Absent the Bush Campaign to intentionally discredit the U.N. Inspections, which, as we NOW know, were thourough, and accurate, and to monger fear amongst the American Public that Iraq was an IMMINENT threat to the U.S., and a direct supporter of Al Qaida. ALL of this has been shown to be false. The case for overthrowing Saddam was cooked, and it has been at the TOP of the Bush Agenda since the day they took office. 9/11 gave Bush/Cheney the ammo that they needed to hoodwink the U.S. public as to Saddam's danger to US. He was always a LOCAL despot, but he was only blustering against us in order to beef up his position in the Arab world. He was NEVER a GENUINE threat to us, and he was NEVER in cahoots with Al Qaida. Bush and especially Cheney fabricated that.
This is somewhat redundant in that I posted part of it as a reply to an earlier post by sdstud. But I wanted to list these quotes becuase I'm having trouble understanding why so many of you hardcore lefties scream that Bush lied, yet you ignore more than tens years of statements by Democrats which indicate that Bush made cliams that he and his administration believed true, based on intelligence they received. Is it willfull ignorance on your part? or just a partisan refusal to acknowledge that Bush genuinely believed what he was being told? Please explain. Here are the quotes, the last one is the best:
"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.
"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.
"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
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"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.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
RLTW
-- Modified on 4/26/2004 9:54:57 PM
... While Bush is President, it's "Bush's War". If it works well, he will get the credit. If it shits the bed, he gets the blame and has to work the clean-up. Success has a thousand partners. Failure is an only child.
Everybody said lots of things about what should be done about Iraq. A series of statements by the Dems do not get the GOP off the hook.
It sounds like you do not understand what it means to be a leader.
It sounds like you don't want to address the issue. I fully understand the responsibilities of leadership. And it's pretty damned obvious that Bush will bear the fruits of success or the burden of failure in Iraq. That is not the issue. My point is this; you posters who claim that Bush KNOWINGLY LIED to the public can't seem to back up those assertions with any factual evidence. And yet, when challenged to explain why Democrats were making the same statements about Iraq and WMD prior to the war, you try to change the subject.
That's pathetic, and quite hypocritical. Let me try to simplify the question for you. If Bush lied about WMD, were the Democrats like Kerry, Gore, Kennedy, and Clinton lying also? Or was Bush practicing a "nuanced" form of mind control over them.
RLTW
on his part. He wanted to have a justifiable reason to invade Iraq. When you hear people say that he pressed people on his team to try to find a justification in 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein, do you really doubt them?
He took it personally when he learned that Saddam had tried to assassinate his father. Understandable, but in his role as leader, he had to rise above that and do what was best for the country. Waht is happening now and will happen in the future in Iraq is not what is best for America.
Thanks for the reply. I just disagree though. Both of Bob Woodward's books (yes, I do read books) contradict the assertions that Bush was so gungho on invading Iraq he willingly exagerated the intelligence.
It's almost moot to argue this point because most people have made up their minds about the issue. The one thing that I see in this forum and other political discussion boards is that the hard core Bush haters are alot like the hard core Clinton haters of the late nineties. They will latch onto any little nugget of information (regardless of accuracy) and twist it into a convoluted conspiracy theory. Much like the revenge aspect that you mentioned.
RLTW
The idea that GW Bush sought revenge is far from a conspiracy theory, since it simply involves the emotions and motivations of one man.
Do you think that GW Bush is the kind of person who would seek to punish someone who tried to kill his father? If not, then I disagree with you about that.
Perhaps you do agree, and what we really disagree about is whether he was able to rise above those powerful personal feelings.
The only thing I would add is that if Bush is true to his religious beliefs, he would have forgiven Saddam for the transgression against his father.
RLTW
governor of Texas, and supported the death penalty, many men were executed. Bush's religious beliefs certainly did not prevent him from supporting punishment for them.
No reason from my viewpoint to think it would be any different with Saddam.
... I agree the Dems said something about Iraq. I don't think that what they said or did not say means very much WRT what happened. The GOP controlled government and made the decision. There was Dem support in Congress for the decision. But the way the world works is that if the war is seen to be a success, the GOP gets the credit and if the war is seen to be a failure, the GOP gets the blame.
My understanding of your original post is that you are spreading the blame for the decision and the problems around. It doesn't work that way.
-- Modified on 4/27/2004 1:12:24 PM
I am not spreading blame. I give full credit to Bush for having the balls to fucking act on something that everyone else avoided becuase it was not the politically correct thing to do. I also have enough balls to say that if things things fail in Iraq, it will be Bush's responsibility. Let me state my point again. It's really simple:
1. Pre-war, over a long period of time, everyone from Clinton to Kerry agreed that BASED ON INTELLIGENCE, Saddam had/ was trying to procure/ was reconstituting WMD's /programs.
