If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

Excerpted from this link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST


San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002



[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, these two comments came after Bush's state of the Union address where he cited the Nigerian document.


Here is an honest question: If Bush or Rummy or Cheney knew that the Nigerian document was most likely false or very well could be false and still allowed the President to cite it in his address, would you consider that a lie?

The other concern I have with Bush's credibility are his claims that Al Quaida and Saddam were working together. We now know those claims to have been false: If the administration knew before the war that those claims were most likely false or very well could be false, would you consider that to be a lie?

We all have to ask ourselves, what would I consider a lie? And if at some point in this process, it turns out that the prerequisites for us are met, then we have no choice but to ally ourselves with the Bush detractors.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

Bush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

There is a difference between believing that Saddam could be a potential threat if left unchecked and launching an all-out preemptive war. This article describes the dilemma the Democrats were in:

[ QUOTE ]
A few times. … It was a very hard vote, because he could see the arguments, both directions, as to whether you vote yes or no on the resolution.

He would have preferred, like a lot of other people, the resolution that Joe Biden and Richard Lugar had come up with, which would have slowed the rush to war while putting the authority behind the president to get U.N. inspectors back in, to make sure Saddam Hussein couldn't use WMD. That was the point of the resolution.

The Bush administration wanted something more than that. They wanted something without any strings attached, so they could just go to war. John was [not] comfortable with it. Democrats were not comfortable with that, because they didn't want Bush just going to war unilaterally. They felt that was risky. John definitely was unhappy with that, and expressed it.

He'd been boxed. The Bush administration had chosen to box him and all the other Senate Democrats. "You either vote with us, in which case, you're responsible for it, too -- and we're going to do whatever the heck we please -- or you vote against us, and allow Saddam Hussein to be not held accountable. The president's position will be weakened, the United States' authority will be weaker in dealing with the rest of the world, and you not having stood up for American strength." …

The vote was designed to be an impossible vote for someone like John Kerry. That's why the Bush administration insisted on making the vote that way. It's a vote either to support the president, or undermine the president as the president's trying to deal with weapons of mass destruction that may be in the hands of an evil dictator.

John Kerry was not going to vote to undermine the president when the president was being directed to go the U.N. Remember, President Bush didn't even want to go to the U.N. There was a question of even going back to the U.N. to get inspectors back in. So it was a way of pushing it in the right direction, and hoping that the Bush administration would then do the right thing.

You're not given the choice of being 100 percent on these issues. You're not given the choice of doing exactly the way you would want to do it, when you're a senator. … As a senator, you're often forced to vote between two very difficult propositions, neither of which may be attractive. This vote was designed to be as unattractive, ugly, unpleasant, difficult, horrible, and damaging as possible by the Bush administration for Democrats, and in particular, any Democrat running for president. That was the point. That was the intention. It was designed to be a wedge vote, separating a John Kerry, for instance, from his natural constituents. …


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...erry/iraq.html

North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq. China is a threat. Iran is a threat. There is no way we can afford to launch a full-scale war against all of those countries. Nor would it be prudent.

The fact of the matter is that Bush undermined the credibility of the U.N. inspectors who reported that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Then the Bush administration backed the Democrats into a corner with a no-win vote. It was a slick poltical move, but it's cost this country hundreds of billions that could have been used to fight real terrorists, in addition to costing thousands of American soldiers their lives. The fact is that the President put the interests of the big oil companies who had sponsored his presidency above the interests of the American people and American security.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

Although I don't believe that is a correct ananlysis of the situation, and that comparisons with other threats whom we can't as easily deal with is pointless when dealing with one we can, do you agree that if your analysis is correct that the Democrats also lied/are complicit based on the above quotes? And if you maintain that Bush "backed them into a corner", doesn't that just mean they put political considerations over doing what was right?

Your bluff is dead in the water
 

Nice try, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, sorry.

What you haven take the trouble to quote is posturing and politicking --nowhere is there a call to invade and wage war. The fact is that the Democrats have been urging co-operation with other allies (Britain is not a serious ally, it's more like a butler to the U.S.) and use of the services of the United Nations.

