Where is the evidence that Bush "lied"?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

After the big game it seems obvious that Team A was going to win and Team B had weaknesses that the other guys exploited.

This was a fucking war. People got killed, by the hundreds of thousands, and it’s still going on. It didn’t have to happen at all. It was not a fucking game. To trivialize the most momentous decision a government ever makes that way is pitiful.

But it’s a lot easier to look smart writing about it after the fact

One hell of a lot of people were screaming about BEFORE the fact. The bullshitness of the claims for war were well-established BEFORE the fact.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Sometimes foresight is too. Just like in this case.

Possibly Bush thought it was the fault of people further down the chain of command.

Where does the buck stop?

Trying to find a link is not the same as publically lying about it

How do you feel about manufacturing the link when you can’t find it? Or, like Cheney even today, continuing to claim it?

Firstly, I doubt if Bush ever heard of Curveball.

Yes, it’s very possible he just didn’t give enough of a damn about the evidence for this decision he had already made to even ask where it came from. (“Now watch this drive”, he said, turning to his golf ball). He was only the fucking President about to start a fucking war, what did that trivia matter?

Is not caring what the truth is less of a problem than not telling the truth, to you? Seems to me that’s worse.

I don’t know that the president gets into that level of detail in intelligence.

What part of “It’s a fucking WAR we’re talking about” are you having trouble with?

Tenet and McLaughlin dispute that they ever heard the German doubts about Curveball, let alone passed it along to Bush.

Yes, Bush wasn’t the only person in his administration who just didn’t give a good goddamn; they already had their minds made up. No question. But again, where does the buck stop?

Secondly, from what I understand about intel gathering, a lot of information that you get is highly imperfect, in much the same way as this guy or other ways.

Which is why the questionable stuff gets scrutinized, instead of the reasons for its questionability being dismissed and those who questioned it fired or having their secrecy exposed. Which is what happened.

The job of the intel people is to put together the various pieces of info and figure which make more sense in the context of each other and the overall picture.

The people who did that didn’t support the predetermined decision. So Cheney set up his own operation that would. You’re writing the indictment yourself, don’t you realize?

The fact that any one piece is highly suspect is significant if the entire picture is based on that one guy. But if what the guy says is consistent with info that you’ve derived from multiple other sources - each one of which may be similarly imperfect on its own - and consistent with what you believe based on other types of info (e.g. political assessments) than the imperfections of any one guy is not necessarily a fatal flaw.

Once again, “what they believed” was NOT based on intel, but on what they WANTED to believe. That was so fucking obvious to so many millions of people at the time that there were streets filled with demonstrations pleading with them not to do it, to look again, to consider the evidence more critically. Did you see any of that, or do you only watch Fox and read the WSJ? Come on now.
It isn’t a matter of fucking different opinions, no matter what you try to tell yourself. It’s a matter of fact vs. fantasy. You chose, and continue to choose, to discard fact and believe fantasy. That’s your right. But try to explain that to a grieving family and tell us what happens, okay?

But that’s not the question. The question here is if Bush lied about or cherry picked the evidence based on another agenda, unrelated to his assessment of which evidence was true or false?

That hasn’t been a question out here in the scorned “reality-based community” for a long time.

@magellan01

We were talking about Bush, while it talks about “the administration”. You do realize they are two different things, right?

Who do you think was in charge? Who did have the ultimate responsibility for making such a grave decision?

No, there were not “two different things”. Please. If you insist on that, you do have to tell us whose administration it really was.

doesn’t it give you pause that they could not find one in which Bush himself says the threat is “imminent”?

Not given the wealth of synonyms he and his people used, no. Why should it?

[ElvisL1ves]

@magellan01

The bolded ones indicate an existing program, especially the last one.

Which, given the tightness of the containment Saddam was under, could not have been continuting.

Did you note that all those quotes are about what he wanted to do, not what he could do, to say nothing of when if ever he could do it?

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

Who do you think was in charge? Who did have the ultimate responsibility for making such a grave decision?

He did. And if you’re charge was incompetence, dumbfuckness, etc., you have a point. But the charge of lie is different. It necessitates that the person passed along untrue information that he KNEW to be untrue.

This is one thing that surprises me about these boards. With the degree of smarts here I’m surprised to see that the accusation of lying is thrown around so loosely.

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves;11589432Not given the wealth of synonyms he and his people used, no. Why should it?[/QUOTE]

Only if you want to be accurate in your accusations. If that’s not important to you, knock yourself out. That doesn’t make you right about it though.

