I don't think Bush lied to get us into a war with Iraq. It doesn't make sense. Sure some of you will say it's all about oil and Halliburton but to be honest that's as much of a talking point as anything that's been said by conservatives in this thread (possibly more as the "talking point" from the republicans is a published report). The same people who blame Bush for only believing some intelligence are the same ones who criticize him for not acting on "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." I think George Bush felt Saddam was a threat to the US (which I also believe but maybe not to the degree of imminency that others did). He acted on this by taking certain intelligence into account. It's not so much a case of him failing to take other intelligence into account as it is Bush acted on any intelligence that said Saddam had WMD's. Think about it like this. There's a drink on the table in front of you. 5 people tell you it's poisoned and 2 people say it has no harmful contents. What would you do? Most likely you would stay away from the drink based on the possibility of dangerous contents even though there are reports that the original "intelligence" may not be the case. You're not ignoring the people who tell you it's not poisoned. You're simply basing your opinion on worst case scenario. I believe that's what happened here. It's a case of "better safe than sorry."
Unfortunately the PDB and NIE are not the end all and be all of intelligence since we know as a fact now that they were wrong. Also even then though there was other intel out there that de-emphasized the amount of threat and also we have reports that many of the sources used to put together the PDB and NIE weren't that trustworthy. At some point the intel failed and for whatever reason the Admin. didn't look at it skeptically enough to address it. While they detailed some potential evidence Iraq / Al Qaeda connection they also determined that nothing came out of it and ruled out an Iraq Al Qaeda connection. Once again someone failed to look at the intel critically. I'm not saying that all blame lies with the President or the Admin. because Congress and the intelligence agencies certainly are culpable too but the President and the Admin. are the ones who set policy and regarding such a weighty matter one would've hoped that they would've been more carefully with their assessments.
It was a sustained campaign of exaggerations, cherry picking, miscalculations, innuendo, diversion, three card monty, etc. The right people in the right places at the time right time in the right environment. It's set a horrible precedent for not only the power of the executive branch but also the legitimacy of any future American military action.
If this war has done anything it's killed this idea of pre-emption. One of the worst ideas in American foreign policy history. No telling how many generations it's going to take for the world and America to get over that. How long will it take for the world to trust anything the US has to say in regards to war or the threat of war?
She's not easily offended. She has tatoos over most of her body. She was our waitress one time and asked how I enjoyed my dead baby cow after eating veal. She'll just as quickly give me the middel finger. Were you there and I didn't know it?
Since I believe there are numerous examples where this administration displayed an intent to deceive on the evidence and on the importance of Iraq within the context of terrorism I'd have to say he lied. A responsible leader doesn't play games with the evidence when it comes to war. War isn't a political campaign and I think they've played it that way from the start which is really the one thing that this administration does very well. It's a damn shame the damage that's been done.
I think Bush wanted to go into Iraq and rationalized that it was the right thing to do. Once he decided that - he just did what he had to do to get support for it. Is it lying? Is it misleading? Probably - but that's what politicians do. That's why people are suppose to not just accept things at face value. People said he was making incorrect statements at the time - but no one listened to them. The American people have to take some responsibility on this whole war as well. Bush didn't pull a blindfold over our eyes. I never believed there was WMD's in Iraq. It seemed pretty clear to me that all Bush wanted was to go to war. He didn't even want inspectors to go back. So really, I don't think it matters if Bush lied or not - he's told a 1,000 as has every other president. The crime Bush commited was just being incompetent. If he had won the war, or actually got something accomplished anywhere - then that would be fine. But he's a total failure - and I'm surprised people are just focused on a dumb lie or whatever. That's the least of his mistakes.
Great post, great thread. I disagree with the post, but I applaude the tone and substance. ok, I know other people have mentioned the robb-silbermann report not covering certain aspects in the intel. But I just want to list some specific examples of intel information the Bush administration had and did not share with congress. Why was the administration using evidence it knew to be doubtful, but presenting it as factual. Is that not the very definition of misleading or cherry picking intelligence? Here is a statement from someone working for the President and the Sec. of State at the time. Let's talk about the aluminum tubes. We know that the administration knew they were most likely not for nuclear weapons. Here is what Condi Rice said. This is a case where America was shamed. I hate Saddam Hussein. I absolutely hate him. I love the U.S. so when the U.S. comes out and lies and Saddam actually told the truth about the tubes by saying that they were conventional weapons, we lose face. It bothers me when our leadership causes us to lose face. Here is some more evidence that the administration knew the intel was bad from the PBS source. Like I said before I think Bush in particular believed that he would be doing the world a great good to rid it of Saddam. I think he either believed or was convinced that a strong leader would do whatever it took to get the necessary permission to go into Iraq and get rid of Hussein. He trusted his advisors, who I believe had other motives for wanting to get rid of Saddam. People in his administration were working for different and various motives. There is one more lie that I want present that Bush told Congress before their vote to authorize. I have probably already posted it close to a dozen times, but I just wanted to bring it all here. Certainly John Kerry seems to have taken the President at his word that the vote was to strengthen his negotiating power. Here is what Kerry said before the attacks every began. This is from the same SF chronicle article.
It isn't even what intel he took, it is that he took it, and used AFTER he was told that it wasn't reliable. If someone told you that a drink on the table contained a deadly poison that can only exist in the climate of Australia, and that poison was put on the bottom of the glass at the time the glass was made. Then the maker of the glass appears, and says he is right about the poison, but I made the glass and it was made in Spain so there can be no poison on it. If you go to patrons and claim you hold a poisoned glass in your hand and that they should beat up the owner of the bar or whoever, you have mislead the bar patrons. The Bush administration knew they had unreliable intel, and used it anyway.
"We know they have biological and chemical weapons." -Dick Cheney 3/17/2002 "We know he's got chemicals and biological [weapons] . . ." -Dick Cheney 5/19/2002 "[W]e know he's working on nuclear." -Dick Cheney 5/19/2002 "The issue is that he's pursuing nuclear weapons." -Dick Cheney 3/24/2002 "he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon" -Dick Cheney 9/8/2002 "he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs....Specifically aluminum tubes" -Dick Cheney 9/8/2002 "[H]e is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." -Dick Cheney 9/8/2002 "But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." -Dick Cheney 9/8/2002 "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Dick Cheney Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties? Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that. --did ANYTHING that Dick Cheney say leading up to the war prove to be correct? (or since?)
Since there is no convincing the left on this board otherwise and there is no convinving the right on the board otherwise...what's the point? I do not think George lied. I believe he is a man of chracter.
A man of chracter, indeed. Certainly not a man of character. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, conservative Tucker Carlson interviewed George W. Bush for the Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106). Excerpt from this interview is quoted below: In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Fay Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, "What would you say to Governor Bush?" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." I must look shocked--ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel--because he immediately stops smirking. Bush denied that he had intended to make light of the issue.
I think the point is that basso asked for evidence and motive for the lie, so that one side can see why the other side believes the way it does. I think you are correct in saying the nobody will convince the other side of anything. But if each side understands why the other side has the feelings on the issue it does then maybe we can get away from insulting people for those positions they hold... Unless of course they disagree with me. In that case they are moronic jerks, who act without rhyme or reason and there is no way to understand their position.
If there really is such a place as Hell, Bush surely has his own little condo by the lake of fire reserved and waiting...
