Ahh.
A sophisticate.
Why should the gov even have to bother consulting the electorate?
A couple of reasons. Deliberate lies show a breech of trust between the admin and the electorate far more than half-truths or weaseling. Trying to nail a single flat out lie which can be proven gives Bush’s political opponents far more ammunition to discredit him as a good-faith representative of his constituants. I would argue that deliberate half-truths and spin make someone just as unqualified to be a representative, but as you have noted, that is SOP in DC and if half truths and weaseling were disqualifying offenses then we wouldn’t have very many legislators being re-elected at all. So it becomes important to distinguish Bush from the average politician. Prove a deliberate and intentional lie as opposed to lies of omission or half-truths and you can make a stronger case. Especially if the lie was one of the keystone arguements for a war which has cost billions and thousands of lives.
“Bush lied” is a soundbyte with punch. In today’s short-attention-span world you have to be able to knock your opponent down within a 30-second ad spot. Those with longer attention spans, such as the majority of the SDMB(even many of the Bush supporters) acknowledge a systematic approach of deception by the administration in the pre-war timeframe. PatriotX has detailed some of the approach in his posts here and elsewhere. But this approach does not work for everyone. Not everyone has the research skills, time, and interest in uncovering these issues themselves. So the opposition would be well served to find a short, simple way to communicate an egregious breech of trust.
I would add to PatriotX’s single line summary so that the whole construct looks like this.
The simplest answer is that Team Bush voiced certainty where there was none. Team Bush also demanded urgency when there was none.
Enjoy,
Steven
Given the tension between the UN and the US at the time, why would the UN ever say there were no WMDs? There could have been some in a remote region. What the UN did say (to the White House, at least) was that there were no WMDs in the areas checked, which were the highest priority ones. When Powell spoke at the UN I remember wondering why, if we knew just where the WMDs were, the UN didn’t go in and get them. It turned out they tried to. So, not checking out involved the UN going where we told them to and finding nothing. That should have told the White House something.
If they were comparing intelligence, then there was uncertainty. But before the invasion they were comparing intelligence with the findings of inspectors at the scene. The latter is far more important! I’m not saying Bush should have gone on TV to say there were no WMDs - but maybe they should have held off the invasion, or at least turned down the rhetoric?
And the lack of weasel words in this administration proves nothing. When have they ever been less than 100% sure of anything? Look at MedicAid - they ordered the guy to lie, they knew the numbers were wrong, but they were 100% sure.
That is all true before the inspections. Before the invasions, the inspectors were there and they were even inspecting the palaces. Plus, their words would make a reasonable listener think they had hard evidence of them WMDs, not just strong suspicions. And that the threat was imminent. Will you admit they lied about the imminent threat, at least? I don’t see any evidence they had about that. Israel and Kuwait might have been at risk, but the US? Never.
It might have been inconvenient to not invade, it might have meant delaying an invasion later, but it was not inevitable from logistics. If it was, then it proves Bush was lying about being ready to settle, right? WW I started in part from excessive and automatic mobilization; I hope we had learned something from that.
I was referring to what went on in the White House. As a cover for invasion, yes, WMDs were crucual, but as the real reason for the invasion, I still think they didn’t count at all. And I don’t think the invasion happened because of the election: any evidence of that? The neocons had wanted this ever since Bush the elder didn’t go to Baghdad.
I see the White House acting like creationists, in a sense - able to close their eyes to the evidence in support of what they consider a deeper truth, in this case getting Saddam deposed. If Bush didn’t actually lie, it is because he shielded himself from the evidence that would tell him his statements were false. (And do you think no one in the Administration lied about this, or just Bush? I think it is the same thing.) Is a Creationist guru lying when he says there are no transitional fossils? If you don’t think so, I can accept that by your definition of lying Bush didn’t.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent addendum.
Yes, the idea that there would be dire consequences if we waited was yet another examples of imprecision on Team Bush’s part.
Hence, ‘the time of our choosing’, was before our armed forces were sufficiently prepared.