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

Which, given the tightness of the containment Saddam was under, could not have been continuting.

So you say. The Clinton administration, evidently, had a different opinion, as per the quotes.

@ElvisL1ves

Did you note that all those quotes are about what he wanted to do, not what he could do, to say nothing of when if ever he could do it?

That is simply not true. Read them again, particularly the bolded ones, and super-partucularly the last one. Pay attention to the tenses.

[ElvisL1ves]

@magellan01

So you say. The Clinton administration, evidently, had a different opinion, as per the quotes.

Please read them yourself. They’re about his intentions, NOT his capabilities, and certainly not about any actual threat being imminent (or choose your own synonym).

Better yet, come back with the full paragraphs or speeches they were in, not cherry-picked one-liners copied from some Freeper’s blog. You do agree context matters, don’t you?

And then perhaps you can take a stab at the reality issue you’ve been evading for so many years. Not the pointless and endless "Yeah, well, your hero Clinton … " tu quoque stuff, that you somehow find so comfortingly self-vindicating, yet again.

Can you take on the challenge to be responsible?

But the charge of lie is different. It necessitates that the person passed along untrue information that he KNEW to be untrue.

And that’s been done. In spades. I know it’s hard to accept, but it’s the fact nonetheless.

Only if you want to be accurate in your accusations.

See above comment about accepting your responsibilities.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

If what some are saying is that Bush was:

-too stupid
-too incompetent
-too incurious
-too blinkered

to even comprehend what the truth was…

I’m not particularly comforted by that.

[ivan_astikov]

If the US or the UK really wanted to know if Iraq had WMD’s, all it should have had to do was have a look through their invoices of the prior 20 years, or phone up a friendly mole with the Russians or Chinese and ask them what they’ve been selling.

[magellan01]

@ElvisL1ves

Please read them yourself. They’re about his intentions, NOT his capabilities, and certainly not about any actual threat being imminent (or choose your own synonym).

Better yet, come back with the full paragraphs or speeches they were in, not cherry-picked one-liners copied from some Freeper’s blog. You do agree context matters, don’t you?

And then perhaps you can take a stab at the reality issue you’ve been evading for so many years. Not the pointless and endless "Yeah, well, your hero Clinton … " tu quoque stuff, that you somehow find so comfortingly self-vindicating, yet again.

Can you take on the challenge to be responsible?

And that’s been done. In spades. I know it’s hard to accept, but it’s the fact nonetheless.

See above comment about accepting your responsibilities.

Slow down, Sparky. The one quote that I provided I did provide in context. I didn’t supply that list, people on YOUR side of the debate did. You may want to pay better attention. You may want to take responsibility for knowing who posted what when you talk about it.

And I am tickled to delight that you demand full paragraphs and context for the quotes from ME, but not of those who offered them into debate. :rolleyes:

[Whack-a-Mole]

@magellan01

Well, you can interpret things any way you’d like, that doesn’t make them true. First, your post moves the goalposts. We were talking about Bush, while it talks about “the administration”. You do realize they are two different things, right? And given the exhaustive search on whoever put together that list, doesn’t it give you pause that they could not find one in which Bush himself says the threat is “imminent”? And doesn’t give you pause that that list omits the quote that I supplied, which is the ONLY one that offers insight as to Bush and whether the concept of “imminent”?

It should.

Ah…one of those people. He didn’t say “The Word” so therefore we’ve got nothing to hang our hat on. :rolleyes:

Let’s suppose the magic word that would show what you meant was “two”.

Now imagine I ask you how many apples you want and you answer, “Ten divided by five.”

Well, you didn’t say the word “two” now did you? Guess you are off the hook. Nevermind that your answer amounts to the very same thing.

I provided a list of quotes by BUSH (among others). We’ve got Bush saying it, we’ve got his administration saying it.

I provided the dictionary definition of “imminent”. If you read the quotes it is abundantly apparent to any English speaker that Bush was portraying the threat as “imminent”. Go look up “synonymous” or quit with absurd semantic games. Not fooling anyone here.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@magellan01

The bolded ones indicate an existing program, especially the last one.

It does?

When I am quoting Bush here I am quoting him in the context of his trying to present the case for war. All of it was about that.

What was Clinton on about?

