WWF in Suits
What is absolutely amazing these days is the boldness of political spin. Politicians are behaving as if there is no public record of anything that happened before yesterday. The Democrats called a closed door session and served up a barrage of criticism aimed at the WMD intelligence used to partially justify our invasion of Iraq. Obviously an attempt to capitalize on the Scooter Libby indictment, the Democrats are trying to strengthen the surreal argument that the Bush administration concocted the evidence that showed Iraq as a WMD threat.
Here is the talking point, rarely challenged by the mainstream media: The Bush administration fabricated or exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. This line is often stretched to imply that no reasonable person would have ever concluded that Saddam was a well-armed threat. Bill Clinton amazingly went on the record to say that the Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq "with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
Please stand for a moment of truth:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." - Bill Clinton in 1998
"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..." - Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - William Cohen 4/03
"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright 1998
This is a tiny sample of the proof that very few of today's critics did not share the views of the Bush administration. The statement that Bush lied to take us to war is not an argument...its slander, and all the Democrats know it.
Posts
5 comments:
To take us to war in Iraq, Bush told a lie agreed upon by his adversaries and, most importantly, the public, all eager to get Saddaam before he got us. Bush got what he wanted, and more than most of us bargained for. But kudos, nonetheless, for catching elected officials in lies!
I think "lie" is the wrong word to use. If I tell you that my Mom told me that storks deliver babies, did I tell a lie? To pass along incorrect information is not the definition of lie. Bush said, just like Clinton before him, that our intelligence indicates that Saddam had WMDs. That was a true statement, the intelligence did indicate that. Introducing "lie" into this debate is what the war critics have done to not just stir up opposition to the war, but to attempt to fundamentally discredit this administration. It is a ploy, and most likely the only real "lie" in the debate.
Excellent analogy. Bush does seem to have a child-like grasp of the world around him (just to complete this burn, I am currently in full Mr. Universe flex pose now. Sometimes Blogs just fail to convey full imagery).
Also like the way the GOP is trotting out Clinton’s and his words. Long abused for lack of character, lies, scandal, spin, political opportunism, abuse of power, and being just about the worst person on the planet he’s a now "character witness" for Bush. Has it really got that bad? "I hate him, and he's completely untrustworthy in every way, but hey, he said the same stuff my guy said, sooooo, wait, what does that mean again?"
I'm with M3k on this one. I think Bush is on the hook for having done some or all of the following: Lied, manipulated documents to reinforce his preferred outcome, allowed lies to be told if it helped him achieve his preferred outcome, attacked/froze-out/fired anyone who dared propose information that contradicted his preferred outcome, or was so asleep at the wheel that critical misinformation became fact, to name a few. Any one of those would get you fired in any business in America, demoted in any military branch, or wedgied in High School.
The Dems, as usual, were too gutless to check, criticize, or question the information that came out of the White House. I hold them just as accountable. Their actions would, in the real world, also lead to a round of dismissals and wedgies. I exempt one from this, Russ Feingold. Like him or not, he had the guts to be the LONE vote against the Patriot Act in 2001. A liberal with courage? What do you know, they aren't mutually exclusive.
As for the rest of us? It gets interesting. If you tell me a lie, and I believe and act on that lie, then what? To hear the GOP tell it, we're locked in forever because I stood with you once. I believe I have the right to learn and act on the truth, and take back my support. And have the right to be angry with you. I think that's what America is waking up too. While this will hurt Jr., it may also back-lash on the Dems. If you tell me a lie, and Biff is too weak to question it, and throws his support behind it, and you both come to me with this lie, I'm going to be angry with both of you when I learn the truth.
"Dems", henceforth, are "The Biffs."
The purpose of using Clinton's words (and the words of all Democrats) is to show the complete hollowness of the "Bush lied to take us to war" charge. I'm truly amazed that anyone on this blog, or in the entire society of the thoughtful, could accuse Bush of lying to take us to war. Please show me one shred of evidence. And what document has been manipulated? With all due respect these charges are as substantive as a Farrakhan speech.
I think it is completely reasonable to think our intelligence should be better. But to attack the character of a leader for believing the intelligence he was provided is just weird.
There are no lies here. A misreading of evidence that leads to an incorrect conclusion is not a lie. There are no lies in this scenario. The intelligence community believed certain threats existed, and much of it still does. The fact that we haven't proven it to this point is completely different from the description of these events that you, and the media, have put forward.
Post a Comment