Because its simply easier and less complex to scream BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED! than to go into all the shades of grey about the whole sorrid affair I’m sure. People love to demonize, and they love sound bite attacks. And after a while it just becomes ingrained…of COURSE Bush lied.
Perhaps because he was wrong? Wrong does not equal lied.
Slanting intelligence does not equal lieing either…not if they really thought they were there. It equals a politician trying to put the best face on something by making his case stronger. It happens all the time, though normally we don’t get a war out of it…we just get shafted in some other way.
Horseshit. Bush wasn’t the only one (nor was the administration alone) in saying positively that Iraq had WMD. If you’d like to put some money on it I can dig up some other folks being pretty positive in their statements that Iraq had the things. In fact, I’d say its a slam dunk for Clinton…he bombed them on that basis after all. Or was he unsure but bombed anyway rjung?
You win the kupie doll. Though I think ‘lied’ as to why we went over is strong, I would conceed that. Certainly the reasons we went to Iraq had little to do with WMD…or human rights in IRaq either for that matter.
To cut to the chase on my own position, I think the US DID think they had them, but that the administration didn’t have really solid evidence. In addition, I believe that the administration, and probably the CIA didn’t trust the UN’s intelligence…especially since the UN wasn’t really sure either. Sort of the ‘not made here’ syndrome. As it turned out, the CIA and the administration were wrong and Iraq either didn’t have WMD, or Iraq found ways to get rid of them before or during the invasion…I think its the former and they actually did destroy them after the first GW.
That said, Saddam himself played a role here…had he not been such an idiot, had he not tried to pretend he still had them, and had his record keeping been right this probably wouldn’t have happened (well, it might not have happened, or the US might have used another excuse). He was playing a game that he’d played before…but he was over taken by events. I blame him as much as the Bush administration for what happened…I think his and Iraq’s responsibility is as great.
Oh, I’m under no delusions that he and the administration deceived. But thats not exactly the same thing as lieing…at least not in my book. Lieing to me (on this issue) would be that Bush KNEW there were no WMD but chose to go ahead with the invasion anyway, figuring he’d simply wriggle out of it later. Bush et al thinking there WERE WMD, but twisting the available data to show their case in the best light…thats not lieing, thats being a politician. I still don’t get why its so important to the dems that he LIED…when its a sure thing that he was wrong.
So you think the critical difference is whether there is any plausible state of fact that supports a deliberate deception? Do you also think that the existence of any possibility of factual accuracy somehow purifies the deception? Do you think that this is the case when the underlying social and political compact imposes an affirmative duty of candor and honesty and an obligation to avoid deception? What sort of a government premised on the idea that it holds power by consent can claim any legitimacy when it practices deception on its own constituents?
I have trouble believing that you really accept this sort of a distinction as a basis for democratic government. You are distinguishing between the obvious and bald faced lie and the cunning lie. Somehow the cunning lie is better? By reason of its very cunning the deception is defensible? It might temporarily work for used car salesmen, or PR firms touting laundry soap, but as a basis of government…? You can’t be serious.
Bush said there was a major existing WMD program in Iraq. There wasn’t one. Bush was wrong.
I’ll grant that this doesn’t prove Bush lied. But the alternative is that he’s incredibly incompetent.
And let me be another person who’d like to see a credible cite where Clinton said that Iraq had an active WMD program that was producing weapons that threatened the United States or any other foreign power.
And the reason some people are concerned about all of this is because some of us don’t like to see American troops being killed because the President made a mistake.
Under that criteria, no administration could ever lie about a matter of intelligence. Intelligence is seldom black and white. The critical factor here is that as their assertions did not check out, they did not back off on their certainty, or try to ascertain if they were true or not. So, what went on in the White House? Did they close their eyes to any evidence against WMDs, so Bush was protected from even hearing about the results of the UN inspections? Had they committed to war before this, and were not going to stop, having rented the battlefield? Or was it that the WMDs were unimportant from the beginning, so that their presence or absence was not an issue in deciding to go to war? I think this latter case is most likely. I really don’t think the Administration was stupid enough to believe in WMDs before the invasion (hope, yes, be as certain as they were saying, no) so they were lying.