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

*“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
*

“If”? Saddam had a WMD program and Clinton was content to let it go? Nevermind that we had troops down there and inspectors and no fly zones in place. If it is just that Democrats are pussies where are the quotes from Republicans, who care about American safety, complaining bitterly that we ought to get in there and blow them up? Surely someone, somewhere would have been squawking about this stuff you are claiming he actually had.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

True…and?
*“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
*

Context? What weapons are “those weapons”? Saddam had them when Berger said that? He WILL use them? We sat on our hands and did nothing about that why?

Yeah Saddam was a creep. Yeah he gassed his own people. Not news. In 1998 he was defanged and a threat to no one except perhaps his own people.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

And again…where are these weapons? She knew he was spending money on them? We let him do that why?

Again I am wondering at the context of this. Sounds like loose talk. Certainly Saddam used to do that. He was buying WMD in 1999? I suppose he dropped them in a bottomless pit so Bush couldn’t find them.
None of the above are in the context of pushing for a war.

[magellan01]

@Whack-a-Mole

Ah…one of those people.

Yes, I am one those people. One of those people who think that an accusation of lying has two prongs: 1) a false statement uttered that the person 2) knows to be a false statement. I’ve held this position consistently on these boards whether talking about politicians or posters.

[magellan01]

@Whack-a-Mole

It does?

When I am quoting Bush here I am quoting him in the context of his trying to present the case for war. All of it was about that.

What was Clinton on about?

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

*“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
*

“If”? Saddam had a WMD program and Clinton was content to let it go? Nevermind that we had troops down there and inspectors and no fly zones in place. If it is just that Democrats are pussies where are the quotes from Republicans, who care about American safety, complaining bitterly that we ought to get in there and blow them up? Surely someone, somewhere would have been squawking about this stuff you are claiming he actually had.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

True…and?
*“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
*

Context? What weapons are “those weapons”? Saddam had them when Berger said that? He WILL use them? We sat on our hands and did nothing about that why?

Yeah Saddam was a creep. Yeah he gassed his own people. Not news. In 1998 he was defanged and a threat to no one except perhaps his own people.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

And again…where are these weapons? She knew he was spending money on them? We let him do that why?

Again I am wondering at the context of this. Sounds like loose talk. Certainly Saddam used to do that. He was buying WMD in 1999? I suppose he dropped them in a bottomless pit so Bush couldn’t find them.

None of the above are in the context of pushing for a war.

It appears that you have a beef with Clinton, Albright, Berger, etc. You’ll have to ask them why they didn’t act more forcefully. In this thread, I’ve take the sole position that I see no proof that Bush lied. But for some strange reason you and others feel compelled to cast his mistakes/stupidity,incompetence/malfeasance—whatever—as a “lie”. But even that string desire that righteous urge you feel doesn’t make it so. Sorry.

I will offer this in response to your last sentence: I think the threat Bush viewed coming from Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back. Heck, one could make a case for going in there and getting rid of him and his sons on purely humanitarian grounds. Add to that him thumbing his nose at so many U.N. resolutions AND then 9/11, and the camel’s back was broken. I’m not saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I’m saying that given that it was demonstrated the lengths that terrorist were willing to go to and the degree of harm they wanted to cause us, that them desiring to deploy a WMD on American soil was very reasonable. You then look to who might be willing to sell them one, and Saddam, squeezed for years by sanctions, is a likely candidate.

[gonzomax]

@magellan01

It appears that you have a beef with Clinton, Albright, Berger, etc. You’ll have to ask them why they didn’t act more forcefully. In this thread, I’ve take the sole position that I see no proof that Bush lied. But for some strange reason you and others feel compelled to cast his mistakes/stupidity,incompetence/malfeasance—whatever—as a “lie”. But even that string desire that righteous urge you feel doesn’t make it so. Sorry.

I will offer this in response to your last sentence: I think the threat Bush viewed coming from Iraq was the straw that broke the camels back. Heck, one could make a case for going in there and getting rid of him and his sons on purely humanitarian grounds. Add to that him thumbing his nose at so many U.N. resolutions AND then 9/11, and the camel’s back was broken. I’m not saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I’m saying that given that it was demonstrated the lengths that terrorist were willing to go to and the degree of harm they wanted to cause us, that them desiring to deploy a WMD on American soil was very reasonable. You then look to who might be willing to sell them one, and Saddam, squeezed for years by sanctions, is a likely candidate.

