Bush Lied?

[Peter_Puget]

The report by the CIA's Iraq Survey Group and the Senate testimony Wednesday by Charles A. Duelfer, head of the survey group, make claims that President Bush "misled" the public absurd. If the Report is correct, such charges assume that the American President knew more about the Iraq weapons programs than did the Iraqi President's closest aides. For example, the Los Angeles Times, reports:

 

 

 

Shortly before the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq last year, Saddam Hussein gathered his top generals together to share what came to them as astonishing news: The weapons that the United States was launching a war to remove did not exist.

 

"There was plenty of surprise when Saddam said, 'Sorry guys, we don't have any' " weapons of mass destruction to use against the invading forces, a senior U.S. intelligence official said. ....

 

Far from being misinformed, the report says, Hussein was micromanaging Iraq's weapons policy himself and kept even his most loyal aides from gaining a clear picture of what was going on — and, more important, not going on — with the program.

 

 

Moreover, the Duelfer Report makes John Kerry's (current) campaign position that he would not have invaded Iraq based on what we know now not only irrelevant, but grotesque. No President is ever properly held to a "twenty-tweny-hindsight" standard that Senator Kerry is suggesting applies - a suggestion he will, by the way, deeply regret if he is elected in next month.

 

The proper standard for judging the President is, and always has been: Did the President make the correct decision based on the intelligence he had then? The core of the "Bush lied" assault on the President has been entirely based on the claim that he knew more than he disclosed to the public. But the Duelfer Report says that even Saddam's closest aides did not possess the information the "Bush Lied" crowd claims the President kept to himself.

 

Even more fundamentally, the Duelfer Report makes charges that American intelligence should have determined what Saddam's closest military aides could not determine - the status of Iraq's weapons programs - also absurd.

 

In short: If the Duelfer Report is correct, accepting arguments that the President withheld information on the status of Iraq's weapons systems, or that American intelligence misled the government or the world, shows nothing but a failure of another kind of intelligence that is, "smarts."

[Peter_Puget]

Thinking of changing by motto to not always conservative but always right!

[Squid]

sigh

[eternalX]

I'm not sure where to start. Why does it matter that his generals didn't know he didn't have chemical weapons? I think it just points out that Bush was also assuming and was quick to rush to war.

 

Did this come directly from Fox News or did you write this yourself?

[klenke]

That is one thing that bugs me about Kerry, that he voted for the Iraq war then, in the present (with his 20-20 hindsight), says the war was a bad idea. One thing that amused me in the last debate was, when asked about his voting for the money expenditure for the military then voting against it, that he had changed the way he "talks about the war." WTF bullshit talk your way out of your ass comment was that? His talk and the actual action seem to be two incongruent things. The action carries more weight than the talk. Always has. Kerry will say a lot of things depending on his audience. That's why track record speaks bigger volumes.

 

That said, Bush is an idiot. Couldn't the dems have come up with someone better. It shouldn't have been that hard.

[dberdinka]

HOLY SHIT!

 

go type the following four words into google and hit search. Look at the fourth link down....

 

uranium centrifuge misled Bush

 

Do it. JUST DO IT!

 

Afterwards click the link and read what someone else posted so as to have a better understanding of how full of shit Peter Puget is how, yes, Bush Co misled us (assuming you bought their bullshit to begin with).

[klenke]

Only 4th in the list. What a shame! We're slipping here at CC, the ultimate world blog.

[Squid]

Soon, we'll be cited as an authoritative source.

[klenke]

Could we manage to lock up the World Wide Web if we started a thread about Google? You could search for "Google" in Google and get an infinite recursion thing going on, kind of like taking video of a TV screen and then feeding that video into the very same TV. Yeah baby!

Okay, so maybe not.

[slothrop]

The vote that everyone says was "for the war" was actually just to authorize the use of force by the President, effectively handing over the Congress' war-declaring authority to the Prez. (Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?) Kerry gave a speech during that vote, saying he hoped war would not be necessary, and that diplomacy must be given a chance.

 

So the vote "for the war" was really a vote of confidence in Bush's judgment on whether to go to war in Iraq or not. A stupid thing to agree to in hindsight, but different than actually voting to declare war on Iraq.