Of course. If a politican (or even an ordinary person) thinks they are right but can’t prove it, its natural (especially for a politician) to try and make their case look as good as possible. I know very few people who attempt to present both sides equally (or even at all), or present arguements or evidence that fundamentally contridicts their own case…especially if its an issue thats important to them. One can see this pretty much everywhere one looks. Scientists (and especially psudo-scientists) do this all the time. Hell, I see it on this board…and even do it myself. I don’t usually present data that weakens my position, even when I know such data exists. I doubt you do either. Of course you and I don’t make decisions effecting millions or billions (or even trillions) of dollars…or cause the deaths of thousands. You expect politicans to be different though? Based on what? Certainly not on the historic record…not just in this country either.
Did I say anything about ‘purifies the deception’? Did I make a claim that it was right? Did I say anywhere that this somehow exonorates Bush in any way? If so I must have missed it. Its not right, its not noble or fair. I have one word for you: Realpolitik.
Do you actually expect government to be honest, have candor, etc? If so you are in for a rude awakening. I can think of very few presidents (actually, none off the top of my head) or leaders of any stripe that would fit your standards…or my own for that matter. Politicians constantly deceive us, or attempt too…nearly every election promise or statement is a deception in one way or the other. In every war the US has fought a president has painted the best possible picture, has deceived the public at some level…for what they perceive as the ‘greater good’. The difference here is you (and most of the left) happen to have a major problem with this particular president. I seriously doubt you had similar problems with a president of your own party or your own partisan leanings…say Clinton or Franklin D. Roosevelt (just as an example…I make no claim what your party or leanings are), even though they also deceived to achieve the ends they sought.
I see it more as I’m (reasonably) non-partisan (being neither a Democrat nor a Republican) so I have less stake in things. I think this gives me a better view of how BOTH sides do pretty much the same thing. I don’t see Bush as having used either the ‘bald faced lie’ nor the ‘cunning lie’…I see him as basically skewing evidence to make the best case he could for what HE thought was a slam dunk, i.e. that Iraq had WMD and that he could use WMD to achieve the goals he felt was in the US’s best interests…invading Iraq. My major problem with Bush is that the course he set was a poor one (IMO), the decisions he made were bad ones…not in HOW he did it but in WHAT he did. THATS what I think a president is responsible for…and to my mind Bush did a piss poor job of it.
Am I serious. Certainly I am. IMO no politician could meet your standards…‘they all do it’ might be trite, but its essentially true. I’m unsure even if it would be such a good thing if they didn’t do this in fact. Sometimes its necessary for a president to make hard judgement calls that run contrary to the will of the majority…for what they perceive as necessary to the security of the US as a whole. I think the term ‘herding cats’ is very applicable to getting the citizens of the US to do anything at all, let alone something that would be distasteful to them…even if its for their own good in the long run.
If presidents make good decisions we praise them and forgive their trespasses (as we forgive those who trespass against us, blah blah blah…sorry, couldn’t resist :)). Sort of like FDR or Lincoln. If they make bad decisions we blast them…sort of like Kennedy/Johnson about Vietnam…and probably Bush II about Iraq. I see this as a reality that crosses party lines…and goes beyond the petty partisan political squabbles of the day. Most of those I hear yammering that BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED!! I see as completely partisan. Its an issue because Bush isn’t their man. If Gore (or whoever) was in the oval office, I see the positions of most reversed…suddenly to the Dems its all ok. To the 'Pubs its a major problem. To me…its politics as usual.
Certainly intelligence is never black and white…thats pretty much why I’m reasonably sure Bush et al didn’t lie. Most folks seem to think that the CIA is evil, but pretty much all seeing and all knowing. That just aint the case (even the evil part ).
How do you figure though that ‘their assertions did not check out’? Ultimately it wasn’t until we actually invaded Iraq that their assertions were checked…and even today questions remain. Even the UN did not come out (before the invasion) and definitively state that Iraq had absolutely no WMD…they were unsure, though their own data seemed to be pointing to either very few WMD or none at all.
There was contridictory data…nothing definitive. So, exactly why SHOULD they (Bush and his merry men) have backed off, if they thought their data was right and the UN’s was wrong? If they believed that Iraq had WMD and that the contridictory data was in error, why should they back off their position? In fact, I’d say the fact that they didn’t try any weasel words before the election but pretty much stated as fact that Saddam had WMD proves (to me anyway) that Bush et al were not lieing. They were wrong…but they really thought the things were there.
