My disgust with politics

Great Debates
1

Putting my cards on the table, I feel that the conservative agenda is far favorable to the American people as a whole as the liberal agenda (people who know me on the board already know this).

With this out of the way, I want to express my humble O on a certain subject that I have seen everywhere from bumperstickers to this board. To put it simply the words “Bush Lied”.

I am assuming that they are talking about the reason for invading Iraq, which can be summed up in 3 letters (WMD)'s. Perhaps this is my big error as we all know what happens when one assumes, if so I APOLOGIZE, but I will continue assuming that my assumption was correct, which makes me a ass^2.

Basically the whole world knew and had stated openly that Sadam had WMD’s, and we can easily get cites from B. Clinton, and J. Kerry stating the danger of Sadam’s WMD’s. both before and after W became President (OK not sure that Kerry made a statement before W took the Whitehouse, but undeniably after).

Sadam wanted someone to know he had them and either really had them, or created enough of an illusion that everyone knew he had them. If they never existed they the entire world was fooled, if he had them they are now hidden or moved out of Iraq.

I can NOT see how anyone can say that Bush lied, unless you also believe in that the world is already controlled by a ‘skull and crossbones’ group.

The Dem’s basically have denied their past and basically have been saying that Bush Lied, which every bumpersticker printer has picked up on. With the Dem’s so willing to blatantly lie, I am willing to accept that 'pubs are no different and you can’t believe either further then you can throw them (again I am partial to the conservative side so it is easier for me to see the ‘lies’ of the left and justify the ‘lies’ of the right).

2

Hussein certainly had WMD in 1992.
Hussein stalled and stonewalled the UN inspection teams through the 1990s, leading to a presumption on the part of many people that he still had them.

Fine as far as it goes.

However, the majority of the “intelligence” used to claim that Hussein still had WMD was the creation of the OSP, created by the Bush administration outside normal intelligence channels, and so susceptible to seeing things the administration’s way, despite real evidence.
Every single piece of evidence offered to the UN was correctly challenged by people with actual knowledge (often by the CIA, FBI, and NSA) before the build-up for the invasion.
When the UN inspectors went back into Iraq, they repeatedly contradicted the claims made by the OSP and the administration–and every one of their objections has been proven correct.

Beyond that, the administration lied that Zarqawi was an agent of al Qaida. (He appears to have joined forces with al Qaida-related groups since the invasion, but the claim made by the administration before the invasion was a lie.)
The administration also claimed that an al Qaida camp that was located in Iraq was a sign that Hussein was “working with” al Qaida–despite the fact (known to U.S. intelligence, of course) that the camp was in the portion of Iraq that the Iraq government could not reach, thanks to intervention by the U.S. Air Force and the RAF.

Now, it is always possible that President Bush did not personally know that each of the lies published by his administration were actually lies. (Choosing to avoid reading any newspapers, a point he has made on occasion, would effectively isolate him from seeing the lies debunked as he pronounced them, of course.) However, given the way in which the administration, (his administration), published errors of fact that were easily discovered to be false while hiding behind the pretense that “intelligence” was unclear or faulty when the only faulty intelligence was originating from the administration’s hand-picked manufacturers of “intelligence,” the OSP, I think it is legitimate to tar him with the brush of “Bush lied.”

3

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

4

If “the whole world knew,” why did people on this board know they didn’t exist? You can find quotes where politicians flogged the dead Iraq horse, for sure. Whether that constitutes an honest statement of their beliefs as opposed to statements based on political calculations is, I think, debatable.

He either lied or deliberately ignored everything that might cast doubt upon his case, which is not lying but remains so dishonest that I wouldn’t quibble over the semantics.

5

This is wrong, and it will be wrong no matter how many times it’s put forth.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/weapons_mass_destruction-en.asp

Acknowledging the possibility that there are some leftovers in the back of the fridge is a far cry from the Bush Administration’s claims that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” and that “We know where they are.” Also, it’s not hard to discover that inspectors in Iraq in early 2003 had investigated the U.S.'s claims, and they were found to be “garbage”. The claims, that is. Not the inspectors. They’re solid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

It’s easy.

6

You say it like this.
Bush and cronies doctored intelligence data about the existence of WMD to help justify the invasion of Iraq as no one was buying the Iraq connection to 9/11.

Bush Lied!

7

As tomndebb noted, while many may have believed that Saddam possibly or likely had some WMDs, they generally did not believe this true to the extent that the Administration claimed. For example, there was no widespread belief outside of the Administration that Saddam had restarted his nuclear weapons program or had tried to obtain uranium from Niger or buy alumininum tubes for the purpose of using in centrifuges. In fact, experts within the U.S. government were contradicting these claims.

Another deception was repeatedly raising the specter of Saddam either using these weapons against us or giving them to terrorists even though the CIA had determined these scenarios to be unlikely.

