If Bush Lied, Then What?

[december]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**I would be appreciative if some one would clearly and concisely explain the substantive difference between:

Sadam is trying to buy uranium from Africa, and

The British tell me that Sadam is trying to buy uranium from Africa,
**

The difference is in the degree of probability or degree of risk or uncertainty. The first sentence implies certainty. The second implies less certainty, since it allows the possibility that the British might be wrong.

A certainty that Saddam was seeking nukes would have been an urgent reason to attack him. A mere likelihood that he was seeking nukes would have been a weaker reason to attack him. Still, even a probability that he might get nukes would be important information to take into account. A likelihood that he might seek nukes in the future would be a weaker reason to attack him, but still would be something to consider.

In short, strategic decisions cannot be made only on totally verified facts. This is true in all fields. One must gather what information one can, including uncertain information, and make the best decision taking it all into account.

I agree that Bush should not have repeated the British claim if he disbelieved it. But, there were good reasons to believe it. Saddam had a history of seeking nuclear weapons. The British had a well-respected intelligence service. British intelligence said they had sources other than the forgery. AFAIK the CIA did NOT tell Bush that the independent British sources were incorrect. On the contrary, they reviewed his SOTU address and allowed the claim to remain in the speech.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
What is wrong with your conjecture is that that’s all it is. You have taken a series of facts and circumstances, and speculated on a scenario that might account for them. There is nothing wrong with trying to do that. However your scenario doesn’t qualify as anything but speculation as long as there are other equally plausible scenarios that tie the facts together just as well.

I think we disagree about the plausibility of other conjectures. Here’s why.

A second scenario is incompetance on the part of Rumsfeld which did not allow the commanders the resources necessary to accomplish the duel goals of sacking Baghdad and securing suspected WMD cites. This would also indicate a lack of concern over the WMDs and by extension, indicate a disingenuous stance concerning the threat with respect to the American public.

I’ll admit this is a genuine possibility. But if this is so, it is in many ways worse - it turns Bush, both before and after the war, into the creature of his handlers. It turns Bush into a guy who (1) was oblivious to Rumsfeld’s hacking of the troop strength, (2) didn’t bother to question beforehand whether there’d be enough troops to both take Baghdad, and secure WMD sites on the way in, and (3) has been oblivious afterwards to the published failure of the ground troops to secure those sites for long enough for our special outfits to see if anything interesting was there.

If your ‘defense’ of Bush is that he’s the Marionette-In-Chief, I’ll yield the point.

There are other plausible possibilites that do not draw what seems to be your preffered conclusion.

1. Bush cared very much about the WMD cites, but delegated the task to his military leaders who dropped the ball.

That’s possible too, but it’s simply a matter of the degree of discretion you give your people in carrying out the mission you’ve assigned them. Again, I suppose it’s possible that Bush could have given his commanders discretion to the point of allowing them to abandon the mission, but there’s no indication that that is so.

The implication here, given his postwar speeches and demeanor, is that he’s passing off failure - in an area potentially vital to national security - as success.

This falls short of treason, but it’s an act of dereliction of duty that is headed in that direction. If the President thinks there’s reason to believe that there’s a new threat of weapons of mass destruction floating loose in the Middle East, it’s his responsibility to alert the American people to the risk.

2. They had everything they needed to accomplish both tasks but didn’t find Jack Squat.

Contradicted by published news accounts.

3. Iraq fell with less resistance than anticipated. The rolling deployment had provisions for securing the sites, but it was deemed that pressing the advantage as hard as they could was the better course of action than slowing down, and securing the sites but also allowing the Iraqis time to consolidate their defenses.

“Anticipated” is of course a loose term, so there’s really no way to rebut this. But the article I just linked to makes exactly that point, aside from the anticipation issue: Baghdad was Job 1, and all other missions were a matter of discretion. Which is exactly my point: the Administration didn’t put any particular requirement on the military that it secure WMD sites, and deprived it of the resources to both do that and press hard for Baghdad.

Still, I don’t think the light resistance by Iraqis surprised many people. Nobody, but nobody, thought this would be a long war.

Other than your hypothesis that all the WMD cites were looted, there is the alternate hypothesis that simply blew the shit out of anything that had the remote possibility of being a WMD cite before they moved on.

Again, the record contradicts this possibility. Site after site was simply looted, after they were no longer under Baghdad’s control.

