Bush lied about Iraq! Hold the phones.

[leatherneck]

LN, I greatly respect you and your opinions and the information that you have provided via your link is interesting.

 

Though I have been against the actual war (while still supporting those who serve in it) since day one, I have not been on the "Bush Lied" bandwagon. I do feel like Pres. Bush, many republicans and probably some democrats, used 9/11 as a spring board for the actions taken in Iraq. I found that to be alarming then and still do today. Immediately people started linking the two together. I felt like we went in with the two issues wrapped up in each other, as opposed to them being two separate areas of concern.

 

Bottom line - I think that we jumped the gun, and though our presence there has provided much good (as our presence anywhere probably would), in the end it is going to cost us more (in both money, soldiers lost, and global image) then if we had tried other actions. This is only aggravated more by the meshing together of 9/11 with a perceived threat in Iraq.

 

And you, yours:thumb:. I respect your bottom line. I may not agree with it, but I can at least understand how you could come to that opinion, and its an opinion. Whereas when people call someone a liar, that is a factual statement. And when senior elected officials call other elected officials liars, they better be dang accurate. If not, shame on them.

[True blue (and gold)]

And you, yours:thumb:. I respect your bottom line. I may not agree with it, but I can at least understand how you could come to that opinion, and its an opinion. Whereas when people call someone a liar, that is a factual statement. And when senior elected officials call other elected officials liars, they better be dang accurate. If not, shame on them.

 

 

It is an opinion, entirely, yes. :thumb:

[westsider]

Likewise, I've never been on the "Bush lied" bandwagon, but I've always felt that the Bush administration used 9/11 to take advantage of the American people's mindset to push for a war in Iraq that they wanted from the beginning.

 

In my view, it's a sin just as egregious.

[RowdyRedRam]

When bosses pressure employees they will at least try and produce what the boss wants, and to me that is what happened here.

This is my feeling as well. As much as we would like to think our intel community is free of bias, it is not, the directors are responsible to Washington leaders. They wanted to find things in Iraq because the president wanted them to find things in Iraq. Now that there was nothing to be found the interested parties can point there finger at the intelligence.

 

REGARDLESS of all of that. NEVER prior to the war was anything offered from the intel community gave a strong guarantee of WMD. This in my opinion was necessary before going to war. What we had, proved to be wrong and what we had wasn't enough.

[Hatz]

Good article. I still believe that the intel was skewed to make the case more palatable to the public and the powers. I have always believed that Bush agreed with the data he saw then he sold it with passion to the powers and the people.

 

I've been around long enough to know that anybody can be convinced with enough data that something that might not be is exactly what they are convinced is happening. (The Spanish-American War comes to mind as does the Mexican War of 1846) Human nature is human nature regardless of what Century it is.

 

As to your other post:

 

Wrong again. They didn't lie about terrorist links. Intel info on Iraq's support for terrorist groups, other than al Quada, was "substantiated" and as to al Quada, statements linking Iraq's support for terrorists with ties to al Quada were also "substantiated" and I quote from the article which quotes from the report:

 

"But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." "

 

IMO, the links are like "Seven Degrees of Seperation." The links are not direct but casual and many limbs removed from the tree of Al-Qaida. My guess is if we wanted to we could have linked these guys to Hamas in Palestine and Lebanon, or other terrorists in Syria. That doesn't authorize our need to invade IMO.

[leatherneck]

Likewise, I've never been on the "Bush lied" bandwagon, but I've always felt that the Bush administration used 9/11 to take advantage of the American people's mindset to push for a war in Iraq that they wanted from the beginning.

 

In my view, it's a sin just as egregious.

 

Heck, you may be right. I do think that Bush's advisors came into "office" with a belief that Hussein was a dangerous man, make that a very dangerous man, and felt that at some time, he was going to have to be removed to protect our national interests. I don't know that for certain, but I can see that being the case. Cheney and Rumsfeld had been involved in George Senior's administration and had already had a taste of Hussein, and I think that during Clinton's two terms they probably continued to get "updates" as to what was going on from the intel community. Such would only be logical, I'd think. When the intel substantiated or generally substantiated that Hussein was a threat, and after he refused to allow us and the UN free access to refute that intel, they decided to act. Maybe it was wrong that they did so. But when you are in charge of protecting American lives, at some point you have to act as further delay may make things worse. Or in the words of Rockefeller himself: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." (emphasis added). Rockefeller by the way had access to the same intel that Bush did and came to the same conclusion that Bush did, which he conveniently now wants to gloss over. Sad.