Why does it matter, xtisme? Tell us, how would you, if you were the President, explain to a grieving family why you had sent their son to die. An honest mistake you can apologize for and be forgiven for, sure. But how would President Xtisme explain his lying - or, if you prefer, bullshit, to them? If it doesn’t matter, not much else does either.
Bush still hasn’t gone to one damn funeral, btw. Nor has Cheney, even though that used to be all a VP did.
To get re-elected perhaps. Whats funny here is that so many are trashing me over this, yet if the shoe were on the other foot and YOUR guy (whoever that may be) was in office instead you’d be making excuses…and I’d be seeing this exactly the same.
And the administration should have trusted Saddam at his word…why exactly? Especially after all the deceptions and outright hostility, the harsh rhetoric and fist shaking?
True enough…I’m well aware of it. I’ve conceeded before that Bush pretty obviously cherry picked the data and presented only data that supported his position…and presented it in such a way that made the data appear much more solid than it turned out to be. The crux of this matter though is (to me): Did BUSH believe that the data he had supported his conjecture that Iraq had WMD in his own mind, or did he think Iraq had no WMD but decide to use this as a major reason for war anyway, knowing that no WMD would be found once the invasion was done but thinking he could wiggle out of it anyway? My own conclusion is that he did think that Iraq had WMD, and thought he would triumphantly show them off to the world once the invasion was complete. The fact that he took his evidence and made it look better than it was, again to me, is simply politics and human nature…at the fundamental core of the arguement he didn’t lie.
To me, the core issue when asking if Bush lied or didn’t like is: Did Bush believe that Iraq had WMD or not? I am pretty well convinced that he DID believe Iraq had the things…thus no lie. If anyone ever wants to resolve one of these ridiculous ‘Bush Lied!’ threads they need to show some proof that Bush knew for a fact that Iraq had no WMD. Otherwise he was simply making his case look more solid than it was…something politicians and others do all the time.
Defend what exactly? That some of you are so focused on the ‘fact’ that Bush lied that you can’t see the bigger picture? I don’t really feel the need to defend it when I see it every time I come into one of these threads. Its like the hatred of the man makes perfectly reasonable people on this board, people who’s opinions I respect deeply on other topics, toss out their logic and go nuts.
You are making this issue seem more black and white than it was (ironic that you and others in this thread are attempting to do exactly what Bush did, with a healthy does of revisionist history thrown in to further bolster your cases). There was no overriding body of evidence showing decisively that Iraq had no WMD…just as there was none showing that they did. There was conflicting evidence (and mostly a lack of evidence) showing both sides.
I don’t think Bush was wrong to conclude (at the time) that Iraq had WMD despite what the UN inspectors said, nor even to disreguard contrary evidence that the CIA and other sources had. The majority of the evidence pointed to Iraq still having stockpiles of weapons hidden in the desert, and perhaps even the capability to either restart production or even still have production facilities…also hidden.
Where Bush fucked up, IMHO, was to decide to go into Iraq at all. There was simply no need and only an idiot would invade a nation and stretch our strategic assets so thin for geopolitical reasons that weren’t core to the security of the US…especially in light of the fact we were already engaged in Afghanistan. THAT was the place to fight. Granted, Afghanistan doesn’t have near the potential that Iraq does, but we were there already. Had we committed more heavily THERE, instead of Iraq, we still could have heavily influenced the region, secured basing rights, etc…and still been poised to, er, influence, the likes of Iran (a REAL threat IMO) and Syria…and continue to keep tabs on Iraq and keep Saddam contained. THAT was the fuck up, not Bush accepting the WMD evidence, or even disreguarding contrary evidence…he and his advisors were convinced already. A LOT of folks seeing the same evidence were convinced, reguardless of how folks want to now revise history.
