Please tell me why you claim Bush lied about WMD?

Great Debates
61

If your reading of history is that all, or even many, of our previous wars have been based on lies, you’ll have to back it up. I’ll spot you Tonkin Gulf, how about that? Note that the war it led to was a disastrous mistake, though.

What part of “He didn’t care *what * the facts were” didn’t you … ah, the hell with it.

What part of “That’s what the inspectors were for” didn’t you … ah, the hell with that too.

A) explain your examples, and B) agreed, it’s worse.

At some point persistence becomes simple obstinacy, ya know? You’re there.

62

Apart from telling you to get over yourself and to stop insulting people who are presenting contrary information to your argument that you cannot handle, I did wonder whither the OP? You might say that it is unfortunate that the OP abandoned you and your ‘heals’ to the hounds. I would suggest that it was unfortunate that you waded in with the offensive BUSHLIEDBUSHLIED attack on others, and it is unfortunate that you are so poorly equipped to defend your chosen position, treading a line between “lying” and “deceiving.”

I would like someone who has chosen the point of view that you and the OP have to once and for all address the Rumsfeld text I have cited now in two threads that deal with the prevarications of the Bush administration. I don’t think there is any way around the issue that Rumsfeld lies in that exchange about links between al Queda. I think it is also informative that he is specifically questioned about the concerted effort on the part of the administration as represented by three officials who are expressly putting out the same information at the same time. How is this not a lie, officially orchestrated by the Bush administration?

It is also important to consider that this concerted effort preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq resolution by only a couple of weeks. This administration lied with the express intent of swaying the Senate vote, and perhaps the public acceptance, of their pre-existing need to go to war with Iraq.

63

I no longer claim Bush lied in the lead up to the Iraq war. He didn’t lie. After reading Harry Frankfort’s incredible essay*, it became clear to me that he bullshitted. Thus, anyone who continues to support him in this matter is spewing bullshit.

*unfortunately, the full text of the essay is no longer available online. I just ordered it from Amazon, however!

64

How about I give a drive by sample of my thoughts as I have a meeting to get too and don’t have time for massive research. I have no intention of providing cites for any of this btw…if you are interested look it up for yourself, unless Elvis honors my request for proof that GW was alone as the only president to lead us to war using deceptions.
These are all current enough I’m not going to bother giving any details, just pointing to where its debatable that deceptions occured. I’ll give some brief details of earlier presidents. Again, I have no intention of citing all this…if you are interested in details look them up for yourself. If you think I’m wrong about something by all means point it out…I’m doing this off the top of my head and I’m in a rush.

Clinton: Somalia, Bosnia (perhaps the bombings in Iraq since that data is now considered ‘lies’ :))

Bush I: Panama

Reagan: Grenada, Iran Contra

Carter: Well, I can’t think of any deliberate deception from Carter off the top of my head pertaining to war. Even the failed rescue attempt of the hostages wasn’t a deception, merely bungled.

Nixon/Johnson/Kennedy: Various deceptions reguarding Vietnam (like the Gulf of Tonkin incident). Various deceptions as to how the war was going, to bolster confidence. Kennedy also had Bay of Pigs and some deceptions pertaining to the Cuban Missile crisis…mostly deceptions of omission here, if memory serves.

Truman: Possible deceptions over the use of the atomic bomb (this is definitely debatable) against Japan pertaining to the current state of the Japanese military, as well as the actual reasons for using the bomb (i.e. to prevent the Russians from gaining more of a foothold, etc). Possible deceptions over US involvement in Korea, and deceptions to the public on how the conflict was going, to bolster moral.

Roosevelt: Hidden naval war with Germany (this is, to my mind, a bigger transgression than Bush’s, though I see the necessity and in the end even agree with Roosevelt…and deeply respect him too). Manuvered the US towards war despite the fact that most citizens were opposed. Various deceptions pertaining to negotiations with Japan and the US’s positions. If you have a tin foil hat, possible deceptions on a massive scale about allowing the Japanese to attack us first at Pearl Harbor. Various war time deceptions to bolster confidence.

Wilson: Various deceptions to involve the US in WWI, again in opposition to the majority will. Lots of pre-war propaganda deceptions here to encourage support for the war by the citizens (very similar to what Bush did here IMO, as far as the demonization aspects go).

Lincoln: Various deceptions used to take and keep the US in the war against the south, lots of propaganda type deceptions about how things were going, etc.