[PatriotX]

HJere’s some of Rumsfeld’s not-lies about the isssue of the Nigerien Uranium:

[quote]
Meet the Press 07/13/2003
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to intelligence. These are now the infamous words the president uttered on January 28th in his State of the Union address.
<snip>
MR. RUSSERT: The White House and now the CIA say it was a mistake to include that phrase in the speech. Do you agree?
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: Oh, sure. Yes, indeed. George Tenet said that, the president said that. On the other hand, the use of the word “infamous” is a little strange. It turns out that it’s technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. did say that and still says that. They haven’t changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people.
Now, the question isn’t that. The question is: Should those words have been in the presidential speech?
And the president and George Tenet have agreed it should not. It didn’t rise to that standard…
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: …but they’re not necessarily inaccurate.
MR. RUSSERT: Why were they taken out or should they have been taken out?
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: They should have been taken out because the referencing another country’s intelligence as opposed to your own probably, according to George Tenet and the president, believe that it would have been better not to include it. It was not the basis for the intelligence assessment by the intelligence community with respect to the development of the nuclear programs in Iraq. That was not critical to it at all. In fact, it wasn’t even the five or six things that the intelligence community listed in their national intelligence estimate with respect to the Iraqi nuclear program.
MR. RUSSERT: But the very next day, Mr. Secretary, this is what you said, talking to the press on January 29th:** ”[Saddam’s] regime has the design for a nuclear weapon … and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”**
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: And right before it, I said, as the president said, and right after it, I said as the president said. I was simply repeating what the president had said.
MR. RUSSERT: But in retrospect, you should retract that comment as well just as the president has retracted his.
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: Exactly. And certainly when I said, “As the president said” in my statement and at the end I said, “As the president indicated,” I believe and that’s quite true.
<snip>
MR. RUSSERT: Well, the president was going to utter those words in October and George Tenet interceded and took them out. The State Department stopped doing it in December because they felt it was important. Negroponte, the ambassador to the U.N. took it out…
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: …Colin Powell wouldn’t repeat it in February.
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: This is how USA Today reported it: “Almost a year before President Bush alleged in his State of the Union address that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore in Africa—seeming proof of an Iraqi effort to build a nuclear bomb—the CIA gave the White House information that raised doubts about the claim. A cable classified ‘secret’ went out from CIA headquarter to the White House Situation Room in March 2002 reporting on a visit to the African country of Niger by a retired diplomat on a special mission for the CIA. … His account said Iraq had sought closer economic ties with Niger but had not discussed a uranium sale.”
“… Further, in December 2002, a month before Bush’s State of the Union address, the CIA told the State Department to drop a reference to the uranium allegations from a white paper on alleged Iraqi weapons programs. In a later presentation on the white paper, John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cut the Niger reference.”
So there clearly were big discussions in the administration…
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: Apparently.
MR. RUSSERT: …about the accuracy. You weren’t aware of those?
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: What I saw was intelligence over a couple of years’ period. We know that Iraq had acquired so-called yellow cake, and there was a good deal of discussion about—I think they way they phrased it was “fragmentary evidence,” or “fragmentary indications” of Iraq interacting with Africa on this subject. It wasn’t until ElBaradei came out publicly…
MR. RUSSERT: In March.
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: …in March, the U.N. IAEA person, and said that he felt that there was a forged document, that the intelligence community then said they agreed with ElBaradei, after looking at it, at which time, obviously it became clear that that fragmentary evidence may not have been right. Whether it is or not, I still don’t know. We know that the U.K. still believes it is correct, and I just simply don’t know. That’s not…
MR. RUSSERT: When Senator Pryor asked you on Wednesday when did you know that reports about uranium coming out of Africa were bogus, you said “Oh, within recent days.”
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: I should have said within recent weeks, meaning when ElBaradei came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Back in March.
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: In March, exactly, because I’m told that I was—that after ElBaradei came out with his statement publicly, I read it, and I’m told by the CIA briefer who briefs me that I, on that next day, said, “Who’s right on this?” And they said, “We’ll check.” And it was shortly thereafter that they came out with a piece of paper saying that they thought that ElBaradei was right, and…

Copyright 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[quixotic78]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
HJere’s some of Rumsfeld’s not-lies about the isssue of the Nigerien Uranium:
<snip>
MR. RUSSERT: When Senator Pryor asked you on Wednesday when did you know that reports about uranium coming out of Africa were bogus, you said “Oh, within recent days.”
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: I should have said within recent weeks, meaning when ElBaradei came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Back in March.
SEC’Y RUMSFELD: In March, exactly…

Un-freakin-believable. Joseph Heller couldn’t write such brilliant parody.

[RedFury]

If not, find a better way to promote the Democratic agenda and move beyond simply hating this man.

Er, no, no “Democratic agenda” here. First, I am not American, second, don’t live there anymore, third, couldn’t care less whom you choose to run your country…as long as he doesn’t act like he’s on a mission from God to rule the World. Like the Selected Dimbulb you currently have in charge – or rather puppeteering for those in charge. And based on lies and deceit at that.

Sure, the latest craze is the whole Niger business, but for those of us who have been paying attention, the list is long. If interested, check back to the opening of the “Iraq War Marketing Campaign,” back in Sept (forgetting for a sec that the neocons actually had this planned years ago as per PNAC) at the UN, followed up by the scremongering speech in Cinci. Turns out, as many of us have been saying all along, that it was mostly Bushit excuses for this particular faction of the Republican Party to get their “mojo on” – invading Iraq come hell or high water.

Starts with Bush and continues down the ladder…Chaney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Powell, Wolfowitz, etc.

Seems to me, the majority of non-Americans such as myself, would be much happier if they were getting BJs instead. Like I said, no one died when Clinton got his.

