As it turns out, Bob Woodward, certainly no right-wing neocon, looked into the Iraq debacle for 18 months and concluded that there was no lying that got us into Iraq. Certainly not by Bush.
While no fan of Bush myself, I’ve argued numerous times on this board that while going into to Iraq maybe have been the wrong thing to do (especially in hindsight), that the accusation that Bush lied about…whatever…in order to go into Iraq was, at best, an unfair accusation. But some here argued against me with a degree of certainty that looked at any questioning of their “reality” as Bush Lover + Neocon + Loony Tooner.
So, now that we have a highly respected investigative reporter having looked into the issue for 18 months and concluding that the accusation of “Bush lied” is flatly wrong.
So, the question I have is: of those who were/are of the mind that Bush and/or his administration lied in order to go into Iraq, does Woodward’s investigation and conclusion give you pause? Does it make you think that maybe you were wrong and that you might have gotten caught up in the narrative that was pushed by the Kos and Media Matters crowd?
Or is it that you have looked into the matter more than Woodward, have more access than Woodward, know more about what went on than he learned in his 18-month investigation, and would no doubt be able to change his mind if only you could share with him your research into the matter?
Or, are you of the mind that Woodward is a secret Republican? Neocon? Bush lover? Sell-out? Idiot? Something else?
Will any of you care to simply state that it looks like the position you held was wrong?
Maybe. But I’d like to believe that at least a couple of people will grant that Woodward is someone they trust and that he knows WAY more about the issue than they do. For those who stick to the bumper sticker “Bush Lied, people died”, well, their credibility is in their own hands.
My guess is that few of any will choose to engage. It’s hard for them to type with their fingers in their ears. For those that do, and have the backbone to admit that Woodward probably knows more about this than they do, good for them.
I have not [del]read[/del] seen it, and so cannot comment on the specifics.
Woodward, however, is hardly a “highly-respected investigative reporter.” Frankly, he’s a hack with a well-documented history of self-serving inveiglement, obfuscation, and outright lying. If I were in the “Bush lied” camp, it would take more than Woodward’s “investigation” to change my mind, as the man has repeatedly shown himself to be untrustworthy.
Really, this is the most admirably well-poisoning OP I’ve seen in a while. It’s pretty awesome, and I mean that in all sincerity. I look forward to seeing how it unfolds.
.
It would help you make your case a lot more if you could post what Woodward actually reported, not just a transcript from Fox where he says no more than you do. Facts are convincing, personalities are not.
If he’s just saying the Costanza Defense is valid, we’ve been over that pretty thoroughly, not to your advantage either.
The claim made by Bush and Powell was that Saddam had WMDs and that was why we needed to invade. Unless Mr. Woodward finally found those elusive WMDs, I don’t see how the claim can be made that Bush wasn’t lying.
Indeed. Bumper-sticker slogans are only truthful on issues like gay marriage.
But I digress - it’s not necessary to prove Bush lied at any time: the matter is equally appalling if he selectively listened to and based his decisions on intelligence that fit his preconceptions. This leads to aides passing on reports that Bush wants to hear, suppressing or minimizing reports Bush DIDN’T want to hear, which further down the chain finds people who indeed lied. The entire affair becomes a showcase for confirmation bias.
That said, I personally think the invasion was justifiable. The two main problems are:
There was a more pressing issue in Afghanistan; and
The post invasion plan, if it can be called that, was an astonishingly colossal fuckup.
We have Woodward himself offering a synopsis of what he discovered. If YOU think he’s wrong, or that the synopsis doesn’t give an accurate view of his findings, it falls to YOU to demonstrate that.
Simple. A lie is a deliberate attempt to make a false statement. If you think what you are saying is true, then it’s not a lie-- it’s an error. Whether or not Bush knew what he was saying was false is something you guys can debate for the 1,000th time if you like.
So tell me, do you profess to know more about the issue than Woodward? Do you think that people should look to you as a more trustworthy source than Woodward?
Everyone seems to agree that “if we knew then what we know no, there should be no decision to invade.” What do we know now that we didn’t know then? Perhaps Bush believed there were WMDs. I doubt he believed that it was*** necessary ***to invade because of that. So, that’s a lie. We have WMDs. Should Canada invade us? Fuck Bush.
Neither has it that he lied. But now we have highly respected investigative reporter having looked into the issue for 18 months and concluding that Bush did NOT lie.
Let’s start here. Now, with the benefit of the investigation having been done by Woodward, did Bush lie or not? Yes or no?
IOW, “Talking head on Fox says what Fox viewers would like to hear.” That is literally all you have provided us to consider.
And since you are stuck on the point, my dog is a better investigative journalist than Woodward has been since the Nixon administration. He has a more acute sense of smell and follows it where it takes him.
Of course everyone (except some posters) cannot forget the shameful presentation to the UN that put the lie on this item.
IMHO Woodward is stretching his 15 minutes of fame, indeed it is hard not to notice how many former famous journalists seem to be crashing and burning in their efforts to remain relevant. He is now more into trolling for history and for the coming election it is important to prop up the Bush name.