Madison: Deceptions to get a declaration of war with Britian (excuses like the conscripting of our sailors and the like), deceptions as to the US’s intent (i.e. war portrayed as a defensive struggle against British oppression, while planning an invasion and land grab in Canada) and various war time deceptions used to bolster confidence about how things were going.

Washington/Founding Fathers: I can’t think of any specific examples, but then I’m not well versed in this era of history either.

-XT

65

Not my objection. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we can go to war only if > 50% of the population agree in a poll. A President is supposed to lead, not follow the numbers. It would take guts to do what he thought was the right thing even though the people didn’t agree. But Bush has no guts. He decided on what he wanted to do, lied to get the public behind him, then claimed he was following a mandate.

I live in California, so I’ve seen first hand what happens when policy is micromanaged through propositions.

Maybe you can agree that he lied about the certainty of WMDs?

I agree with most of your points about the need for leadership. But FDR did Lend Lease even when I suspect most of the public was against it. (I don’t have any polls for this.) But he did it based on the facts - he didn’t make up an imminent threat to America from Germany.

But maybe it isn’t a lie, maybe it is just bullshit.

66

Just to bolster you point, everyone remembers the Zimmerman Telegram, no? That’s the one where Germany offered to give Mexico back the southwest if they helped out in the war (before the US was in the BTW). It pissed people here off enough that the war became much more popular. When the Brittish gave a copy of that telegram to Wilson (we did not intercept it ourselves) they could offer very little proof that it was genuine. Even more so, they vehemently asked us not to publish what little proof they could offer. So, as far as the public knew, Wilson had discovered this telegram from an anonoumous source. There was a considerable period of time when it looked likely that people would simply not believe it.

Luckily for Wilson the German foriegn minister simply admitted that it was accurate. But before he did, the telegram was indeed “questionable intelligence”. Wilson certainly did not present it as such. He claimed that it definately was what it later turned out to be.

67

Just because others have also done wrong, does not make a wrong right.

I suspect that there’s a particular name for this sort of argument, but I forget it off hand.

It’s a convenient shorthand to assume that politicians’re deceptive. Yet, no matter how many of them do it it will still not be something that should be tolerated in a nation with a democratic government.
Numerous politicans have been corrupt, accepting bribes and such. Still, this behavior, despite its relative prevalence, should not be tolerated and should be railed against where discovered.

It’s a matter of how low you’re willing for your country’s morals to go.

I think that we, the electorate should confront perfidy in government whenever and where ever we find it. If we allow politicians to deceive the electorate freely, then we lose our Liberty as a free people.

68

Clinton: Didn’t start a full-scale war, is no longer president.
Bush: Current president. Started a full-scale war.

One of these things is NOT like the other fucking thing…

69

Certainly. I thought I’d already done so in fact.

I agree. I never said what Bush did was right…in fact, I’ve said repeatedly I thought his decision to go to war with Iraq was stupid.

Completely disagree. There was no ‘imminent threat’ to America from Germany…its preposterous, certainly in light of history. Germany was barely holding its own against the French and the British in WWI…they wouldn’t have a hope in hell of threatening the US. Even in WWII there was no real threat to the US from Europe…certainly not an ‘imminent’ one.

You are absolutely correct. Besides I’m blathering on here. I’ve already said what I meant to say in other threads about this…and said way more than enough crapola in THIS thread to boot.

So, for you its a matter of scale, not type of transgression? Clinton deceived…but didn’t start a full scale war. So its cool? I suppose you have a point.

I agree with you completely. My question though to you is…do you think the electorate WILL do that? Because I have to admit I see no signs of it myself. It seems to break down along partisan party lines. I hope your way of thinking gains more wide spread acceptance in future.

-XT

70

That’s one of those things.

However, if I do not do it then it will never be such that everyone does it. I can’t control other people, however, that does not release me from my obligations to America and her ideals.
If there’re two of us, then that’s two more than none.

The advent of the internet has been a great blow to ‘rational ignorance’, The greatest threat to the Republic (no matter what luci says).

In matters such as this, we all have to do what we have to do without regards to the odds of success - even if that’s all that we can do.

71

But I’m much more hopeful than that sounded.

One of the tricks is to keep the pols fighting amongst themselves.

72

tu quoque, perhaps?

73

:confused: In WW I, to quote Dylan, “the reason for fighting, I never did get.” My understanding of LendLease was in support of our traditional allies, the British, against tyranny. In all my reading about WW II I have never come across FDR claiming Germany was an imminent threat. My point was that he did Lend Lease despite it possibly being a loser in the polls.