 

If you read the recent very long article in the NYT about the centrifuge/rocket body debate, you'll realize that many Senators who voted for the use of force authorization did not, in fact, know the same intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities that the executive branch did. Whether that would have changed many votes is doubtful, given the mass hysteria at the time...

Edited October 8, 2004 by slothrop

[scott_harpell]

The vote that everyone says was "for the war" was actually just to authorize the use of force by the President, effectively handing over the Congress' war-declaring authority to the Prez.

 

What do you think Kerry thought Bush was gonna do with that power... either he is a dumbass, or he knew damn well. We all did.

[slothrop]

Sure, he knew. But the vote gave the President responsibility, he fuct it up, and now he refuses to take the blame.

[scott_harpell]

What!?!?!? So Kerry knew Bush would go to war, but he voted for authorization anyways? Fuck man... think about this.

[slothrop]

Don't be so indignant, as if I speak for Kerry. I meant "knew" in the sense that "we all know" and that it seemed inevitable given the personalities and power games being played. Just like we "know" that Bush will keep saying that the war was justified even as the evidence crumbles around him.

[scott_harpell]

Well shit... I knew Bush was gonna go to war when that vote was cast... you know why? because he said he was gonna do it. Are you saying that Kerry didn't 'know' that bush was gonna go to war? because if he didn't he is a dumbass.

[cj001f]

Well shit... I knew Bush was gonna go to war when that vote was cast... you know why? because he said he was gonna do it. Are you saying that Kerry didn't 'know' that bush was gonna go to war? because if he didn't he is a dumbass.

 

So your saying Bush never had the intention of a peaceful resolution to the conflict and no matter what Saddam had done we'd have gone to war?

[scott_harpell]

Bush's stance was that he was going to invade if the UN resolution was not upheld. Saddam was clear that he was not bowing to this demand. This is not rocket science guys. What do you think is gonna happen? Either Saddam backs down or Bush declares war. Saddam didn't back down... Bush declared war. Please tell me you saw this comming.

[cj001f]

Bush's stance was that he was going to invade if the UN resolution was not upheld. Saddam was clear that he was not bowing to this demand. This is not rocket science guys. What do you think is gonna happen? Either Saddam backs down or Bush declares war. Saddam didn't back down... Bush declared war. Please tell me you saw this comming.

 

No, it's not rocket science Scott. Kerry voted to give Bush the ABILITY to declare war. Kerry didn't declare war, Bush did.

 

As for the stated positions of Bush & Saddam, Saddam was lying, how do we know Bush wasn't? Would he have invaded even if Saddam backed down?

[klenke]

I must admit I was a bit surprised at the following event:

I was at my parents' house doing a puzzle with my mother the moment Bush came on for a press conference (or it might have been on the news later) where he said, "Saddam, you've got 48 hours to leave Iraq or else."

One bully bullying another. Kind of playgroundish.

[willstrickland]

I'm getting a little tired of the misrepresentations of what Kerry's vote meant. He made it exceedingly clear in his Senate floor speech when the resolution was being debated. I know it's easier for some of you to parrot the party-line talking points, but c'mon it ain't that hard to go and find the actual speech. Here is an excerpt of what Kerry said:

 

 

 

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

 

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

 

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

 

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

 

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. "

[ScottP]

Don't be so indignant, as if I speak for Kerry. I meant "knew" in the sense that "we all know" and that it seemed inevitable given the personalities and power games being played. Just like we "know" that Bush will keep saying that the war was justified even as the evidence crumbles around him.

Um, is that "know" in the biblical sense?

[klenke]

I stand corrected in what he, Kerry, voted for (not for war itself, but for the ability for the President to declare war with congressional approval). That is obvious and his speech at the time confirms his reservations.

 

--Parrot

[scott_harpell]

And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

 

covering one's own ass. if you didn't know we were going to war, you are a waste of oxygen. GWB had his sights on that shit fom day 1 and you have all said it before. He knew what his vote meant.

[cj001f]

covering one's own ass. if you didn't know we were going to war, you are a waste of oxygen. GWB had his sights on that shit fom day 1 and you have all said it before. He knew what his vote meant.

 

So W lied to us the whole time. Thanks for making that clear Scott.

[scott_harpell]

I said he wanted to go after Saddam... he said that on national television... that usually doesn't constitute a lie.