The fact is that, as so many prominent (and hawkish) Democrats and Republicans (e.g. Kissinger) have maintained, it was very dubious if Saddam Hussein's Iraq constituted and clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Those people suggested that if that were the case, the president should attack and invade with haste and without consulting anyone! But they did seriously doubt the picture of a dangerous and threatening Iraq that was painted by the pro-Israeli, neo-conservative administration of Dubya. These people were arguing that, if the invasion had other objectives, besides security, it should be carried out following intense and consistent diplomatic efforts. That did not happen.

Even if Iraq was, at some point in time, "dangerous", that threat had been for all practical purposes nullified through a regime of severe sanctions, on-the-ground inspections, air & land monitoring and the implementation of no-fly zones. This system was working and the U.S. had no reason to go overboard -- as the various anti-war (but hawkish) factions maintained and as subsequent events proved.

Attempts to turn this around and present a different picture are a bunch of bluffs.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

I find it almost unbelievable that some people don't see through this kind of shameless propaganda... the quotes that are used, out of context, DON'T EVEN SAY what the writer tries to trick you into thinking they do... It's an irresponsible, dishonest hack job...

Here:


[ QUOTE ]
In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.



"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

[/ QUOTE ]

The writer wants to prove the president's innocence by proposing that if bush's specific claims about WMDs were lies, then ALL claims about WMDs in iraq are categoriclly lies... including, appearently, those cited by clinton in a seven year old speech. PROOF!

G'huh?

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between Clinton's citation of a years-old iraqi admission of previous WMD capabilities, and Bush's appearently willing lies; Statements that he KNEW to be untrue when he made them. These claims were made with the intent of convincing the public and the congress to support a war of aggression that they would not had Bush been honest.

Now, I'm not completly convinced that Bush deliberatly lied... though i'm quite sure that the way the administration convinced the public and the government (and out few allies) to support his dirty little war was deceptive, misleading, immoral, reckless, and shameful. read on for more of the same from the right:

[ QUOTE ]
"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002



Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.



"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

okay... wow. In this passage, we're supposed to believe that, somehow,

IIIIF bush was lying about, oh, i don't know, specific evidence of an african uranium connection in his state of the union address,

THEEEEN Harry Reid MUST have been lying too, when made some genralizations about iraq pre-war...

as for Ms Clinton's selection... it's so stunningly out of context that i really don't know where to start.... geez... she doesn't even SAY that there are WMDs in Iraq! Even if the poster's absurd 'if bush lied then they all lied' line of reasoning made sense (it doesn't), this quote wouldn't even remotly apply. maybe hilliary HAS said that she thought iraq had WMDs, but she doesn't here... why does the poster want us to believe that she does?


But you know what? I'm not really suprised. After all, the poster uses the same shady tactics that W himself used when he was banging that drum- selective use of intelligence (quotes out of context), fixing the evidence around the policy (claiming that target is saying something clearly not contained in the material), and eagerly accepting ideology as reality... chucking reason out the window in favor of their absurd hubris. WAKE UP!

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts.

I agree
 

But not bewcause of some outdated quotes you give below. But because the Dems who probably smelled something fishy didn't have the guts to question bush prior to the invasion of iraq. They were all supposed to get "intel", "proof" of WMD's. Colin Powell was going tho show all of us irrefutable evidence of WMDs. The proof never came. Why? Because it didn't exist. And the Dems, instead of standing their ground and demanding that they were shown the proof ( a la kennedy with the famous pics of soviet rocket launchers in cuba), folded like a bunch of sissies so they could look "tough on defense". Shame on them.

[ QUOTE ]
Excerpted from this link.

Jonathan Gurwitz: Opponents say Bush lied; read between the lines

Web Posted: 11/13/2005 12:00 AM CST


San Antonio Express-News

Opponents of President Bush routinely invoke the incantation that he lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to take the nation to war.

"Urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
— Text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, Jan. 28, 1998, co-sponsored by Democrats Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Max Cleland, John Kerry and Robert Byrd, among others

In doing so, they conveniently overlook the fact that if Bush lied, a long list of liberal icons have also been lying for a very long time, some from before the time he arrived in the Oval Office.