2. Based on their own words, the afore mentioned Democrats agreed that Saddam was a threat and needed to be removed. Some even clearly stated that intelligence indicated he had ties to terrorists, including Al Queda (Hillary Clinton).
3. Bush goes to U.N., Urges Security Council to enforce numerous resolutions. Sends Powell, who also urges U.N. to take action. France, Russia and Germany scuttle efforts of U.S. (sure would hate to lose that Oil-for-food money and all those weapons contracts).
4. Bush takes action against Iraq with congressional approval from both sides of isle. Invades Iraq.
5. Election year politics begin, and out come the absurd claims that Bush lied about WMD/ lied about terror ties/ wants the oil/ revenge for daddy, etc..
So again, my question: How can you Bush haters defend your assertions that Bush lied and that he had a nefarious plan to invade Iraq for oil /revenge, when all along the Democrats were saying the exact same thing. Even Kerry. They were all looking at the same intelligence. The only lie here, is the false assertion that Bush knowingly lied about Saddam's WMD programs and ties to terrorism. How can you not see the hypocricy of your argument. Maybe you do see it, but just don't have the balls to admit it.
RLTW
Yes, Bush acted on Iraq. He acted on bad info, that he spun in the way he saw fit, because he fancies himself a cowboy. And we have a disastrous quagmire on our hands. Because Bush is a simplistic, un-questioning, Fighter-jock wanna-be, who is unqualified to deal with the nuances of applying force on the international stage. So lets get someone who IS qualified, and can apply some THOUGHT to our foreign policy, rather than an un-questioning cowboy who's bias to action without thinking is liable to get us into a WW-III crusade against the Moslem World.
... You will notice I have been careful not to condemn Bush about Iraq in the past. I will continue to be so. He made a call that broad support in the elected government. I'm sure the details, information, and ... will be debated forever. I don't think we have all the information we need to come to a lot of deep conclusions.
I hope Bush can pull it off and make something good of this. If I had to make the call right now, I personally am not sure he can. I think we will be there for a long time and not much good will come out of it in the near term. Nation building is very difficult and the US isn't prepared to do it as a people.
Harry
installing our own despots (Chalabi, etc) ala Iran. Thee is no question that there was bilateral support for removing Saddam, but Congress trusted Bush to show restraint and have a plan. Nobody envisioned a bunch of cowboys tuning Iraq upside down and forcing a system of government on them. As for the WMDs, more and more we find that intelligence to suppor their presence at the time of the invasion simply did not exist and was fabricated by the Bushies.
Absent the Bush Campaign to intentionally discredit the U.N. Inspections, which, as we NOW know, were thourough, and accurate, and to monger fear amongst the American Public that Iraq was an IMMINENT threat to the U.S., and a direct supporter of Al Qaida. ALL of this has been shown to be false. The case for overthrowing Saddam was cooked, and it has been at the TOP of the Bush Agenda since the day they took office. 9/11 gave Bush/Cheney the ammo that they needed to hoodwink the U.S. public as to Saddam's danger to US. He was always a LOCAL despot, but he was only blustering against us in order to beef up his position in the Arab world. He was NEVER a GENUINE threat to us, and he was NEVER in cahoots with Al Qaida. Bush and especially Cheney fabricated that.
"As for the WMDs, more and more we find that intelligence to suppor their presence at the time of the invasion simply did not exist and was fabricated by the Bushies."
That is nothing more that an outright lie!
based on the evidence at hand. It is most assuredly not a lie. It is a logical deduction based on the obvious attempts of the Bush Administration to stifle the flow of information concerning the Iraq war planning in his administration PRIOR to 9/11.
Obviously, you don't fit the description of my subject heading, (especially the term "rational") so you have reached a different conclusion.
No, it is the truth.
Bush pressed hard to find an excuse to invade. He took questionable intelligence (Chalabi is a textbook example) and presented it in a public state of the union address. He and his cronies made sure that all intelligence was filtered and presented in a way that made his case look good. When he was questioned, especially about the Niger connection, he had his henchmen out a CIA operative in retaliation.
I agree that the post-war situation has been bumblefucked. But I'm optimistic and hopeful that things will get better.
However, your dodging my question. Please explain how "the bushies" fabricated intelligence, when the Democrats who were privy to the same intel as the administration were making claims that clearly supported Bush's statements on Iraq. You can't have it both ways. If Bush lied about Iraq and WMD, then so did Clinton, Kerry and the others. If those same "lies" render Bush unfit for office, as you have stated before, then so too are those Democrats unfit for office. Your claims that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq are weak, and built upon a foundation of bullshit.