To amplify this, here is a story from CBS News from February 20, 2003 (about 1 month before we went to war), Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’:

If you go to the NPR Fresh Air website and listen to the interview with Hans Blix (from about 1 year ago), he describes his own evolution of thought, from his initial opinion that Saddam did probably have WMD (based both on Saddam’s general cageyness and on the fact that the U.S. seemed so cock-sure that he did) to his increasing doubts as the inspections progressed.

In fact, if one is cynical enough, one might believe that Bush rushed into the invasion in the final month with the full knowledge that he had better act fast because the case for such action was collapsing.

By the way, a lot of us here on the SDMB at the time before the war were basically agnostic on the issue of whether Saddam had WMD but believed that the amount he likely had and the dangers this posed to us were being greatly and deceptively exaggerated. We were only wrong in our underestimate in the amount of deception (and shoddy intelligence) involved.

8

Bush was agitating for invasion even before 9/11. Maybe back then and shorty after he honestly thought, as many did, that Iraq was indeed flouting the “No WMD” rules, instead of simply being a recalcitrant nuisance for UN inspectors to deal with, as the facts now demonstrate. Saddam’s petty games certainly did seem suspicious, and anyone could be forgiven for assuming the worst of him.

We demanded new inspections. The renewed sense of urgency caused by 9/11 led to near universal agreement that this was a reasonable demand. The new corps of inspectors found the Iraqis generally compliant (though there were certainly troubling exceptions), and could only report that no WMDs could be found. The information was reassuring, the need for further investigation was universally supported, and the objective of keeping Iraq disarmed was, by any rational asessment, being met.

The Bush amins. response was to produce intelligence some of the CIA’s own analysists knew to be spurious, smear Hans Blix and his operation, declare with increasing urgency that Iraq was an “imminent threat” in the face of extensive contradictory evidence, and ultimately threaten we would move to invade with or without the support of the UN. This is an astonishing development, given our previous insistence that Iraq be held accoutable for its alleged violation of UN sanctions concerning WMDs, and all credible evidence indicated the UN inspectors were doing the job we demanded they do. Blix and Co. have since been completely vindicated, and Blix, now a victim of American slander, is fairly convinced his efforts in Iraq were a charade.

Again, probably, when this process started, BushCo expected to find WMDs. But it now should be obvious: WMDs were a pretense, nothing more. The objective was to invade Iraq under any circumstances (esp. post-9/11), and conflating longstanding Neoconservative geopolitical strategy with the new War Against Terror proved too convenient to pass up. No WMDs were found, as we hoped, and that proved to be a setback, but ultimately not an impediment. In the absence of real evidence, we made it up, to bring about a foregone conclusion, that Iraq would be invaded. Whether Bush had the ability or desire to weigh the information critically is beside the point. At best he was foolishly credulous and displayed tragically negligent leadership in forging ahead with utmost alacrity to involve us in our first completely preemptive and throughly unjustified war. At best.

So take your pick: Bush the puppet stooge, or Bush the cognizant conspirator. A disastrously incompetent tool being manipulated by a zealotous pack of former cold warriors, or a warmongering liar in fully allied with those former cold warriors. Those are the choices.

9

Oh yeah, another really damning piece of evidence that has come out since the war is how little effort the Administration put into securing potential WMD sites during the war. After all, if they were really concerned about WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists, why the hell didn’t they act like it? The only possible explanations here are:

(1) They were not really that concerned about this possibility in which case they were lying.

OR

(2) They were concerned and yet did nothing to prevent this from happening in which case they ought to be thrown out for complete incompetence and recklessly endangering our welfare.

Some people say that the U.S. was unlucky that no WMDs were found. However, it seems to me that we were in fact incredibly lucky since I see little chance that such weapons would not have ended up in the hands of terrorists given how little we did to prevent this and what has unfolded in Iraq in the aftermath.

10

That’s a good point. I remember at the time being astounded by reports that the suspected WMD sites were being looted before they were secured by US forces. My conclusion was that Bush must have been lying, because the alternative (that he willingly gave WMD to terrorists) was even worse.

11

If you watch Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” you’ll see through proven documents and a man who says it himself, Suddam does not have any WMD’s. None at all, zip, nada, zilch. It’s been said publicly, in front of millions of people, years ago. Iraq is harmless (well, they used to be). If they did have weapons of mass destruction, what stopped them from using them to keep us out of their country? No one thought of that.

Wanna know what Iraq has though? Oil! And lots of it! Did you know that Bush has owned his own oil company for years? He drove it into the ground, but he still got lots of money out of it. Here’s another fun tidbit, if you don’t mind me saying.

The Bin Ladens are family friends and business partners of the Bush family. Yep, more oil. The Bushes are bloody stinking filthy rich oil barons. Business men, to be exact.