"(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability — notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
— Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, Feb. 17, 1998

Of course, it's not the continuity of intelligence findings and Bush's reliance on them that his detractors find objectionable. It's what he did in response.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
— Press release from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Dec. 16, 1998

Clinton fired cruise missiles and put his faith in what we now know was a corrupt and ineffectual U.N. sanctions regime in a fruitless effort to keep Saddam in a box.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
— From an address by Al Gore to the Commonwealth Club of California, Sept. 23, 2002

In fairness to Clinton, there was no consensus in American politics to initiate major military operations against the Baathist regime or other state sponsors of international terror before Sept. 11, 2001. There was barely such a consensus afterward.

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last four years ... he has continued to build those weapons."
— Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, Oct. 9, 2002

But the central issue of the presidential election one year ago was Iraq: why we are there, how we got there and whether Bush misled the nation.

"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."
— Floor statement of Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Oct. 10, 2002

Having lost that election — in effect, a plebiscite on what Bush did about the intelligence information he, his predecessors and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate agreed upon — Bush opponents are left banging their heads against a wall, repeating the meaningless mantra, "Bush lied."

"Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction."
— Statement from the Web site of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, dated 2002

Only the blindly partisan, the ignorant and the gullible can subscribe to the belief that Bush — and, somehow, Bush alone — lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

"I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors, but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York at a Jan. 22, 2003, press conference

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
 

Bush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

I believed the president and was for the war. I thought I had no reason not to believe him. Then, after the war took place, I found out the truth about the so called "intelligence" like the rest of the country, including the democrats in congress who didnt have any where near the access to the intelligence that bush had and were relying on his word just like me. Turns out, if I had known what I do now about the intel, I wouldnt have been for the invasion... not even close. This does not make me either a lier or a hipocrit. It only means that I trusted the leader of our country not to lie or "stretch" the facts to start a WAR, and that I was wrong in doing so.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

Here is a quote from McCain, who I think most people believe to be honest. In fact McCain in general has been rather critical of the conduct of the Iraq war. On the subject of intel, here is what McCain had to say on Face the Nation.

[ QUOTE ]
SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take that FWIW.

No, They Weren\'t
 

The Dems/Libs were just accepting what they saw and wanted to see because they know they're susceptible to being painted as too soft on foreign policy issues. But consider:

-Bush said that if we don't act, we'd see a mushroom cloud. The Dems didn't use this scare tactic.


-Bush said we found the WMDs. He was referring to the mobile weapons labs, which, had they been labs, would have been labs, not weapons. Turns out they were trucks which contained equipmentto make hydrogen for weather balloons.

-Bush told an adviser to look for evidence of Hussein's complicity in 9/11.

-Bush administration officials were prepared to use 9/11 as a pretext for invasion regardless of what the evidence showed as to who was actually responsible for 9/11.

-Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with a briefcase full of misinformation.

-The Senate Intelligence Committee released its initial findings on prewar integlligence in July 2005. The committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts, promised that a Phase 2 to determine whether the White House had misled the public would arrive after the presidential election. It still hasn't. Murray Waas reported in the National Journal on that Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby had refused to provide the committee with crucial documents, including Scooter Libby-written pasages from early drafts of Colin Powell's presentation of WMD evidence to the U.N.

-Vice President Cheney, early on, said that American troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. Last summer, he said the insurgency was in its last throes.

-In December, 2001, Cheney, on "Meet the Press" said "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link betwen Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When that link was later disproved, Cheney was confronted about his Meet the Press remark by Gloria Borger on CNBC. Three times Cheney told her that he never said it.

-In October, the president announced the foiling of ten Al Qaeda plots. USA Today reported that at least six of the ten "involved preliminary ideas about potential attacks, not terrorist operations that were about to be carried out."

-In June, President Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects" and that "more than half" of those had been convicted. The Washington Post found that only 39 of these convictions had involved terrorism or national security.

-Keith Olbermann recently compiled 13 "coincidences" in which "a political downturn for the administration is followed by a 'terror event'--a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning." For example, in 2002, during the fallout from the televised testimony of FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley, John Ashcroft broadcast via satellite from Russia that the government had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot" to explode a dirty bomb. What he was actually referring to was the arrest of one person, Jose Padilla, for allegedly exploring such a plan. The arrest had taken place one month earlier.

The Dems might have taken the politically expedient path to war; they might now also be taking what they see as the politically expedient path to electoral success in 2006 and 2008. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but there is very little shame in a politician.

But the Bush admimistration has lied and spun and distorted and misled every step of the way. I don't find this particularly remarkable. What administration of any political stripe in any country hasn't done this when going to war? What is more remarkable is that people are claiming it ain't so.