RLTW
And, it is NOT the lies, in and of themselves that render Bush unfit for office - it is USING the lies to justify a war that do this. All Presidents lie. But lying to justify entering a war is unconscionable, and grounds for impeachment. That being said, I do not believe Clinton or Kerry lied about Saddam. They made statements based on ambiguous or incorrect information. But they never used that ambiguous or incorrect information to justify a war. THAT's where they would have crossed the line and been as wrong as Bush is on the Iraq issue. The statements themselves are almost immaterial. It is how they were used and the consequences that resulted that makes Bush's actions criminal.
Also, the fact is, the Bush Administration had access to the most recent round of U.N. Weapons inspections, and chose to dismiss this info. Also, they had MORE specific information about Saddam's NUCLEAR program NOT being active. This information was either directly lied about, or intentionally obfuscated in a conspiracy, or misunderstood through sheer and monumental incompetence. And as a result, we are in a disasterously bad war. Any one of those actions is sufficient to justify getting the Bush team out of office. We can scarcely risk repeating this experience with whomever else is next on Warmonger Bush's agenda (Syria, North Korea, Iran?).
Because the fact is, it was caused by Bush's headlong rush into this catastrophic quagmire. I will agree that Clinton also dissembled on the Iraq situation. But lying is NOT the issue. Lying to justfy a war is the issue. It was not the lie ITSELF that makes Bush unfit for the Presidency. All presidents lie. It is USING the lie to justify a disastrous policy which, by the time it's over, will likely have gotten over 1000 Brave Americans killed, for Bush and Cheney's craven self-interests. I consider that to be akin to Bush murdering these Brave Americans for no good reason. Getting people killed in defense of a lie is MUCH worse than lying. THATS the issue. Not the lying itself. Clinton didn't do that. He got a Consensual Blowjob. Also not as bad as getting people killed for ones self interest, justified by lies and spin and a conspiracy to link Iraq and 9/11, when there was NOTHING to justify that linkage.
First of all, WHATEVER public utterances were made by the Clinton administration, It is clear that they DID NOT have enough of a CONCLUSIVE WMD CASE to JUSTIFY a full scale attack on Iraq. We know this because they never attacked Iraq. Speachifying without action may be lamentable, but it is FAR LESS Lamentable then getting into a wrong-headed war without any exit plan, and without there ACTUALLY being a legitimate threat to US, as opposed to Saddam's own people.
In addition, once Bush started to press the case for overthrowing Saddam, we had an entire regime of U.N. weapons inspections, which Clinton did not have, and Bush did, to refute the fact that Saddam had no active WMD programs of ANY type, and CERTAINLY no active Nuclear program. Clinton did not have this info. And while Bush could still have logically concluded that Saddam had hidden stockpiles of bio or chemical agents, he clearly DID NOT have any active program to develop a DELIVERY MECHANISM that threatened US with these weapons, even if he DID have stockpiles. So, there is no way that Saddam could have represented any type of imminent threat to US, whatever the degree of threat he did represent to his own citizenry.
Whatever you think of Saddam, and I personally think he was a brutal despot, in terms of U.S. security, when he was in place, he was preferable to an unstable power vacuum such as exists now, and which gives Al Qaida the freedom to operate that they USED to have in Afghanistan, but NEVER had in Iraq under Saddam. In effect, the Iraq war has UNDONE the benefits of the Afghanistan war, by giving Al Qaida a NEW training ground, to replace the one we took away in Afghanistan. All of which would be bad enough if we actually went into this war on good faith, which we DID NOT.
As for RLTW's post below, in which he claims to refute the fact that the Bush Administration WANTONLY LIED to the American public as a justification for this war, His argument comes up short. I will acknowledge one error in my earlier post. I stated that Joseph Wilson established that the purported purchase of yellowcake in Niger was a fiction, and that he and George Tenet briefed Bush and Cheney on this. In fact, Wilson briefed Tenet, and then Tenet briefed Bush and Cheney, BEFORE the State of the Union Message. That's the ONLY inaccuracy in my earlier post, and the substantive difference is unimportant.
