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.

[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.

[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.

[elscorcho768]

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.

[twowords]

[ 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.

[Cyrus]

[ 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.

[jt1]

[ 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.

[jt1]

[ 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.