Re: No, They Weren\'t
 

Also, let's not forget Bush's duplicity in keeping on a member of his staff who outed a covert CIA agent. This administration is very strong on terror issues unless it is not politically expedient.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

"I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no."

The two official investigations, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and by the commission co-chaired by Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, determined that analysts were not pressured, CIA and other U.S. intelligence professionals find that laughable -- especially the idea that analysts would answer in the affirmative when asked by commissioners or senators if they had been pressured.

W. Patrick Lang, formerly head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section, said, "The senior guys got together and said, 'You guys weren't pressured, right? Right?'"

32 year CIA veteran Richard Kerr, brought out of retirement to lead an investigation of the agency's failures on Iraq WMD was even more blunt about the pressure brought to bear by the Bush administration. In a series of five reports, Kerr found that CIA analysts felt squeezed -- and hard -- by the administration." Kerr bluntly stated that the squeeze came from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration:

"Everybody felt pressure. A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions…I talked to a lot of people who said, 'There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.' There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had…"It was a continuing drumbeat: 'how do you know this? How do you know that? What about this or that report in the newspaper?'"

Michael Scheuer, the former CIA agent who gained prominence with his 2004 anonymous book, Imperial Hubris, backs Kerr's assessment. Scheuer noted the dissent within the CIA over the claims made in the controversial October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document critical in the march to war. "I know a lot of people in the Iraq shop who were dissenting," he said. "There were people who were disciplined or taken off accounts. There was a great deal of dissent about that [NIE]. No one thought it was conclusive. One gentleman that I talked to, a senior Iraq analyst, regrets to this day that he did not go public."

FWIW.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an honest question: If Bush or Rummy or Cheney knew that the Nigerian document was most likely false or very well could be false and still allowed the President to cite it in his address, would you consider that a lie?

The other concern I have with Bush's credibility are his claims that Al Quaida and Saddam were working together. We now know those claims to have been false: If the administration knew before the war that those claims were most likely false or very well could be false, would you consider that to be a lie?


[/ QUOTE ]

Answer the questions, BluffThis. They are very relevant to what we are trying to do here. I imagine we're trying to find out if we are on Bush's side or not.

The \"Libs\" sere not liars but cowards
 

Kerry, Lieberman, et. al stuck their fingers in the wind, looked at Bush's then impressive approval ratings in the polls, and said "This idiot wants to get us into an unnecessary war, but if we oppose him, everybody will think we're soft on terrorism and we'll lose votes.", so they went along with him. Good job Democrats.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
ush worked with the best though imperfect intel and advice that he had and believed that we couldn't run the risk of Saddam acquiring WMD's no matter how low the probability might have been. And the quotes above clearly show that the Democrats believed the same and are now hypocrites and the actual liars if they claim Bush lied.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point.
The point is 1) did the President or his advisors know that the nigerian document was likely a forgery before the State of the Union address? 2) Did the President know that no connection existed between Al quaida and Saddam while he was inferring that there was one.

These are the questions that the Dems and everyone else should be asking. Any other points or conjectures regarding the matter are irrelevant.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

I don't really care whether Bush &Co. lied about WMD, or were so inept that they believed their own propaganda. I think it's a little bit of both. I think they had their own reasons for wanting to invade Iraq (helping Israel? stabilizing the Middle East? Oil?), and saw 9/11 as an opportunity to push that agenda. I think they took some questionable intelligence data, convinced themselves that it was valid, and figured it was good enough to use to sell the UN and the public on the war. They failed with the UN, but not, to begin with, Congress and the public. I think the decision to go to war was wrong. I think their failure to understand the true nature of what they were getting into and prepare adequately to win the war was inexcusable. They make the Johnson adminstration's Vietnam policy look brilliant.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush once said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

President Bush often mentioned Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein's Iraq in his press conferences and televised speeches, often in the same breath. He never pinned blame for the attacks directly on Hussein. But the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persisted among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. Polls in 2003 showed that 45 percent of Americans believed Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11.

Yet right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of 2003, miraculously, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

Polls also showed a strong correlation between those who saw the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who supported going to war in Iraq.

Later on, polls showed that three out of four Americans said that if Iraq did not have WMDs or suppport Al Qaeda, we shouldn't have gone to war.