And if Bush KNEW there were false assertions I’d agree with you completely. Thats the core issue though…DID Bush KNOW that Iraq had no WMD, or did he think they did have them and was simply making his case look stronger than it in fact was? Again, you are attempting to paint the available evidence that there were WMD as being weaker than it in fact was (at the time) and the evidence that there were not WMD as stronger than it was. The reality is that neither side was decisive (though I believe that the evidence available to them at the time weighted more heavily to having them than not) until AFTER the invasion when we could really get in there and look around wherever and whenever we wanted. Only THEN did it become crystal clear that Iraq had no massive stockpiles of WMD, had no current production capability, and probably didn’t even have a reserve capability poised and ready to resume production when the sanctions were lifted.
No, Clinton didn’t have the data coming back from the UN inspectors on the ground…basically because Saddam tossed their ass out and wouldn’t let them back in. To most minds this would seem…suspicious. And you are, again, assuming that Bush et al TRUSTED the results coming in from those UN inspectors. That they believed that those inspectors were doing a good job and not being lead down the primrose path by Saddam and his henchmen. That Saddam, in the time he was inspection free, hadn’t managed to hide stuff in the desert away from prying eyes. And that Bush et al didn’t think there was a possibility that the inspectors themselves were corrupt or on the take (Oil for Food and such).
You have to try and put yourself in Bush’s place and see things they way HE and his advisors would have. YOU trust the UN inspectors, YOU think that their reports and their words have weight, YOU don’t think they were being mislead or were corrupt…but you can’t project YOUR feelings and conclusions (even though in this case they were right) onto someone else. Ever try to argue with a creationist or a flat earther?
I’ve addressed it numerous times…its not MY fault that you don’t seem to understand what I’m getting at. And its not my fault that your own rose coloured glasses are all fogged up either. Let me put it to YOU then (since I feel I’ve beat this to death from my side): Exactly why SHOULD Bush have ‘known better’? Why is there ‘no reason for Bush not to know better’? How were the factors AT THE TIME ‘rubbish’? Where was the generally accepted (by everyone but Bush et al of course) CERTAINTY, AT THE TIME, that data indicating Iraq possessed WMD was ‘rubbish’?
You think this is a sudden revolation to me or something? I’ve know it since before the war as well.
I’ve conceeded myriad times that Bush made the case look better than it was. This however doesn’t mean it was a lie…not if HE believed that the WMD existed in Iraq.
Again, you paint the available evidence at the time as black and white…everyone KNEW (except Bush of course) that WMD didn’t exist in Iraq. ‘Certitude that was built on nothing but lies, manipulations, and obfuscation.’ Total unmitigated horseshit and revisionist history. That Bush made his case appear better does not mean that there was no case at all…nor that he didn’t actually believe it. It means he made his case better than it actually was. Again, I find it amusing the psudo-genuine outrage at Bush over this issue of making his case appear better than it was…while ignoring the plain fact that every president in war time or peace has done similar things. Hell, ever CANDIDATE running for office does similar things, presenting the facts that best support their case, and presenting them decisively as if no other conclusion is possible than their own. There is a term for folks who blast one side for doing the exact thing they let pass when its their OWN man on the hot seat…I think its applicable here.
You have an overly dim view of the evidence the CIA and others had of indications Iraq had WMD, and an overly rosy view of what evidence the UN DID have. THEY weren’t as sure as you are…not at the time. You really have a very revisionist view of history on this subject that is not reality based IMO. It wasn’t nearly so black and white as you are trying to make this seem.
I appologize for nothing that Bush has done. I think the guy is an idiot for taking us to war in Iraq…reguardless of the excuse. I believe it was a major mistake. I also think he’s a frigging fiscal liberal disguised as a conservative republican, and that he’s spending our money like a drunken sailor on a 3 day pass. I can’t stand the man, rarely agree with anything he says or does and wouldn’t vote for him if he was the only candidate running.
