For a lot of people, especially those inside the Washington Beltway who are curious about the internecine goings on that accompany the formulation of policy in administrations of both parties, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is often the authoritative last word. He's turned up a lot of "scoops" going back to the administration of President Richard M. Nixon who he, along with then-writing partner Carl Bernstein, did more to drive from office in disgrace than just about anyone.

 

Like him or not – and there are plenty who don't – he's got the scalps on his belt to prove he knows what he's doing.

 

His latest bit of journalism isn't likely to win him any more friends on the left, as he's just knocked down a revered piece of conventional wisdom that will force a reassessment of George W. Bush's presidency. For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.

 

Bush's political opponents like to make this claim to delegitimize not just the war but his entire presidency. No man who knowingly and dishonestly took a nation to war is worthy of any kind of honor, hence history's reluctance to focus on the substantive accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson. Whatever good he did is eclipsed by his use of a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authority to increase the number of combat troops being sent to South Vietnam. The notion that Bush lied in similar fashion about Iraq discredits – in the eyes of his political opponents certainly – everything he did, everything he stood for and everything he accomplished.

 

It's a brutal axe but, according to Woodward, one that is itself based on an untruth. An argument could certainly and persuasively be made, he told moderator Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," that the Iraq War was a mistake, but "there was no lying in this that I could find."

 

According to Woodward, Bush himself was skeptical about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and urged caution on then-CIA Director George Tenet lest he stretch the case that there were.

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie to Start Iraq War - US News

I always get a kick out of the people who continually say Bush "lied" about going to Iraq. He got bad intelligence...the same intel that other countries got and the same intel that the democrats (including Hillary) got...and they all agreed with him about going into Iraq. Then when it turns out that WMD intel was wrong...liberals screamed that Bush lied. It is sort of like Ferguson and "hands up...don't shoot". Just scream the same thing over and over and louder and louder and hope eventually people believe it...even when it is not based on fact at all...

 

And this is from a guy who thought Bush made a BUNCH of mistakes as President...but he did not lie about Iraq...

Here's Woodward's complete reply to Chris Wallace, which amplifies on the "Bush was skeptical ..." paragraph posted above:

 

"[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find."

I've always said that President Bush is first and foremost a good man.

 

Presidents are judged , fairly or unfairly, on what takes place on their watch. President Bush will always have the WMD issue tied to his name.

Here's Woodward's complete reply to Chris Wallace, which amplifies on the "Bush was skeptical ..." paragraph posted above:

 

"[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find."

 

I think what is in bold is the bottom line. He may have made a mistake but there was no lying.

I've always said that President Bush is first and foremost a good man.

 

Presidents are judged , fairly or unfairly, on what takes place on their watch. President Bush will always have the WMD issue tied to his name.

You may be right but I think it will be a smaller and smaller issue going forward.

 

I think statements like these will lighten the load on President Bush as time goes on...

"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.

 

"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.

Read more at snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

 

Plus everyone in the Clinton administration were tripping over each other in the 90's to say WMDs were in Iraq.

 

It will be hard for even the most ardent Liberal to distance their heroes statements from President Bush's.

I think what is in bold is the bottom line. He may have made a mistake but there was no lying.

Bush got bamboozled by his cowboy advisers. Hence Woodward's comment: "The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two."

 

Whether Bush "lied" is of no consequence, in my opinion. Is it any less reckless to rush to war prematurely based on incomplete information as opposed to fabricating an excuse? Don't think so.

Bush got bamboozled by his cowboy advisers. Hence Woodward's comment: "The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two."

 

Whether Bush "lied" is of no consequence, in my opinion. Is it any less reckless to rush to war prematurely based on incomplete information as opposed to fabricating an excuse? Don't think so.

 

Huge difference. Neither is good but it's still a huge difference.

Bush got bamboozled by his cowboy advisers. Hence Woodward's comment: "The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two."

 

Whether Bush "lied" is of no consequence, in my opinion. Is it any less reckless to rush to war prematurely based on incomplete information as opposed to fabricating an excuse? Don't think so.

Did you really just say that? Really?

Bush got bamboozled by his cowboy advisers. Hence Woodward's comment: "The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two."

 

Whether Bush "lied" is of no consequence, in my opinion. Is it any less reckless to rush to war prematurely based on incomplete information as opposed to fabricating an excuse? Don't think so.

 

So do you hold the same contempt for Hillary and the POTUS for the Benghazi debacle?

 

Wait, I know the answer to that question.

[/b]

Did you really just say that? Really?

 

Yes he did. Are you really surprised?

[/b]

Did you really just say that? Really?

Sounds like you might have a reading comprehension problem. Doesn't really matter whether one calls it a lie, or a fabrication, or an embellishment, or a stretching of facts, or a knucklehead application of intelligence, or a rush to judgment before all the facts were known ... the end result was and is a massive mistake.

 

Cowboy hubris at its best.

No reading comprehension problem here. Capt 278 is right...I should not be surprised. Since you equate making a mistake to flat out lying, now I understand how you can support Hillary...actually makes sense now.

I'm one who pretty much never wants us to go to war.

 

But count me among those who believe that bad intel was the primary culprit here. Did we go in prematurely? Yes.

I'm one who pretty much never wants us to go to war.

 

But count me among those who believe that bad intel was the primary culprit here. Did we go in prematurely? Yes.

But you are reasoned enough to realize it was the same intel that the previous administration had quoted over and over and the Hawks on the Democratic side were using to also push for war. It was also the same intel that several of our allies either agreed with or developed on their own.