Dedicated to all those who think Bush lied or manipulated intel.

Norman Podhoretz's newest article for Commentary Magazine assembles a great list of quotes regarding Iraq - and totally owns the Moonbat Left in the process.

A sample:

But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 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.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk 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.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

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.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

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.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

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.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 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.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

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.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html

People are spineless.

And?

As you did not have time to read the article, one can only assume you are projecting.

I read the part you posted--the list of quotes--as it would seem plausible that that was the part you found most compelling. My response was that those people you quoted were as misinformed/lying as the Bush Admin. and/or they're too spineless to say anything about their principles because of political "necessity."

No, I didn't read the whole link. Nor will I.

Thanks for sharing. I will give your comments the due consideration they deserve, which ain't much.

And the logic behind that is...?

Boed disqualifies herself from the world of logic simply because she's over 30 and thinks she can say pwned.

Boed disqualifies herself from the world of logic simply because she's over 30 and thinks she can say pwned.

In short, there is no good response to the quotes. That's why it's a losing proposition for democrats to try again to make the case that Bush lied us into the war. Their comments and votes are part of the record, and they can't run from them. 3 investigations have found no evidence of manipulation or undue influence, so to push too hard now will blow up in their faces.

In short, there is no good response to the quotes.

Couldnt read them. Me and Boed happily block eachother.

That's why it's a losing proposition for democrats to try again to
make the case that Bush lied us into the war.

Actually its a very strong proposition.

Their comments and votes are part of the record, and they can't run from them.

They dont have to.

3 investigations have found no evidence of manipulation or undue influence, so to push too hard now will blow up in their faces.

Which investigations again investigated both the BA and the OSP?

In short, there is no good response to the quotes. That's why it's a losing proposition for democrats to try again to make the case that Bush lied us into the war. Their comments and votes are part of the record, and they can't run from them. 3 investigations have found no evidence of manipulation or undue influence, so to push too hard now will blow up in their faces.


It's why they have to hold secret Senate Sessions in order to be able to have off the record temper tantrums - and create an impression in the public's mind that they must know something incriminating about the opposition.

I only read the parts quoted ( will later read the link) .

BUT I will offer the following. I voted for Bush in 2000 as my political and social beliefs tend toward the conservative side( though Spab has accused me of having a liberal streak). Could not vote the same in 2004 because by this time we were at war and even to this naive person it was obvious that the BA had misstated several of the situations.

Early on even though I am basically a 'peacenik' I had argued with many of my friends( even tho some are liberal we oldies are tolerant of each others viewpoints) FOR the war. So it does not surprise me to read that some Democrats said things that were supportive of the president. ( Heck with all the flak they were taking about being against America I can understand) In my discussions with my cronies I think that I and a few others began to change the opinions of our liberal oldies(ie they were now more for the war also). As you might imagine we ate quite a bit of crow when the BA had to correct some of the misstatements.

Perhaps I missed it but resuming my peacenik stance I didn't get the flavor from any of the quoted portions that any of them were as vigorous in being FOR war as Bush and HIS cronies were

What I think is funny is that all the people who voted for the war, ie Kerry, were so easily fooled by the Bush Administration. If Bush lied then that means that these oh so bright Democrats are very easily duped.

If Bush lied, not only were the Democrats duped, but so was most of the country.
Of course, that's not saying much considering how many people in the US are complete freakin' idiots.
The Senate, though, really only bears responsibility for providing the Bush Administration with the legal powers to go to war.
The President is the one who gave the order and set that ball rolling.
If it turns into a great success, then Bush will get most of the credit. Likewise, if it's a complete mess, like it seems to be lately, he gets most of the credit for that too.

Wow. I didn't realize that Bush was so powerful he was able to manipulate Clinton when he was still in office!

Again, Bush and his gang said the evidence was conclusive while it was anything but and it's reasonable to think they knew this. Unless the article can disprove that, the fact that they lied remains unchallenged.

Whether or not Clinton and his gang lied doesn't affect that at all.

Again, it was a judgement call. When one is responsible for the national security of a nation with >280M inhabitants, one may reasonably err on the side of caution. You may disagree with his judgement, but that doesn't make Bush a liar or a manipulator of intel.

Again, it was a judgement call. When one is responsible for the national security of a nation with >280M inhabitants, one may reasonably err on the side of caution. You may disagree with his judgement, but that doesn't make Bush a liar or a manipulator of intel.

Agreed. The Monday morning quarterbacks love to pick out bits of intel from the ocean that the president had to consider and insist that it was obvious that Osama was going to attack on 9/11 by flying airplanes into the WTC. It was obvious that, although the majority of the world thought Saddam either had WMD or was in the process of getting them, that he was a harmless little unarmed pussycat, and that Iraqi children were happily flying kites until the evil US military crushed their dreams. I would love to have one of them, just once, tell us when, where, and how we will be attacked next. Then maybe they would have credibility to make the decisions that the president has to make. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Agreed. The Monday morning quarterbacks love to pick out bits of intel from the ocean that the president had to consider and insist that it was obvious that Osama was going to attack on 9/11 by flying airplanes into the WTC.