We went to war when Japan proved to be, against all expectations, an imminent threat indeed.

74

And, point of fact, the imminance of a threat from Germany or the lack thereof was a moot point, since Germany declared war on the USA.

75

Quite, when we went to war. There were many acts of war committed, however, by the US before that.

76

And all the "no WMD found yet"s reports of the weapons inspectors… that turned out to be correct, because there was nothing there.

It´s not that hard, at the time the war broke, Bush was saying “Saddam has this nasty stuff”, Saddam," No bad mojo here!", facts collected on the ground so far showed a complete lack of WMD; let´s see, who I would trust in this dilema, the guy saying things not supported by known data or the guy stating things that match the reality on the ground. How boy, though choice!*

[sub]Now for the easily offended, that doesn´t mean I find Saddam a trusthworthy fellow, but even a crook can tell the truth sometimes, specially when he´s own survival depends on fessing up[/sub]

77

Except that all of those reports also said that they had not looked everywhere and that there was evidence of Iraqi prevarication. Just as the CIA reports contained ass coverage so did the inspector reports. It was not until almost imediatly before the war that Blix started saying he thought nothing was there. And even then he would say things like “We haven’t found anything, but that does not mean nothing is there.”

Oh, and you’ve got some of this wrong as well

But Saddam was also saying if you come in or try to look anywhere else we will kill many of you. And just for fun he was shooting at Americans enforcing the no fly zones every once in a while. Hardly the prtestations of an innocent person.

Well, absence of evidence and so forth. Meanwhile those same “forces on the ground” had said that no nuclear programs existed before the gulf war. We found out afterward that there had been significant programs. There was a precident for disbelieving them. (I note that the pre gulf war UN inspectors did not have the range or power that post war inspectors did.)

Come come, let’s not quibble you chose to believe the side which matched you political motives. Many of us did.

78

So what do you do when you get contradictions on a report?

A) State that you know, for certain, that one of the posibilities is true, contradictions be damned.
B) Keep looking for complete, well constructed and fact based conclusion.

Which is the crux of the whole affair, isn´t it?.

Cite?, (about the first part)
As for the second, what does the shooting of (unguided) missiles have to do with all this?

Well, good for you notting that out. Kind of important note, you know, having access to Iraq´s documents to actually check out stuff and corroborate against suspicions and speculations.

Oh, and what political motives that may be? No, really, make a guess.

Gee, I didn´t know I had polititcal motives, that sounds so ominous it creeps me. I always thought I cared more about people´s actions and their inherent morality regardles of what slogan, colour, creed or party they claim to profess, but was I wrong!, it´s all political motives for me. Thanks for the tip.

79

I’m assuming you asked Pervert for a cite on hostility in the no fly zone (which many feel was enough to justify a war btw…though I would disagree myself). Anyway here is a quick and dirty history of this little know aspect of the conflict:

If you want a cite about Saddam threatening the weapons inspectors before tossing them on (I think it was in '98 if memory serves) I’m sure one can be dug up easily enough. Or if you were looking for how controlled the weapons inspectors were (i.e. told where they could and could not go), again I’m sure a cite would be fairly easy to find for you. Based on your next statement I decided to assume you wanted info on the no fly zone.

Where did you get the impression the missiles were unguided…or that the Iraqi’s only shot missiles at the US for that matter. There were air to air dog fights that took place in the no fly zone too. Oh, and the missilies were not unguided, whatever that means to you. No one shoots unguided missiles at air planes.

Yes, it turned out they were correct. Hindsight is a great thing. However, as I’ve pointed out before, Bush et al didn’t have a magic time machine to check it out ahead of time. So, we are back to…did Bush BELIEVE the reports? Did they feel the inspectors were doing a good and complete job? Did they TRUST the inspectors?

Well, again you are overly simplifying all this to the point of ridiculousness. There was no compelling evidence that WMD existed…it was all circumstantial. However, there was a LARGE body of such circumstantial evidence that was pretty widely accepted. There was also a body of evidence that no WMD had been found in Iraq by the new inspector regime…yet. However, even the inspectors were saying at the time they hadn’t visited everywhere, and they were qualifying their own statements. Then you had Saddam’s statements. Of the three, he would be the LEAST credible. Hell, even today I’d almost be willing to bet against anything the man had to say…and we pretty much know that Iraq didn’t have the things. :slight_smile:

-XT

80

Yes. Unlike certain politicians I could name, they were waiting until all the facts were in. But they never said they had found any, or found a hint of any, and toward the end the Iraqis were cooperating reasonably well.