So what are we to make of this? The conclusion is inescapable that the administration sought to foster a climate of opinion that would support its goal, a goal which prominent members of the administration had voiced publicly long before the 2000 election, and which was the subject of its very first national security meetings, of overthrowing the Hussein regime. 9/11 provided the pretext and an association between Hussein and Al Qaeda had to be played up, as did Hussein's WMDs.

SOP. It should come as no surprise.

Code Red
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry, Lieberman, et. al stuck their fingers in the wind, looked at Bush's then impressive approval ratings in the polls, and said "This idiot wants to get us into an unnecessary war, but if we oppose him, everybody will think we're soft on terrorism and we'll lose votes.", so they went along with him. Good job Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post-9/11 the Americans rallied behind their leadership as one. It was natural. They would have rallied behind Winnie the Pooh if it were prez. There was clearly no way to undo that -- and certainly not through an act that resembles treason!

The president's popularity did not indicate an "approval" about how he was handling things (they hit the Towers on his watch for pete's sakes) but rather a mandate for him to take action as appropriate in order to defend America.

You can't fool all the people all the time. Initially even that "adventure" against Eye-rak seemed the right thing to do - and the people were approving. (Hell, a lot of 'em still think we found WMDs and that Saddam was behind 9/11!)

Soon people saw things different. And so, Dubya's numbers are now in the basement. As appropriate.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts."

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] are you for real?


ummm... okay, one time:

the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion.

get it?

the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense.

c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable.



[/ QUOTE ]

The debate is whether the Dems lied to us and/or whether Bush lied to us. I don't think the Dems lied to us: They don't have the motive. Nor am I positive that Bush lied to us. He may have just been duped by poor intelligence. Nonetheless, for the sake of precedence, 2 questions need to be asked.

1) Did anyone within the administration know that the Nigerian document was plausibly a forgery? And if so who?

2) Did anyone within the administration know or strongly doubt that there was no link between Al Qaida and Saddam? And if so who?


As I re-read your post, I am forced to reconsider. The Dems have the same access to the CIA and other intelligence sources as Bush. A diligent Senator can get just as much info as can Bush. So why didn't they? Perhaps, other questions need to be asked.

1) DId the Senate minority leader seek CIA confirmation that the Nigerian Document was valid? And if no then why not? And if he did, what did he find out and from whom? Should he have dug deeper, etc, etc?

2) Did the Senate minority leader seek CIA confirmation that Al Qaida and Saddam were in cahoots? And if no then why not? etc, etc.


I want to know who knew what and when did he know it. And if he didn't know it then why. The OP has a good point, as do you. And, after re-considering, I am left wondering how can incompetence check incompetence? Is there no one to blame but ourselves? Or were all the false implications just an honest mistake.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted the joint resolution passed by Congress authorizing military action by Bush. In that resolution it is stated that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein. May or may not be true but the Democrats in Congress can hardly say that they were duped by Bush unless they think the voting public are total idiots. The Dems in Congress are just as accountable for their actions as Bush is for his. I also note that a significant number of Democrats voted against authorizing military action in Iraq while the same can't be said about the Republicans. But from all we know about the Democrats in Congress from their statements in Congress prior to the Iraq War, they basically believed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to develop nuclear weapons. Playing polictics is no excuse for not being accountable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that most Democrats thought Hussein was a threat, and thus passed the resolution. However, anyone who knows anything about Washington would know that lines such as that connecting Hussein and al Qaeda can easily be placed into the wording of a resolution for political purposes, as it was ensured that those who supported the war would sign it anyway.

And to jt1, I quote Ken Pollack, who supported the invasion:
"Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government--and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility."

Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
 

I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again.

Article by Norman Padhoretz

Also, Cyrus, there is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel. I don't know why you would mention that in your argument.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

"A diligent Senator can get just as much info as can Bush."

I heard somebody on NBC Nightly News tonight say only about 5 senators actually read the CIA intellgence report. That sounds about right.

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

Stop believing that there's a major difference between the powers in either party. It will all make sense then.

At the highest level, Democrats and Republicans are globalists, statists, who are all too willing to take our freedom.

Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again.