What's really sad is that Bush apparently needed such exacting information, right down to the minute and second, before doing anything. Despite being warned for months and months prior to 9/11, despite being warned that OBL was determined to attack within the US, despite knowledge of Bojinka, despite the attack on the Cole and the known AQ links to that act, just months before his inauguration (so one would think AQ and terror would be at the fore for these guys), not only did he not do anything in response to these threats, he poo-pooed the whole terror threat and Clinton's apparent "fixation" with this OBL guy. Asscroft didn't want to hear about terror stuff any more..Condi was fixated on ...uh...what exactly? in her capacity as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld and the like had turned their attention to answering Bush's "Go find me a way to do this" directive with regard to invading Iraq.

It was obvious that, although the majority of the world thought Saddam either had WMD or was in the process of getting them

What the rest of the world thought and what they perceived as actionable were clearly two separate things. It was only through bribery, threats and the like that Bush Jr was able to cobble together a laughable "coalition of the willing." Add in the obsession the oil-dripping PNAC boys had with Saddam and Iraq, the Wolfowitz doctrine, Bush's "go find me a way..." directive, the much-desired catalysing event, the Pearl Harbour the PNACians pined for, Rumsfeld scrambling to tie the events of 9/11 to SH and not just UBL...to go massive, sweep it all up...things related and not... and the administration's subsequent disgusting misleading innuendo that SH/Iraq and 9/11 were somehow connected, such that fully 70% of Americans ended up believing that SH/Iraq was involved in 9/11 and you should begin to understand why the US was utterly unque in its desire for war with Iraq.

What others might have thought is immaterial.

I would love to have one of them, just once, tell us when, where, and how we will be attacked next. Then maybe they would have credibility to make the decisions that the president has to make. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Bush was warned repeatedly before the events in mid-September. What was the military's reaction to the simultaneous hijacking of 4 airliners over American airspace -- after a summer of warnings and threats pouring in that resulted in Pentagon staffers and friends of the administration being warned not to fly -- and contrast this to the reaction that Payne Stewart's radio-silent LearJet. Aside from Pentagon staffers and the likes of SF mayor Willie Brown and AG John Ashcroft getting the courtesy of warnings telling them that something was up and that commercial airflight was not a good idea, what measures were put into place to heighten awareness and security for the public at large?

How can you possibly reconcile the events of that day and the lack of any preparation of any sort in response to the warning torrent coming in?

Again, it was a judgement call. When one is responsible for the national security of a nation with >280M inhabitants, one may reasonably err on the side of caution. You may disagree with his judgement, but that doesn't make Bush a liar or a manipulator of intel.- What makes Bush a liar is the fact that he said something that he couldn't reasonably believe was true.

Whether or not it was a judgement call, the US has a lot of people, or if it's better to err on the side of caution (and you'll excuse me for not considering mass killing "caution") has no bearing on the fact that Bush lied to everyone in the world.

Methinks you need to read the Podhoretz piece in full.

The widespread general consensus within the U.S. government, including Congress, and throughout the governments of the world was that Saddam was a threat and did indeed have WMDs.

The Left is now feverishly engaged in a campaign to rewrite history - but the record of their support of Bush's viewpoint is quite clear and extensive.

I believe they're trying to point out that their position was that based on the intel given to them by the President at the time was misleading and that Bush knew that it was misleading. They had to have trust in the President because he is, after all, the President.

I believe they're trying to point out that their position was that based on the intel given to them by the President at the time was misleading and that Bush knew that it was misleading. They had to have trust in the President because he is, after all, the President.

Sure. If the OSP is cooking up make-believe intel, Cheney's leaning on the CIA:

""The president's most trusted adviser, Mr. Cheney, was at the shadow network's sharp end." The shadow agency operates "off the official payroll and beyond Congressional oversight," Borger wrote. "He [Cheney] made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more 'forward-leaning' interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, was. Such hands-on involvement in the processing of intelligence data was unprecedented for a vice-president in recent times, and it put pressure on CIA officials to come up with the appropriate results.""

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3029cheney_exposed.html

and "Slam Dunk" Tenet squelching internal dissent about intelligence interpretations, what are the rest of those being fed this pablum supposed to think?

Should be titled, "Podhoretz blinded by propaganda, easily duped"..

^ Mediocre example of Moonbat Lying & Rewriting of history.

Points deducted for total lack of humor and wit.

^ Mediocre example of Moonbat Lying & Rewriting of history.

Points deducted for total lack of humor and wit.


I suppose then you can supply us with some hard evidence then, not op-eds by lying neo-cons??? I'll be waiting, been waiting a long long time...

Podhoretz has assembled a vast array of quotes from prominent Dems showing that they are now lying about the reasons for going to war.

It doesn't get any plainer than that, Bub.

I fail to see how the dem's voting along to go to war involved any lying by bush. it has been show intel wasn't the best around, and all they had to act on was intel. The senators and so forth saw as much, if not more of this info than bush did, and yet they still gave the authority to go to war. I see now lies here, just Not enough reliable intel to use

Podhoretz has assembled a vast array of quotes from prominent Dems showing that they are now lying about the reasons for going to war.