It is absolutely implausible that Bush and Cheney did not know that they were over-stating Saddam's NUCLEAR capability in the 2003 State of the Union Message which was used to drum up public support for the Iraq invasion. Tenet has tried to imply, without actually saying so, that HE was the cause of the communications break down, that prevented Bush and Cheney themselves from realizing that the information in the State of the Union Message was inaccurate. But that simply doesn't wash with any credibility at all, simply because Tenet CONTINUES to hold his job. If it were TRUE that HE was the reason that the American Public were lied to about this, that would beyond a doubt, be a firing offense. Yet he still serves, at the pleasure of the President. As it is, there are only 3 POSSIBLE conclusions that can be drawn about this piece of information:
1) Bush and Cheney REALLY didn't have the information that was fully known at lower levels within the Administration. Frankly, this would require such FUNDAMENTAL incompetence by the entire Administration that it is simply implausible. However, I will grant, that this is POSSIBLE, however unlikely. If this IS the case, then the entire Bush Administration is completely unfit, and the remedy is clear - sweep them out of office as soon as is humanly possible, because this level of incompetence is INCREDIBLY dangerous for our nation.
2) Bush and Cheney knew what the LIKELY information was, but they INTENTIONALLY were kept from this specific piece of info, simply to maintain plausible deniability. This is MORE troubling than ANY of the other scenarios, because it indicates an entire pre-meditated conspiracy to cook up a war against Iraq based on a WMD case that was fully known in advance to be inaccurate. This is the worst conclusion of all, because it would indicate that the entire Iraq war justification was so craven that nobody in the Administration actually CARED what the real information was, so long as a proper WMD case could be cooked up to justify overthrowing Saddam.
3) Bush and Cheney knew the SPECIFIC information about Iraq no longer having a nuclear program, but specifically lied about this information, because it interfered with making a good case. In fact, this is really no different from scenario #2 above, except it requires less elaborate planning to maintain.
Personally, I believe that there is compelling evidence that what actually happened was either scenario #2 or #3, which is intentional malfeasance of the Administration toward the American Public. However if RLTW or James86 wishes to make the case that what REALLY happened was simply wanton incompetence, of a level so severe that we got into a tragic and wrongheaded war over it, I am prepared to listen to THAT argument, as long as we acknowledge that the only realistic remedy would be to sweep such an incompetent administration out of power as soon as humanly possible, i.e. at the next election, or perhaps earlier through impeachment proceedings.
And finally, if this was all just a missed communication, how come there has been NOBODY who is willing to explain why Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame, was the victim of TREASON by someone in the Administration after Wilson went public with this story. I haven't heard ANYONE defend that yet. And that, by itself, is CERTAINLY an impeachible offense, from whomever it originated within the Administration.
I've never contended that Bush "lied" about Iraq having WMD. I believed he was wrong when he said they had them. Any Democrats or liberals who thought he did, I also believed were wrong. What I believed Bush "lied" about was the REASON we went to war. WMD was the EXCUSE this administration used to justify the war to the American people.
What Saddam had or did in the 1990's is immaterial in the decision to go to war in 2003. He had a nuclear reactor program until the Israelis did it in - that's immaterial as well. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle supported disarming Saddam - based on intelligence provided by Bush. That's where the problem comes in. Bush didn't just lie to us - he lied to Congress. With the information he provided - flawed information, and there is every indication that he knew it was flawed - no right thinking person would have voted any other way. It speaks volumes for the non-partisan response by Dems that they supported him - until it became obvious that he lied. Where was that level of support from Reps for anything Clinton did?
What Saddam did in the 1990's is very relevant to the effort to remove him in 2003. I'll repeat Al, John, and Hillary's explainations why:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Now, from reading your posts I get the impression that you are an intelligent (though misguided) person with an interest in politics. You should know that the intelligence given to the Democrats was not provided by Bush. It came from the CIA, FBI, NSA and other intel sources. The Senate Intelligence Committee has unfettered access to the same material that the Administration has. To claim that they were duped by Bush is simply ludicrous.
Personally, I think the "Bush lied" hyperbole actually helps Bush in the long run. It's one of the reasons they should show Ted Kennedy's speeches as much as possible between now and November. If the RNC were smart, they would also get sdstud out there in the public arena.
RLTW
What was relevant in 1998 has nothing to do with what is relevant in 2003. Because Saddam clearly disbanded his WMD DELIVERY prgrams, and Nuclear programs in that intermediate timeframe. He rendered himself a NOT imminent threat. At that point, He was a fully contained minor irritant on the world stage, as it related to us. Al Qaida, OTOH, was a GENUINE ENEMY, who had PROVEN both a Desire and an Ability to do us harm. Bush has now allowed them to re-constitute, and re-generate that threat, simply because he had a hard-on for Saddam. That is MONUMENTAL Short-sightedness, and I am sure that it will eventually cost us MANY more American lives than the 700+ who have so far paid for Bush's cowboy policies in Iraq.