Why does no one ever ask where Osama is anymore? Our president is not a people man, he’s a business man. He wants money, and he’ll lie, cheat, and steal (this includes stealing an election) to get what he wants.

Yes, Bush lied. And what do we have to show for it? Mothers and siblings crying at funerals or pouring over yearbooks of their deceased family members at christmas time. Someone lost a brother, a father, a sister, or a daughter for oil.

How will this go down in the history books, I wonder?

12

Two words: Hans Blix.

This man was in danger of demonstrating the truth beyond reasonable doubt, and thus had to be withdrawn.

Bush lied about the reasons for withdrawing Hans Blix, by categorically stating that he knew Iraq had WMD’s.

13

And Bush wasn’t the only one lying about WMDs and Iraq being a threat!:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“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.” - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“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.” - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“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 … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” - Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

Not to mention the lying foreign intelligence that agreed with the lying politicians above.

But sorry to interupt. May the circle-jerk continue.

14

Quick reply.

Firstly the OP is incorrect: WMD.

No, the claim was

1 - WMD plus

2 - ties to Al-Q plus

3 - a propensity to provide Al-Q with WMD.

Without any of 1, 2 or 3, the war claim failed.

Leaving aside 1 (WMD) GWB simply made up and fabricated outright (2) and (3).

Secondly I suspect the OP was not posted in good faith, but that aside I invite K~ to post his/her list of things that will satisfy him GWB lied.

Because people, people there is an element of talking past each other here. Sure by considering the balance of evidence and the normal meaning of words the lie is obvious and has been proven many times on this board.

However many persons are sufficiently deep in partisanship that their ‘recognise a lie conditions’ are either

(1) GWB had precise and concrete knowledge that Iraq did not have WMD, or

(2) Never.

15

You are right to point out Bush was lying with such success and determination that certain poor, credulous fools were mislead into believing they could trust the repeated word of the President of the United States.

Whatever were they thinking?

16

And the date Clinton lauched his attack on Iraq on the basis of these opinions was…?

17

You misspelled “fact-based rational analysis”. A “circle-jerk” is (figuratively) when debaters merely agree with one another about a controversial subject based on no substantive arguments. There have been lots of substantive arguments put forth here. The fact that the conclusions are overwhelmingly on the side you dislike doesn’t mean that this discussion is a circle-jerk: it just means that your side of the argument is extremely weak as far as facts are concerned.

However, you’re quite right that many people outside the Bush Administration also misinterpreted, overestimated, overstated and/or lied about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam’s WMD. Some of them may have been simply trusting our leaders to give them accurate information, as Sevastopol suggests.

Others, however, were probably being as irresponsible and self-serving as the Administration was in seizing this excuse for a casus belli. I see no reason to give any of them a free pass for their statements. If you want to go around with a bumpersticker that says “Kerry [or Hillary] Lied About Saddam’s WMD”, that’s fine with me.

18

Of course it’s always easier to see the mote in one’s neighbor’s eye. But I do think it’s kind of pathetic that anybody should be so fiercely critical about Democrats’ use of the term “lie” while remaining so uncritically accepting of the well-documented deceptions and dishonesty on the part of the Administration and those who supported them.

The OP seems to be claiming that he’s willing to believe that the Republicans were lying because the Democrats are lying about their having lied, so therefore all politicians must lie. That’s as bass-ackwards and illogical as claiming that we needed to invade Iraq to fight the terrorists that our invasion of Iraq enabled to enter Iraq and fight us.

Or maybe the original post is just a grudging crabwise acceptance of the fact that the Administration did mislead and deceive us about the need to invade Iraq, with a desperate ass-covering effort to somehow blame it on the Democrats. In that case, it’s a first step along the difficult path to regaining a reality-based worldview, and ought to be treated with sympathy and forbearance.

I can’t help wishing, though, that many conservatives had been equally scrupulous about strict factual accuracy and avoidance of overstatement a couple years ago, when dealing with statements like “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” and “This is about imminent threat”, as they now see fit to be when considering the statement “Bush lied”. If only they (and quite a few non-conservatives as well) had been more concerned with truthfulness and evidentiary support back then, a lot of brave soldiers and innocent civilians might be alive today.

19

I guess most of you have noticed that all the quotes that imply Saddam had WMD were made by americans only ?!

Kanicbird and Magellan when you say the whole world “knew” about Saddam having WMD… you put up only US politicians quotes. At best the Brits paid lip service with the 40 minute WMD Bull.

The “whole world” is far from being a handful of american politicians… thanks. Bush was lying… or was being lied to badly by his “yes men” and thankful for it. The effect is the same.

20

If only anybody had addressed this! Come on, magellan, read the thread. Do you think that list of quotes hasn’t been posted here beofre? And tell me again how quotes from Democrats prove Bush wasn’t lying?