All that said though, I remain unconvinced that at the core issue (i.e. did GW believe or not believe that Iraq had WMD) that he lied. Why its so fucking important to the left/Dems to pin this particular idiocy on him I’ll never know. There have been more threads on this than stars in the sky…all to no point because its simply impossible, short of someone producing an authenticated memo or tape recording of Bush going ‘Muahahaha!! I know there are no WMD in Iraq but I’m going to invade anyway!! No one can stop me!! I will RULE THE WORLD!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!’. Its a stupid topic that will NEVER be resolved, instead of asking if the invasion of Iraq was a wise thing reguardless of what excuses were used. I’d be fully on board with bashing Bush over THAT issue.
-XT
Well, I would hope that I wouldn’t be foolish enough to commit the US to any foreign adventures that would require me to have to explain any such thing to a grieving family…remember I’m one of those isolationist libertarian types who feels the world should fend for itself and that the US’s role in dealing with the world should be as a kick ass trading partner, taking steps only to protect our direct foreign interests.
That said though, I would tell the grieving family member what every other war time president would say…that your son or daughter gave up their lives for their country and what their country felt was the right thing to do.
Were I stupid enough to be Bush, what I’d say is that I truely believed that Iraq had WMD based on the available evidence, and more importantly I felt (again, I’m being Bush here not me) that it was in the US’s best interests to invade Iraq…that it was in fact a vital strategic necessity. That I’m sorry for their loss, and that I appreciate both their and their sons or daughters sacrifice…and that America appreciates their sacrifice…and that I feel that said sacrifice was necessary to the interests and security of this nation.
That good enough for you? Again, you and others in this thread are making some assumptions here. You are assuming for one that I support Bush simply because I find the whole ‘Bush Lied!’ thing ridiculous at its core. I don’t support Bush. You are assuming I support the decision to invade Iraq. I don’t…I think it was stupid and a major mistake. You are assuming that Bush really didn’t believe that invading Iraq was in the US’s best interest, and that really he was after…whatever comic book reasons de jour are currently in fashion. And you are assuming that Bush really and truely did KNOW and BELIEVE that Iraq did not in fact have WMD but decided to make it the central theme of his reasons for invasion. I don’t believe thats the case…YMMV.
-XT
For example, is it OK for the police to frame somebody who turns out to be actually guilty?
That is well beyond a mere “assumption”. We’ve gone into the reasons at some length, and it’s a pity you haven’t been paying attention.
What is an assumption, one on your part but unfortunately in conflict with the facts, is the unanimity implied by “what their country felt was the right thing to do”. The extent that such a feeling existed was based on trust in someone who proved not to care about the truth. It was never anywhere near the consensus whose imagined existence apparently provides you comfort.
But blowjobs, now, they matter.
I missed this:
I agree completely.
Again, agreed. The problem becomes proving what I consider the unprovable…that Bush really did know that Iraq posessed no WMD and fabricated the whole thing to get his war. Not that he enhanced his position by making things seem more solid than they really were (something thats pretty much a proven fact), but that he deliberately misled KNOWING that the available evidence showing that Iraq had WMD were wrong. My big problem with this entire arguement is that it detracts and distracts from the more fundamental issue…was the invasion of Iraq wise reguardless of the motive? Even if Iraq DID have WMD, would it have been wise to invade?
Myself, I think the opposition would be (or would have been I suppose) wise to focus on the core issue of whether or not invading Iraq for ANY reason was a good thing. I think getting entangled in this muddle of attempting to prove outright lies at the core issue has seriously hurt the Bush oppositions positions.
-XT
No, it did not. Your problems start there.
Because could have known better, and chose not to. That’s what the inspectors were for, remember? The ones who were just a couple of weeks from completing their proof that the shit wasn’t there, making an invasion before that date a matter of extreme urgency. Pity you weren’t paying attention to that, either.
I refer you to the discussion of bullshit. He didn’t care *what * the facts were, he was going to have his war, damn the reality, full speed ahead! That’s *worse * than lying, friend. Worse. And it’s the only “defense” the apologists can raise.
Mtgman
Basically. They misused the word “know”, and they represented conjecture and allegation as undeniable fact. Bush, being familiar with lawyer-speak, should know better than to do that, especially with intelligence heavily comprised of hearsay.