It doesn't get any plainer than that, Bub.

And Dems lying somehow absolves Bush of his lying? I can post pages of lies from Bush's lips, does it make it ok because Democrats lie as well? Did Bush not take us into this war based on lies that they knew were lies at the time they told them?

It really doesn't get any plainer than that, deflecting blame onto past quotes by democrats reeks of desperation by the war party. I'm not that all surprised that prominantr neo-conservatives are busy putting out red herrings with the way Iraq has gone.

I fail to see how the dem's voting along to go to war involved any lying by bush.

It does. Bush presented heavily flawed information as fact, and he knew it. Him and his office made claims of exact amounts and locations, saying they know he has obtained it. Meanwhile, despite their assurance the CIA's stance for the entire length of the situation was 'We do not have the information to provide the grounds for an Iraqi invasion'.

The bottom line is: Bush knew he was using faulty information. In all likelyhood he knew much of it was false. And he presented it to the democrats as absolute fact, and they believed him, as they werent presented with the mass amounts of contradicting evidence that Bush was.


it has been show intel wasn't the best around,

Lots of it taken from 1991. All investigations have called it a massive failure.


and all they had to act on was intel.

Intel from 1991, regarding long expired chemicals that were unaccounted for (most likely dumped down a drain, as it could make descent drain cleaner), and intel which the scientific community instantly shot down, but the BA continued to use regardless.


The senators and so forth saw as much, if not more of this info than bush did, and yet they still gave the authority to go to war.

Information organized and given to all by Bush, as you'll note Powell's was before his UN speech (later calling it the worst night of his life and a blot on his record), and organized by Rummy's very very real OSP.

I see now lies here, just Not enough reliable intel to use

Quick lie: There claim that they had footage of Iraqi jets with chemical spraying capabilities. They showed a clip. The clip turned out to be from 1991, and the UN has specific video footage of its own showing the exact same plane along with the rest being of its kind being destroyed. But one example. Also, the claims that the tubes Saddam had imported could be used for Nuclear reasons: Absolutly impossible, the Center for nuclear centrifuge reported, along with dozens of other scientific organizations.

The senate wasnt simply privy to info given them by the BA. The intelligence commitees can get any info they want, at any time they want. it is impossible for the president to keep something like this secret. Not with all the access teh senate has to intel. They most likely saw more evidence than even bush did.

If he honestly believed what he was telling them was true, which I believe he did, he was in no way lying. uniformed possibly, mostly due to the culling of human intel capabilities of our intelligence organizations, but in no way lying.

Um, the OSP was specifically created to alter, cherry-pick, invent, and distort the actual intelligence to make a case for war. This is fact, not opinion, Bush lied, fact.

Did you miss this thread about it?

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83149


US intel on Iraq-Qaeda ties 'intentionally misleading': document


US military intelligence warned the Bush administration as early as February 2002 that its key source on Al-Qaeda's relationship with
Iraq had provided "intentionally misleading" data, according to a declassified report.

Nevertheless, eight months later,
President George W. Bush went public with charges that the Iraqi government of
Saddam Hussein had trained members of
Osama bin Laden's terror network in manufacturing deadly poisons and gases.

These same accusations had found their way into then-secretary of state
Colin Powell's February 2003 speech before the UN Security Council, in which he outlined the US rationale for military action against Iraq.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051107/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqintelligence


This was known PRIOR to the war and posted here on DA.

^ Completely PREDICTABLE.

*Yawn*

^ Completely PREDICTABLE.

*Yawn*


Yes you are, when evidence proving you are wrong is posted you hop into hyper-predictable mode and try to deflect from this fact by posting something related to another stupid thread or something about Moonbats, predictable indeed.

Now, what do you have to say about Bush using information which he knew wasn't true which he presented as fact which has resulted in over 2,061 US deaths???

Whether or not Clinton and his gang lied doesn't affect that at all.


some people indeed have a hard time understanding that, in the mind of most "liberals", (Bush is bad <=> Clinton is good) = false ...

Just so people know who this nutcase is Boedicca is posting about, here you go...

http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


Just look at whose name is down there at the bottom, why Norman Pohoretz himself, a member of PNAC, who defends Bush and the war, what a surprise.

You'd think the warpigs could do better than this..

Methinks you need to read the Podhoretz piece in full.- Methinks it'd be a waste of time and bandwith.

The widespread general consensus within the U.S. government, including Congress, and throughout the governments of the world was that Saddam was a threat and did indeed have WMDs.- No it wasn't. The UN weapons inspectors were quite clear, at least one of them said that he'd stake his reputation on the fact that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

And again: what the rest of the world thought at different points in time, whether "the left" are a bunch of evil demons from the deepest layer of hell, whether the moon is made of purple cheese, or whatever other red herring you feel like conjuring up: it doesn't matter because Bush and his gang said something that they couldn't reasonably believe was true - that the evidence was strong and conclusive, while it really wasnt either.