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

[CORed]

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.

[andyfox]

"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.

[adios]

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.

[jt1]

[ 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.

[Autocratic]

[ 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."

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?

[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.

[bholdr]

"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.