Article by Norman Padhoretz

Also, Cyrus, there is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel. I don't know why you would mention that in your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, I second this request for your theory of going to Iraq for Israel. Sure I suppose we've enhanced their security, but do we really think Saddam kept them up nights? Whats in it for the administration if a major reason was to help Israel? I had thought we might (finally)drift away from Israel as the oil market tightens.

Re: Your bluff is dead in the water
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure I suppose we've enhanced their security, but do we really think Saddam kept them up nights?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you know he paid palestinian suicide bombers' families $25,000 for their little martyrs to blow themselves up? Not exactly a comforting feeling...

Re: If Bush Was A Liar On Iraq Then So Were the Libs
 

[ QUOTE ]
"You are making claims of quotes being taken out of context. It is up to you then to prove that is the case by providing the context which clearly shows this or it is you who is shamelessly politking without regard to the facts."

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] are you for real?


ummm... okay, one time:

the quote cited, by mrs clinton, began with "...the PROSPECT of..." (wmd in iraq). you're (nonsenseical) reasoning holds that that quote must have been a lie if bush lied about WMD in iraq... yet, mrs clinton's quote isn't even a statement of fact... that is, not subject to being considered truthful or a lie in the same manner as bush's appearent falsehoods are; it's a statement of opinion.

get it?

the evidence you use to support your bizzare line of reasoning WOULDN'T apply EVEN IF your argument made sense.

c'mon now... at this point, i'm not even talking about what's-what politically or if anyone lied or not: I'm just pointing out that the argument you presented is patently illogical, and offers no sensible or applicable evidence to support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You gave ONE supposed example of an out of context quote without citing the source or the entire paragraph. And if the rest of the quotes are legit then the arguement in the article I quoted makes perfect sense. Denying it without proof to the contrary won't make your view so.

Cherchez le beneficiary
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this article in another thread and Ill post it again. Article by Norman Padhoretz

[/ QUOTE ]

Please! The last thing I needed this morning was to be hit with a Podhoretz thumb-sucker. The man was a neo-con before anyone else was a neo-con.

Ex-leftists become right-wingers with such zeal, it is positively scary! I call it the Janissar Syndrome.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence whatsoever that this war was started because of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not claim it was started by Israel. I sumbitted that the country that benefited the most, by far, from the invasion of Iraq, was Israel.

And I noted that the current administration, since taking over in 2000, has been obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein! Even before 9/11. When Clinton's outgoing guys from intelligence and law enforcement were briefing the incoming Republican appointees about bin Laden, the Muslims, al Qaeda, etc, the Bushites' eyes were glazing over with indifference! There are records that have the guys flat out disputing and ridiculing the notion that those rag-tag camel jockeys were a serious threat, or a threat at all, give or take a couple of hits at an embassy abroad or on a military ship, is all. Everything was Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, with the new crowd.

It is the same administration that has been hailed by the Israeli leadership as "the best friends" that Jerusalem could possibly have in Washington.

...You guys who support the war and spend hours here trying to justify it, by all sorts of (desperate) reasoning, I'm sure that when alone and make an honest tally, and you assess the situation for yourselves, you can see all too clearly that this has been one goddamn royal snafu. It did not help the fight against terrorism. It helped other things -- but certainly not the war on terror.

The Green Zone
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did you know [Saddam hussein] paid Palestinian suicide bombers' families $25,000 for their little martyrs to blow themselves up?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are distorting what happened.

It's one thing to promote suicide bombing by promising to whomever will blow himself up that his family will be compensated for --- and quite another thing to simply take care of a family after the event, as a myriad of charities throughout the Arab world, secular and religious did, and as they did with millions of destitute people. By your logic, the charities that take care of prisoners' destitute families in the US, are promoting crime.

The truth is that Saddm Hussein's Iraq was never part of an anti-American terrorist act, that anti-American terrorists were deported out of the country (when not "eliminated"), that islamic fundamentalists were routinely jailed, tortured and killed by the Iraqi authorities and that the door was slammed on every approach that al Qaeda made to the regime. America's war on terror has been irrelevant to the war in Iraq.

But, yes, Israel feared Iraq, most definitely. Not that Iraq posed a serious threat to Israel (not being even a frontier state) but it certainly could become one.

Where do you think those Weapons of Mass Destruction, that some Arab nations tried to acquire, were to be used? To negotiate better prices for crude oil? To fight against each other? To threaten Peru?

