come out all that major or different from what I have listen to my entire life from such people - from the mayor of some Podunk town to the top dog on the heap. I find it entertaining – like going to the Circus. Perhaps this is a character flaw (I think I stated this in a pervious post long ago).

You take politics very seriously, and are very involved and passionate about your convictions in this area, and make many posts and points, almost all about political issues. You obviously despise the war and are working hard to have Bush & Co. removed from the political scene as soon as possible. I wish you Best of luck on your endeavor. You, usually, do a very admirable job of pointing out important issues that people should think about.

I am just not that interested. If I were a wiser man, I would never have involved myself with this thread.

And that is about as personal as will every let myself be on this forum and have no wish to say anything more. I would rather be reading another book than making this post anyway. No more politics for me.

Best regards,

-Zeno