Did they believe the UN inspectors? Did they feel that the UN was doing a good job? Did they disreguard the UN’s data because it was ‘not made here’? I think this was the case…I think at a fundamental level Bush and his advisors (and certainly the CIA) didn’t trust the results or the data coming from the UN inspectors. Again, their own data was contridictory…much pointed to Saddam having WMD, some pointed to the opposite. In addition, for over a decade it was pretty much ingrained in everyones mind that he DID have the things…and his own deceptions and antics certainly throughly clouded the issue even more. Why exactly SHOULD they have believed the UN’s data or inspectors if they didn’t trust them over data they had saying Saddam had the things? Especially in light of the other things Saddam was doing (shooting at planes patrolling the no fly zone, etc). They didn’t have a magic time machine so they could check it out after all.
IMO most definitely. When we moved our army to Saudi/Kuait we were pretty much committed to war at that point…and on a fairly short time table. Oh, I have no doubt we would have been more than pleased if Saddam had simply thrown in the towel and taken his billions and his son’s into exile…but we were ready to invade short of that. WMD was certainly an excuse…but that doesn’t mean that Bush et al didn’t believe they really were there.
Oh, they were certainly important…they were the major excuse that allowed the US to invade. They were the way for the administration to get the war through both the house and senate AND get the people behind the war. However, that also made them the thing most focused on…which is, again, why I don’t think Bush lied but truely felt Iraq had the things. Basically Bush and his boyz and girlz wanted re-election. No way could they predict that if no WMD were found that they would still win the election because the Dems would run a weak candidate. They were banking that they were right. As it turns out they got away with it anyway…partly (IMHO) due to the left/Dems very insistance that ‘BUSH LIED!!’, which is childs play to defend. ‘Bush was WRONG!’ isn’t, and I think the Republicans would have had a much harder time defending this, but it just doesn’t get the foam rolling off the lips in the same way.
And I think the conclusion you are drawing here is fundamentally flawed and don’t follow from the available evidence. My own Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explaination is Bush et al were wrong…not that they had some convoluted master plan to lie and then weasel out of it by having the Dems/left focus on an unprovable ‘lie’, then get the Dems to run a weak candidate, and win re-election in the end. To me this gives Bush and his merry men too much credit for being…well, Geniuses if they could predict all that and pull it off too.
I’ve said this before, but okay. I try to be evenhanded about the lying thing and I haven’t said it in a while. Here’s the issue as I see it: I knew there were huge problems with the intelligence. [As did many Dopers and others.] Other countries seemed to know too, which I think goes partway to explaining their hesitance to rush into Iraq. If I knew what those problems were and the President didn’t - and both the war itself and his public pronouncements thereon indicate that he did not - he’s a liar or he’s a fucking idiot. Of the self-deluding variety. Pick one. I don’t see the other options.
You’ve failed to defend this type of apology single time I have seen you make the attempt.
Well Bush was wrong, AND stubborn to an astonishing degree, dismissing intelligence from IAEA and virtually every source that did not conclude that Saddam was a sufficiently grave danger. Bush ignored every single argument made by anyone against war, and removed a fair number of those who dared question him. Bush alternately sidled up to and threatened the UN trying to convince them of his unsupported view. Was Bush wrong on the strength of his divinely inspired conviction, since evidence certainly wasn’t on his side? Or was he wrong because he did everything he could to confuse people and states on something that could not actually be concluded on the basis of real evidence?
Option one confirms some sort of psychological pathology at the very least; option two leaves little doubt that Bush lied. Me, I think it’s a subtle mixture of the two.
A lie is a dishonest statement. You say that “slanting evidence” is not a lie, but I say that it is when used to deliberatey support false assertions that lack concrete support.
A deliberately superficial argument that collapses on closer scrutiny, much like Bushite Bullshit. Clinton didn’t have quite the benefit of the level and penetration of IAEA inspections that Bush had among other bloody things. When Senator Clinton (and countless other “Clintonites”) went on the record arguing for the Iraq war, she was doing so on the basis of recent flawed intelligence manipulated by the Bushites! This has been discussed in much greater detail elsewhere, too bad the search function on the board isn’t working. When it does work again, you’ll find your memory easily refreshed.
The fact that you regularly refuse to address in these discussions – preferring instead to distribute plastic rose-tinted glasses – is that Bush should and would have known better. There was no reason for Bush not to know better, yet he committed to the Iraq war primarily on the basis of Saddam’s WMD and the dangers they posed to the region and to the US – factors that are and were demonstrably rubbish. Regardless of what the real intent was, Bush lied and misled in order to have his way.
