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

[BluffTHIS!]

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

[jt1]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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?

[Cyrus]

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.

[bholdr]

[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!

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[hetron]

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 ]

[frizzfreeling]

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.