[RTFirefly]

Gawdamighty, what a bunch of doublespeak.

If you already more or less know that ‘Fact’ X is false, then saying “so-and-so says X” without mentioning that so-and-so is probably wrong, is just plain duplicitous, regardless of how ‘technically correct’ it is.

Same goes for ‘as the President said’: if you know that the President had no business saying that, then lending your further affirmation to its validity is dishonest. It’s a phrase that, at the very least, indicates your acceptance of or concurrence with the judgment of the named source: saying “as the Bible says, the world was created in six days” implies you believe it’s so.

And of course, the “recent days” = “March” is another of those only-technically-not-an-outright-lie moments.

Good thing Bush has restored integrity to the White House. :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

That from a man already known for not deigning to answer direct questions with direct answers, so much so that it could be reformatted into poetry:

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Actually, he has a point there.

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
Impeachment? Not a chance, given the make up of our Congress, roughly divided between whores, cowards and poltroons. And the occassional lickspittle.

Well, we cant help it if some people vote democrats in. And the Lickspittle changed sides AFTER he was in office so that was a total surprise!

Gawd, I cant resist a great straight line.

[PatriotX]

The most recent newspeak word that embodies the glorious principles of doubelspeak is “not-lie” and “not-a-lie.”

As in Rumsfeld did “not-lie.”
Switching the statement from Iraq sought uranium to the Brits said that Iraq sought uranium turned it from being false into a not-lie.

When Bush said that he was concerned about the possibility of an Iraqi MiG making it the US and spraying anthrax, that was not-a-lie. Bush did not-lie when he said that.

[PatriotX]

“No one can accurately tell you that it was wrong. That is not known,” Fleischer said. “The president said that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. That still may be absolute fact.”

Not-a-lie.

[/quote]

“No one can accurately tell you that it was wrong. That is not known,” Flycher said. “The president said that he saw monkeys fly out of my butt. That still may be absolute fact.”
[/quote]

Also not-a-lie

[Sofa_King]

News item:

About thirty minutes ago, Senators Tom Daschle and Carl Levin tag-teamed the Bush Administration on the floor of the Senate.

Levin listed a litany of questionable assertions made by the Bush Administration before and during the war, concluding that the State of the Union lie was “part of a pattern of exaggeration and misleading statements.” He also asked many of the questions we’re asking here: who in the CIA got the Niger assertion pulled from the President’s September, 2002 speech?; who influenced the CIA to reverse its decision for the State of the Union address?; and a host of others which focus on possible manipulation of the CIA as well as the overall dishonesty present at every stage of this war from its planning to today.

Daschle called for an impartial and bi-partisan inquiry into Levin’s allegations, which he won’t get. He also questioned why the FY2004 budget asks for no funding whatsoever in order to prosecute the continuing war in Iraq (hint: it’s so that the war can be funded on an emergency basis so that the President can claim the hemmoraging budget is “balanced”).

Two and a half years ago I predicted here in Great Debates that this would be the most corrupt administration we have seen in our lifetimes (don’t bother looking–it aint there anymore). I am not retracting that statement.

[PatriotX]

If the people lead, the politicians will follow.
?

[PatriotX]

I’ll still be surprised if anything substantial comes of it.

I hope that I’m wrong about that.

[John_Mace]

Sofa wrote:
Two and a half years ago I predicted here in Great Debates that this would be the most corrupt administration we have seen in our lifetimes (don’t bother looking–it aint there anymore). I am not retracting that statement.

As long as you realize that “not retracting a statement” does not equal proving it. Believe what you like, but don’t be surprised if others do not “believe” it.

[Sofa_King]

I hope you are wrong, too, SimonX, but I don’t hold much hope. If Reagan could skate out from under something as horrifyingly egregious as Iran-Contra, I suppose the Bush Administration–largely staffed by former Reagan-Bushistas–will already know how to twist out of this net.

By the way, I was wrong in my post above about the budget thing. This year’s budget is going to be close to half a trillion dollars in the red, if you count the nonexistent funding for Iraq. Bush the Younger has finally taken away a superlative from his father.

[Sofa_King]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
**As long as you realize that “not retracting a statement” does not equal proving it. Believe what you like, but don’t be surprised if others do not “believe” it. **

Oh, I’m quite aware of that, John. That’s probably all I should say at this point.

[RTFirefly]

As the Onion put it back in January 2001, “Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.”

Who’d have figured they’d have been this prophetic?

[PatriotX]

One difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan came out and took responsibility for the misdeeds of his administration and apologized to the American people for the misdeeds. Reagan had way more class than GWB.

The president’s assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

Does anybody have a link to the actual transcript of this interview? Apparently Annan was there and they were in the Oval Office. July 14th?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by SimonX *
One difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan came out and took responsibility for the misdeeds of his administration and apologized to the American people for the misdeeds.

When did Reagan accept the blame for Iran-Contra?

[E-Sabbath]

I’m getting really sick of this.

I mean it. Can’t we have ONE president who’s not impeachable? Reagan (Iran-Contra), Bush (Same), Clinton (Monica-lie), and now Shrub?