You say as much yourself later in your post, and yet you are arguing that there was no lie involved. That’s a disconnect.
Exactly, as many of us have been saying since before the war.
That is called a suspicion. One regular feature of Bush administration output was the certitude (as someone else pointed above) of the assessments provided to Americans and to the world at large. Certitude that was built on nothing but lies, manipulations, and obfuscation. Invisible imperial apparel, don’t you know.
Sure of what?? That they hadn’t found indications of WMDs?? The UN were pretty damn sure of that. The people who weren’t sure of their evidence were select US officials, including those who commissioned for suspect “evidence” to emerge or be given credence, such as the output of the Office of Special Plans, the various intel that the State Department dragged up on ties between Iraq and terror, etc.
You know all this, because you have participated in those same discussions I allude to. And yet, every time I see you post on this topic out come the apologies.
As the evidence (sans Bushite manipulation and propaganda) suggested throughout the entire affair.
Yes, let’s blame Saddam for having his country attacked for these reasons, why don’t we:
Saddam’s record-keeping was sloppy, entirely unacceptable for a third world country!
It was his fault as a brutal dictator for not eliminating every tiny shred of suspicion that his country and his rule were essentially without defences
the culture of Saddam’s ministries was infighting and survival, meaning falsely declared accomplishments and general chaos over a period of decades – how do you disarm a weapon program that was declared but never exsted?
You can, if you do wish (as you keep broadcasting) to stick to an honest approach, blame Saddam for a host of things, but the Iraq war was engineered by one side only and no indication existed at any time in the build-up that war was avoidable. As has been said before, George W Bush, Leader of the Free World, managed to lose a truth-telling contest to Saddam Hussein of all people. Granted, most people are far too simple-minded and have far too short attention spans to consider such things in toto, but try to remember next time you spin away that you are apologizing for someone whose credibility and record in the Iraq matter are rather poor, to put it mildly.
I’m sure xtisme is well aware of the wide bright line between the assertion of a suspicion and the statement of a conclusion that is backed by hard evidence.
It’s a fact that he well knows that if you call one the other, it’s a lie.
What makes me so sure? I’ll have to keep that secret between me and my advisors.
Maybe I dreamed about it, but last thing I remember of Saddam Hussein was that he was doing everthing but painting “No WMD!” on his arse and giving Bush a lap dance. The problem is, that Iraq was pressed to prove a negative, which is kind of hard as you may know.
I was recently at a conference that covered corporate intelligence, i.e. how to gather information on your competitors. The presenter had recently completed a similar seminar for members of the FBI, CIA, and Canada’s security/intelligence agencies. During a round table discussion at that earlier conference, the agents in attendence indicated that the real reason most of the intelligence that the Bush government was putting out on the issue of Iraqi WMD’s was bad, was that the Bush administation had lowered the standard of care on the intelligence being gathered by the intelligence agencies. Where prior to the Bush administration, the standard of care had been at a relatively high level, the intelligence agencies were told to not be so picky. As a result, a ton of junk that would have been otherwise weeded out (and likely was weeded out under prior administrations) was reported as fact. If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it was not, then the Bush administration knew that they were getting junk and consciously chose to use it as if it were bona fide.
I imagine that all governments do this type of thing to some extent, as do corporations, and individuals. However, where the stakes were as high as they were, this type of ledgermain is tantamount to outright lying in my book.
To hit the highlights from one of my posts, regarding the orchestrated effort that the administration went to to lie, here is a transcript from a DOD briefing:
Now, do you recall the final statement of the administration regarding any links between al Qaeda and Iraq. [Mr. Rogers]I knew you did.[/Mr. Rogers]
Here we are not talking about old evidence, “President Clinton thought so to so its okay” kind of bullshit. These are assertions, clear assertions, about present knowledge that are purported to be multisourced. It is clear that no less than THREE administration officials were putting out this false information at the same time.
This was an orchestrated administration effort to put out false information. It was a fucking lie.
See you again in a month.
BUSHDIDNTLIEBUSHDIDNTLIE. LALALALA IM NOT LISTENING TO JEFFREY BUT HE’S STILL TALKING LALALALALAL.
Some of you would find Harry Frankfurt’s just-published On Bullshit enlightening. From a review:
Bolding added.
How about this, then: Those few of you still claiming that Bush did not technically, specifically, you know, lie, in the Webster’s Dictionary sense, do you deny he was bullshitting? If you accept that, do you disagree with Frankfurt that that’s even worse?
