I have strenuously argued that I believe Bush and his advisers were just simply wrong on Iraq, because they believed what they wanted to, as opposed to lying. Does that answer your question, mags?
If it does, let me ask you one: who gave more caveats and hedges to their public statements: Susan Rice (“the best information we have at the moment…”) or Condi Rice (“don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”)?
food stamps are way up, millions of people have left the employment market. The fiasco that is Obama Care netted 7 million people which is far short of the gap it was claimed would fix and for that our premiums shot up and business were saddled with more expenses. His solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear program was to give them money. He poured hundreds of millions into a solar cell factory that his own advisers told him would fold. I don’t have to try hard to find things I don’t like either.
So he didn’t lie? Did he find those WMDs under that chair in the oval office after all?
Maybe Obama should fix the ACA, food stamps, and Solyndra with some Spec Ops guys riding into town on motorcycles.
Actually, the Iraq solution was a combination of sanctions and money. The ole “carrot and stick” approach. Seems to be working, and much cheaper than a day or two of war, even one that would be over in a few weeks and should pay for itself.
Solar cell technology is worth investing in. I’ve not no problem with that. No one bats 1,000.
Not sure what’s controversial about food stamps.
As a business owner, I’m really tired of paying gigantic health insurance premiums for my employees. The rates went up a bit this year, as they do every year. I don’t see ACA as being an issue. Not sure what “new expenses” you’re referring to.
Or maybe you should start that thread. Sounds like it’ll be very interesting. I’ll keep an eye out.
Or maybe you should start one - it seems to be top of your to-read list. Don’t be such a slug.
Oh, good heavens. Bush had been saying al Qaeda was on the run for 7 years, and killing Bin Laden was certainly more tangible evidence that we were making progress than Bush’s posturing. And “on the run” doesn’t mean “totally eradicated.”
As I said, I gave him the benefit of the doubt until March 2003. I knew he was lying when he signed a letter to Congress, as required by the October 2002 Congressional authorization, that certified in writing that all diplomatic efforts had failed, and that nothing short of military force could protect us from Saddam.
He did that 11 days after Hans Blix reported to the UN Security Council that after thorough examination of all sites identified by our intelligence as possible WMD facilities or stockpiles — including the Presidential palaces, traveling unannounced to sites by helicopter so that there would be no time to hide anything, examining the sites with ground-penetrating radar to ensure that there were no hidden basements or false walls — that no evidence of WMD manufacturing or storage had been found, that the only remaining WMD questions were about missing records of claimed destruction of stockpiles, that even some conventional missiles that had been determined to be able to fly about 20 miles farther than the 94-mile UN limit (Baghdad is about 8,000 miles from the US) were already being destroyed, and that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections not only actively, but proactively.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
Blix estimated than the accounting discrepancies could be cleared up within a few months, and that the continued presence of inspectors would prevent Saddam from resuming any WMD activity without our knowing about it.
Bush didn’t care. He wanted to invade, so he wrote and signed a letter to Congress alleging facts which he knew to be false.
I agree with that. But certainly you’d agree that after Obama decided to make that part of his reelection platform, an attack by Al Qaeda would be, shall we say, unhelpful.
That’s what I anticipated you meant, but wasn’t sure. I do not consider that giving him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that he was mistaken, and not lying, that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
So, all the Bush attack dogs, can relax. The above was the singular reason for my question. But you guys should still start a thread on it. I’m sure it will be a fresh, informative, and non-partisan discussion. I’m all atwitter in anticipation.
Sorry, but I haven’t read most of the thread, just a few posts from some conservatives on the first page not answering the question. Has any conservative really given an answer yet? Saying “if it can be proved that the President isn’t a liar” isn’t really answering the question
The campaign claim was “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.” I can’t imagine an Al Qaeda attack would hurt the popularity of a sitting president, at least in the short term. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen. Americans tend to rally around their leaders after such an event.
It’s Iran, not Iraq.
He was told to the month when it would collapse.
It means his economic policy was a failure and has driven more people in to poverty.
The expense is for businesses who weren’t paying it in the first place. It’s not the function of business to provide this service.
I would agree with that, except when in the throes of a campaign, the President is trying to craft a narrative that the enemy has been defeated, as he was. And there is an opponent ready to call him out on misstatements. As Romney did on Benghazi until Candy Crowley (amazingly) interrupted and tried to correct Romney—while she was WRONG.
The short answer is no.
The closest I’ve seen to an honest answer was the fellow up thread who said the evidence is so overwhelming it’s like asking what could change your mind about gravity.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for one piece of convincing evidence that the administration knowingly lied.
On this I completely agree. I would love to see government supplied health insurance to all Americans. In the meantime, I would not be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn’t provide health insurance as an employee benefit. We pay 100% of the premiums to everyone who works more than 20 hours per week. It costs a fortune. But that was true before the ACA as well.
The indented quote is definitely untrue. Susan Rice did no such thing.
But here’s the thing: even if it were true…so fucking what? We don’t impeach Presidents for political spin. Lying to weekend press shows is not a crime. Hell, lying to the United Nations in order to start a war is not a crime.
So, even if the whole fantasy were true…you got nothing.
You do realize of course, that Al Qaeda didn’t carry out the attack. Right? You understand that? After alleging that the White House had information at its fingertips about who carried out the attack, but you think that they disregarded that information to push their own agenda about who really was behind the attack? I mean, with all the Internet available to you, along with ample proof that al Qaeda didn’t carry out the attack, you aren’t ignoring those facts simply to push an anti-Obama message…
Are you?
Cite that Obama said that “the enemy has been defeated,” because I’m pretty sure you know that’s BS.
That makes no sense at all. I assumed that he was mistaken right up until we had proof to the contrary. When all we had was satellite photos, I was fine with him assuming the worst. The CIA might have been wrong, but he couldn’t take that chance. I don’t blame the CIA for being overly pessimistic, and I don’t blame Bush for assuming their worst case estimates, when it’s his job to protect the country.
This in spite of the fact that I knew he was grossly exaggerating the threat, even if the CIA was right. I mean, look at Syria today. We know they have chemical weapons. We know they support terrorists. But nobody is running around saying that America’s security depends on invading them.
But after the UN inspectors visit the sites that the CIA identified, and find that they have clearly been abandoned for years, and some alleged chemical weapons factories don’t even have indoor plumbing, then we know for a fact that the CIA was mistaken. That’s good news, right? Now we don’t have to invade!
But Bush read Blix’s report (if he didn’t, he was criminally negligent), and knew for a fact that the CIA was wrong about every single site they identified, and knew for a fact that Iraq was cooperating with the inspections, and knew for a fact that invasion wasn’t necessary to keep America safe.
And then he turns around and says nothing short of invasion will save us from Saddam’s WMDs. That’s not being mistaken. He was knowingly, deliberately, lying. In writing, to Congress, as well as to the American people.
Is it conceivable that Bush in good faith simply couldn’t believe the Blix report? The thing that’s never made sense to me is, why would Bush lie knowing that the truth would come out and his legacy would end up being, well, exactly what it is? What was he hoping for, on the theory that he was lying?
Same with me, the tread didn’t appear promising at first, but page 4 has some decent info for people like me who not following the conspiracy of the day. (Haven’t looked at pages 2 & 3.)