[bugatti]

Heck, you may be right. I do think that Bush's advisors came into "office" with a belief that Hussein was a dangerous man, make that a very dangerous man, and felt that at some time, he was going to have to be removed to protect our national interests. I don't know that for certain, but I can see that being the case. Cheney and Rumsfeld had been involved in George Senior's administration and had already had a taste of Hussein, and I think that during Clinton's two terms they probably continued to get "updates" as to what was going on from the intel community. Such would only be logical, I'd think. When the intel substantiated or generally substantiated that Hussein was a threat, and after he refused to allow us and the UN free access to refute that intel, they decided to act. Maybe it was wrong that they did so. But when you are in charge of protecting American lives, at some point you have to act as further delay may make things worse. Or in the words of Rockefeller himself: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."(emphasis added). Rockefeller by the way had access to the same intel that Bush did and came to the same conclusion that Bush did, which he conveniently now wants to gloss over. Sad.

 

On the bolded, this is basically what Scott McLellan, in his recent book, as well as former Bush speech writer, David Frum said in his book a few years ago that I read.

[H]

Hold the phones, indeed.

 

Here are some of the other relevant conclusions from the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released last Thursday:

 

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
  
• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
  
• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
  
• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
  
• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
  
• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
  

 

 

These conclusions point to a deliberate and concerted effort to sway public opinion in a direction not supported by available intelligence. Statements by administration officials (up to and including the President and Vice President) were apparently designed to create the impression that bin Laden's al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were close operational partners, that Iraq played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq would provide WMD's to terrorists for use against the U.S.

 

Regardless of whether there was supporting intelligence of Iraqi WMDs, the misleading administration claims suggesting Iraqi intent to help international terrorists conduct a WMD attack on the U.S. (claims not supported by intelligence) was the key element that drove support for invasion.

[02Ram54]

Hold the phones, indeed.

 

Here are some of the other relevant conclusions from the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released last Thursday:

 

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
  
• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
  
• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
  
• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
  
• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
  
• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
  

 

 

These conclusions point to a deliberate and concerted effort to sway public opinion in a direction not supported by available intelligence. Statements by administration officials (up to and including the President and Vice President) were apparently designed to create the impression that bin Laden's al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were close operational partners, that Iraq played a direct role in the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq would provide WMD's to terrorists for use against the U.S.

 

Regardless of whether there was supporting intelligence of Iraqi WMDs, the misleading administration claims suggesting Iraqi intent to help international terrorists conduct a WMD attack on the U.S. (claims not supported by intelligence) was the key element that drove support for invasion.

:thumb:

I just don't get how you can read this report as an exoneration of the administration's honesty.

[westsider]

Rockefeller by the way had access to the same intel that Bush did and came to the same conclusion that Bush did, which he conveniently now wants to gloss over. Sad.

I'm not convinced that our Senators and Congressmen (and Congresswomen) necessarily had access to the exact same intelligence reports that the President and his advisers did.

 

I suspect the information presented to the Congress was "cherry-picked" to help rally support for the invasion of Iraq.

[H]

:thumb:

I just don't get how you can read this report as an exoneration of the administration's honesty.

 

 

Simple:

 

[Rose colored glasses]

 

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

 

[/Rose colored glasses]

[75center]

To me this is the problem in a nutshell:

 

"But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

 

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

 

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more"

[shooter]

If Bush lied about Iraq, why did Hillary vote for the war? She would have had access to intelligence reports generated prior to Bush ever taking office and therefore would have known if Bush was lying. What about all those other members of the Clinton administration who also had access to the same information who didn't disagree with Bush's assessment until after the war started? Why did Tony Blair and Valadimir Putin agree with the US intelligence assessment of Iraq? They had access to their own intelligence agencies. Do you think Blair agreed to support a war whose justification he knew to be a lie? Or do you think that 'dumb ole W' simply out-smarted Tony?

[Trinity alum]

Did President Bush lie is the wrong question. The question is, did he get it right on Iraq? The answer is no, he got it wrong. His decision betrayed a lack of understanding of the Middle East and constituted a misuse of the military that has made our country less safe. When people charge that "Bush lied", they let him off the hook. The discussion becomes about whether or not he lied. The real discussion, the important discussion, is whether or not he got the decision right. That discussion is important because if you believe that President Bush made the right decision when he took us into Iraq (and John McCain believes it was the right decision), that implies that when the time comes he will make the same mistake. That is a President we can't live with.

 

If at some point someone comes up with a tape a meeting where Bush and Chaney are sitting around talking about the lies they will need to drive the American people toward a war with Iraq, I'll pay attention. Until then, I don't think he lied and it doesn't matter. With or without lies he got it wrong.

[rockmom]

I doubt there will be definitive answer to whether Bush lied, or Bush was misled. I think, however, that Bush's "sin" was to be so lacking in foresight as to think out what all the consequences of attacking Iraq would be. I believe that at the minimum, he allowed himself to be mislead, when there were key pieces of information that he should have insisted be more fully substantied. I believe he wanted so much to be seen as a "power" that he undertook it as a personal mission, and then set out to capitalize on the fears of post-911 Americans. Whether he lied, was misled, or allowed himself to be misled....that's a good one. But, again, his "sin" is not having a real plan. Attacking a country is not something you do without a plan.