It’s also important to remember that the idea to invade Iraq was not something that just sprang up all of the sudden because of new and disturbing intelligence. Many believe people believe that this was Bush’s plan from the start, long before 9/11 “changed the world”. Even those on the right will admit that there were other reasons to go to war, but WMDs was the only one that carried the weight to seal the deal. Bush, realizing that, undoubtedly had to play the role of the salesman trying to pass a ramshackle lemon 100,000 miles passed its prime off as a luxury automobile.
I…see. So, you don’t actually understand the whole democracy thingy then, I suppose. You know, representative government and all that. You figure that everyone has to agree with the governments policy or its not valid…and thus, if everyone doesn’t agree with it, the sacrifice of soldiers doing their duty is rubbish. Or something? Well…then I guess we can just toss out the sacrifice of every American soldier in every war ever fought by this country. Because in many if not most of them there were large factions that didn’t agree or even openly opposed the governments decision to go to war.
No where did I imply btw that there was ‘unanimity’ over Iraq. Christ, I nearly busted a gut at the mere thought. I hate to break it to you though, but the majority of American’s DID support the invasion, and the figure still hovers back and forth around 50% (sometimes lower, sometimes higher depending on the mood de jour).
If you say so Elvis. I’m not seeing it, but glad you are so sure. Oh, the lemmings are going that way ------> You can still catch them if you hurry.
-XT
Sigh. The decision to go to war is based on trust in the good faith and good intentions of the leadership. That’s been present in all other cases, and it’s what makes those decisions legitimate. It did not * happen here. * Capisce? Slavish devotion to whatever The Leader tells you to think and do is *not * democracy, ya know.
Re the facts about Bush’s lying: Horse, meet water. You can keep pretending all you like it didn’t happen, but not if you want to convince anyone but yourself. “I’m not seeing it” is not an argument, ya know.
Wolfowitz has freely admitted that. If we’d been told the truth, even as the Administration defined "truth", we would not have agreed to this war.
If I remember correctly, before the invasion the majority of Americans supported the war only if there was UN involvement. After, of course everyone patriotically got behind the home team.
I don’t know why you bring up “democracy”. The WMD message was purely to build support. That Saddam was a cruel dictator, that he had killed many of his own people, that the world would be better off without him were things no one particularly disagreed with. But selling the war on the truth was not going to work, so they sold it on lies: on an imminent threat, on the certainty of WMDs.
Perhaps as an atheist I’m sensitive to this, but not being able to prove there were no WMDs (an unlikely thing) is not the certainty that there are WMDs. If Bush had said we believe there are WMDs, no one would accuse him of lying. But he said we KNOW there are WMDs. If he did know that, then his advisors were misleading him. If he had all the available data, he was lying when he said that.
Really? You need to back that assertion up then because thats not my own reading of history. I can’t think of a single conflict where some form or other of deception wasn’t used against the American people…and yet, their decisions were legitimate. Take it from the top if you would Elvis…start with the Revolution and work your way down. Prove to me that no deceptions were used in any of those conflicts by those in charge, and that only Bush used deliberate deceptions to bolster his case for war or to get the people on board with what he felt was the best course for the US. I think you’ll find it hard to do, but knock yourself out if you like.
You don’t have to lead me to water Elvis…just show me something compelling that shows that Bush knew for a fact that WMD didn’t exist in Iraq but chose to go to war anyway…oh, and also stupidly made it the central theme of his rational for going to war too boot. Should be simple. Showing me that Bush exaggerated, that he made his case seem stronger than it was, blah blah blah doesn’t address my own central issue, nor does it prove that Bush lied…well, it doesn’t prove it to me anyway. Obviously it does to you.