Because after a year there, we interviewed everybody we could find, and we searched all the places we could find and…Nada. Zip. We had one chemical weapon used against us while I was there, and it was pretty clear from the design of the bomb that the bomber didn’t know what he had, and so didn’t know how to exploit it. Also, we seized a lot of material from Chemical Ali’s buildings, and that provided a fairly good portrait of the WMD program.
Some interesting data from the UK which sheds more light on this sorry affair. I aint getting into semantics of what a lie is. ( Panorama is a respected British political tv documentary. The programe was shown on sunday gone (20th mar 05 ). Its called ’ Iraq, Tony and the truth ’ )
From here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4336727.stm
<Panorama>
"14 March 2002 - The dimensions of a new policy on Iraq become clearer - the Prime Minister will ‘not budge’ in his support for regime change, writes his senior foreign policy advisor:
I had dinner with Condi [Condoleezza Rice, then US National Security Advisor] on Tuesday; and talks and lunch with her and an NSC [National Secutiry Council] team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came).
We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.
David Manning to the Prime Minister, marked “Secret - Strictly Personal”
</Panorama>
Blair - and to a lesser extent Bush coz he was going to war anyway, needed another way of justifying an invasion - other than regime change which is illegal under the UN Charter ( as i recall )
Now read on:
<Panorama>
"18 March 2002 - "The British Ambassador in Washington outlines the new Iraq strategy - the government will need a “clever” plan to convince the public and parliament of the threat from Saddam. Regime change would be a “tough sell” in Britain.
Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, came to Sunday lunch on 17 March.
"… the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.
Sir Christopher Meyer, British Ambassador in Washington
On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs [Security Council Resolutions] and the critical importance of the MEPP [Middle East Peace Process] as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.
If the UK were to join the US in any operation against Saddam, we would have to be able to take a critical mass of parliamentary and public opinion with us."
Christopher Meyer to Sir David Manning, marked “Confidential and Personal”
</Panorama>
Kanicb - can you REALLY not see what is going on here. How much wiggle room are you going to give - or is it only about the actuall word ‘lie’ ?
Bush and Blair agreed to use WMD as a joint excuse for regime change. They twisted the intel, which they knew was not conclusive, to point to imply a direct threat.
You may feel better that its not a lie, but its certainly - as Elvis kindly pointed out - bullshit.
First off I’ve had issues with every president in my adult life. (In case you don’t remember Clinton bombed a medicine plant to keep AQ from supplying Hussein with chemical weapons.) So that part of the question is pointless from my pov.
Second, as so many have made it abundantly clear, just as the word ‘is’ is subject to variants of definition, so is the word ‘lie’. While it can be argued that Bush was merely ‘imprecise,’ if, as a child, I had done somethings similar what Team Bush did including the use of a negative pregnant and not-lies, would’ve gotten me a whupping for lying. But then again my folks were just kids- naive country folk at that - and prob’ly had no idea of the wide world of unwholly-true statements available to modern man. So they’re at least partially to blame for my unsophisticated, hayseed understanding of what constitutes a lie and my bias for sticking to this countrified understanding. You city folk are really about too tricksy for me with your not-lies and almost truths.
Of course some folks say, “Yes, Team Bush wasn’t entirely candid in their case for committing huge resources and the lives of our military personel, but that’s okay because they were doing it for our own good.” One may assume that such folks would content for the gov not to bother consulting the electorate at all as long as the gov was doing it “for our own good.” I’m not one of those folks though. To me the gov’s made up of plain old people - most of whom are very , very busy looking out for themselves in highly adept and sophisticated ways. IMHO, they need to watched like foxes in the hen house.
**
The simplest answer is that Team Bush voiced certainty where there was none.**
After that there’s:
to promote the invasion, Team Bush
promoted the false idea that Huissein was undeterrable
used intel that was known to be flawed
re weapons
re weapon delivery systems
re materials for weapons
re Hussein’s connections to 9-11
re Hussein’s connections to AQ
re Iraqi groups’ conections to Hussien
re Iraqi groups’ conections to AQ
acted unduly concerned about far-fetched scenarios that had very little chance of happpening in reality (eg the flying, poison-spraying, Iraqi robots of terror)
treated known fabricators and their fabrications as if they carried more weight than the reports of professional intelligence services
comissioned teams of individuals to assemble alarming reports w/o regard to the veracity of the reports (OSP & PCTEG)
Or are you looking for specific individual instances?
).