How quickly we forget. We went in to protect the country because he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam did not and they knew it. They drew a damn cartoon of a mobile weapons lab and showed it to the United Nations . It was shameful. Rice ,Cheney and Bush said over and over that they knew Saddam had weapons and was building the bomb. But all along they knew they were bending the info to justify what they were going to do anyway. Bush claimed Saddam bought yellow cake after he was clearly told it was not true. It was not reasonable to assume that Saddam had WMD. They were told by many sources that he was a powerless joke. Turkey refused to help us because they said Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors ,let alone the US.

[magellan01]

@gonzomax

How quickly we forget. We went in to protect the country because he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam did not and they knew it. They drew a damn cartoon of a mobile weapons lab and showed it to the United Nations . It was shameful. Rice ,Cheney and Bush said over and over that they knew Saddam had weapons and was building the bomb. But all along they knew they were bending the info to justify what they were going to do anyway. Bush claimed Saddam bought yellow cake after he was clearly told it was not true. It was not reasonable to assume that Saddam had WMD. They were told by many sources that he was a powerless joke. Turkey refused to help us because they said Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors ,let alone the US.

You seem to know an awful lot about what people knew. Have you played Vegas with your mind-reading act?

What I see left out of these debates consistently is that while undoubtedly heard experts argue points that would indicate that he should NOT have taken action in Iraq, he heard experts argue for going in, as well. So either way, he’s “ignoring the advice of experts”.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@magellan01

Yes, I am one those people. One of those people who think that an accusation of lying has two prongs: 1) a false statement uttered that the person 2) knows to be a false statement. I’ve held this position consistently on these boards whether talking about politicians or posters.

M’kay…(bolding mine)

Press Release of Intelligence Committee

Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence

– Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office –

<snip>

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

<snip>

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø **Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence. **

Ø **Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information. **

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø **Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. **

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

SOURCE: Press | Intelligence Committee

There ya go…he lied.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

sorry - forgot one:

Bush could not have lied because he was willfully ignorant of factual information, and remained insulated from reality. He therefore did not know he was making false statements.

[Clothahump]

@jtgain

I know that this will turn into a GD, but here goes. We went to war in Iraq looking for WMDs and we didn’t find any. There could be 2 reasons for this:

1. Bush was mistaken.
2. Bush lied.

Where is the evidence that Bush knew for a fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but said so anyways to justify an invasion? I’m not looking for anyone’s gut feeling just because they don’t like Bush or Cheney; I would like specific cites to credible evidence that Bush deliberately misled Americans and the rest of the world about the Iraqi WMD program.

We did eventually find some. We knew that he had WMDs because he killed a bunch of his own people with them. There were a whole bunch of people that thought Saddam had an active WMD program, including Clinton, Kerry and a host of others.

I don’t think Bush lied, nor do I think he was mistaken. I think the majority of the WMDs that Saddam had left wound up in Syria and other places.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Whack-a-Mole

There ya go…he lied.

Meant to add (sorry I forgot in the previous post):

A defense against slander (legally) is you told the truth, even if it was slanderous.

By your definition as long as you thought you were telling the truth it does not matter if it was a lie.

That defense would only get you so far in a trial for slander. See, they have this notion of something called “a callous disregard for the truth”. Our courts see that as equivalent to a lie inasmuch as telling the court, “Hey, I told the truth when I said that!” goes out the window for you as a defense if you clearly stuck your head in the sand to avoid learning the truth. Do you disagree with the legal system’s take on that?

Either Bush lied or at the very least he had such a stunning callous disregard for the truth as to amount to the same thing. Does it make you feel better if we stop calling Bush a liar but bust him just the same for a callous disregard for the truth? Amounts to the same thing but if you feel more comfortable with those semantics I can live with that.

[Little_Nemo]

I think the majority of the WMDs that Saddam had left wound up in Syria and other places.

Probably the same thing happened during World War II. Hitler had a few dozen atomic bombs ready when the American, British, and Soviet armies were all racing to overrun Germany. Goering, Himmler, Speer - those guys all kept saying it might be a good idea to use them against the enemy. But Hitler was too smart for that and he smuggled all of his superweapons into Switzerland where they’d be safe.

[Little_Nemo]

What I see left out of these debates consistently is that while undoubtedly heard experts argue points that would indicate that he should NOT have taken action in Iraq, he heard experts argue for going in, as well. So either way, he’s “ignoring the advice of experts”.

Except that the group of experts who said there were no WMD’s were right and the ones who Bush listened to instead were wrong. And the experts who were telling the truth had a lot more evidence - because what they were saying was true.

Heck if I want to I can go out and find a bunch of people who’ll tell me that Elvis Presley is alive. But that’s not gathering the advice of experts.