No doubt. I’m sure even the administration realized its case wasn’t clear cut enough to guarentee war with Iraq…certainly not in light of the rampant ignorance of people who don’t understand the nature of intelligence and want 100% guarentees. I don’t think anyone is disputing that Bush exaggerated the case that Iraq had WMD, that he cherry picked the data, or that he made his case seem much more solid than it was. What I’m disputing is that A) this is different than what other politicians do regularly, including those previous presidents that took us to war, and B) that this constitutes a lie of the core issue…again, that Bush did or did not know FOR A FACT, that Iraq had WMD.
Capisce? 
-XT
This is one of the most unfair comments I have ever read on the SDMB. PatriotX(formerly SimonX) is a self-professed Republican and a two-time Bush voter. Bush WAS “his guy”. He is calling his own representative to task for jerking around the electorate who placed their faith in him, of which he was a part.
There is absolutely no grounds on which to base an accusation of hypocrisy against PatriotX. Beyond that, if you believe you can scrye the motives of your fellow posters then you should be collecting a cool million dollars from James Randi rather than posting on the SDMB.
Ridiculous and unsupported character assasination is not conducive to civil debate.
Enjoy,
Steven
It seems the onus might be on you to show that other presidents have started preventive wars using similar tactics. If you’re saying Bush is no different than his predecessors with regard to truth-telling and war-selling, give some examples to stengthen your case.
Based off solely on intelligence, how could Bush know for a fact what was in Iraq? In the absence of tangible proof–which is more than hearsay from defectors with axes to grind–you’re only working with allegations. The evidence was not there to justify “knowledge” of anything.
/em looks around frantically at the hounds snapping at his heals
Why I get myself into these threads is beyond me. Oh well, I must just enjoy the pain or something of being all alone and hounded on all sides.
I brought ‘democracy’ up because of this statement by Elvis:
To me it showed a lack of understanding of a representative government system and the implication that the citizens would need to be unanomous on a subject for it to be legitimate.
I agree mostly with your other points, but will point out that had GW done what you say, i.e. attempted to sell the war on Saddam being cruel, talked about the possibility of WMD instead of the certainty, etc, then we all know there would have been no war. Personally, I see that as a good thing…I’m sure most of you do too. However, its not realistic to think any president who thinks they know whats best for the nation (which they all do) is going to hobble themselves with a foreign policy sure to lose. They are going to make the best case they can, even if that means deception, to get what they feel is whats necessary (as they see it) for the security and interests of the US.
Had Bush been indecisive and said we merely believe there could be WMD, I doubt he would have gotten his war…which was the whole point of the excersize after all. And while in hindsight (and foresight I suppose for some) this would have been a good thing, we pay the president and the congress/senate to make the decisions in our names that THEY feel are right. Its pretty obvious that Bush et al felt invading Iraq was the right thing to do…it was merely a matter of coming up with the means to make that decision palatable to the folks at home.
Certainly the American people aren’t going to rush in to invade a nation because the ruler is a bad guy, or on data that isn’t 100% accurate (not that its likely to ever be). In some reguards my fellow citizens are fools…they want certainty. So, they only react to certainty. Therefore, certainty is what the politicians give them, serving it up thick and hot, and they (we) lap it up (well, we lap up the certainty from our own side fairly uncritically, while distrusting that served up by the other of course). Give them even an inkling of uncertainty and they won’t follow…even if the level of uncertainty is small (like herding cats). They (we) set the preconditions to being deceived by our own leaders because only deception can get us to do anything in concert…especially something like a war.
I freely conceed that Bush deceived the American public as to how solid the case was for WMD in Iraq. I freely conceed that when he and the others in the administration made their case they did so with rock hard certainty…when the data they had was conflicting and uncertain. They made it the central theme and reason for the invasion in fact, the decisively convincing factor. I also freely conceed that Bush et al used WMD as an excuse, that they had other reasons that they felt made it necessary for the US to invade Iraq.
What I don’t conceed as I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence for is that at the core Bush lied that there were WMD in Iraq…I still believe that he DID think there were WMD, and that they would be found to vindicate him for his invasion.
-XT
Get over this, “It’s okay because everyone else is doing it,” excuse.
My guy is the one who wouldn’t do such a thing.