Re: The Green Zone
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to promote suicide bombing by promising to whomever will blow himself up that his family will be compensated for --- and quite another thing to simply take care of a family after the event

[/ QUOTE ]

GET A FRIGGIN GRIP! They are the SAME thing once potential bombers know that will happen.

Horse and cart
 

It is astonishing how, after all this time, and after so much "experience" with suicide bombers and religious fundamnentalists, there is so much misunderstanding and ignorance about their motives, their way of thinking and how to deal with 'em, in general.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to promote suicide bombing by promising to whomever will blow himself up that his family will be compensated for --- and quite another thing to simply take care of a family after the event

[/ QUOTE ]

They are the SAME thing once potential bombers know that will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, the crucial question for a potential suicidal guy, someone who is not so sure if he wants to blow himself up, is what will happen to his family afterwards?

And that fellow knows that the Red Cross or the Red Crescent or the U.N., that someone eventually WILL take care of his family, then this makes him pull the trigger ??

Alright. Then I suppose the thing to do is to forbid anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers!

Or, even better, to punish all the surviving family! How about that?

Re: Cherchez le beneficiary
 

Did you actually read the Padhoretz article? Forget for a second your bias against neo-cons and just read the article. It basically says that a multitude of intelligence organizations supported the belief that Iraq possessed WMDs. Just read it and address the points brought up in the article and not the fact that it was written by a neo-con (which in my mind isnt a bad thing)

Also, when you bring up the pro-Israel faction in the administration and the connection to the Iraq war, there is no other way to take it except that you believe that the admin. acts on foreign policy based on what is good for Israel and not the US, which is complete insanity. I also think that you come down on the Bush admin. for being too allied with Israel (which in my opinion is a great thing) but fail to acknowledge the extremely close relationship the US has had with Israel through many other administrations, Democrat and Republican. Clinton has repeatedly called Israel "America's best ally"

\"Covert\" CIA Agents
 

Also, let's not forget Bush's duplicity in keeping on a member of his staff who outed a covert CIA agent.
************************************************** *******
*You mean a "covert" agent that even the press knew she was a CIA agent (NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who works for Tim Russert, Oct 3, 2003).
*You mean a "covert" agent who sends her hubby to Niger for a mission his has no qualifications for.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent who values her covert status so much that they don't require her hubby to sign a confidentially agreement for this "secret" mission.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent who hubby values her covert status so much that they he writes an Op-Ed for millions of Americans to draw attention to his "secret" mission to Niger.
*You mean a "covert" CIA agent that Patrick Fitzgerald could not even find enough evidence to indict anyone for outing her.

LOL. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" she was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview on CNBC's "Captial Report."

Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Re: Horse and cart
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Then I suppose the thing to do is to forbid anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers!

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be wrong with that as a deterrent to those who would kill civilians?

[ QUOTE ]
Or, even better, to punish all the surviving family! How about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel uses bulldozers to do that.

Re: Horse and cart
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Then I suppose the thing to do is to forbid anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers!

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be wrong with that as a deterrent to those who would kill civilians?


[/ QUOTE ]

As was said, it won't work.

Applying Liberal Logic on WMD to Jimmy Hoffa
 

We can't find Jimmy Hoffa so therefore he never existed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cart and horse
 

[ QUOTE ]
What would be wrong with that [i.e. forbidding anyone from helping the families of suicide bombers] as a deterrent to those who would kill civilians?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only the Nazis and the Soviets legislated collective punishment. They were hauling in jail the families of anyone who was deemed a threat to the regime.

Imposing collective punishment on people who have nothing to do with a crime (and everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, if we truly believe that our society is better) takes us to an extremely dangerous path.

What next? Rounding up and shooting hostages?

[ QUOTE ]
Israel uses bulldozers to do that [i.e. punish all the surviving family].

[/ QUOTE ]Then Israel is wrong.

Both morally (see above), where Israel imitates the Jews' worst enemies ever in yet one more tactic, and strategically, in that such acts foment even more resentment among the civilians and result in more recruitments by the terrorists.

Of course, that would assume that Israel does not want terrorism to continue, does not want to see the ranks of extremists swelling, and would rather negotiate with a moderate Palestinian leadership the prospects of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hmmm...