Did Bush Lie?

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

So, when 60% supported the war, you agreed that they were right? If the numbers go back to 60%, will you agree there was no deception? Polls change. After the successful election in two weeks, they will be up. Next year, when we scale back our troops, they will be up.

If you prefer your politicians to govern according to the polls, then you will have a fluctuating foreign policy.

I prefer that my politicians govern according to the truth. Polls are simply a measurement of public opinion or public understanding of a particular issue at a particular time. You could very well be right that after the next elections, support will go up. But we’ve seen that before and it has not been sustained. Maybe it will be this time.

However, it’s difficult to reconcile that people who believe the top levels of the administration have misled the nation for war will simply forgive and forget. There are many things that people can change their views on, but when we think about our own relationships with others, trust is not something easily returned once it has been forfeited.

When 60% supported the war, I believed that their support was based on a deliberate campaign to sell the war and predicted that when many Americans discovered the truth, they would pull their support. And when you think about it, is it really support if the foundation for your support is built upon falsehoods and misinformation?

I agree with you that they intend to “cut and run” starting in 2006. There has been a constant theme in our government of saying one thing and doing another.

 

[Thekla]

gilliam:

How can a thread about someone lying become so long without anyone producing proof that someone lied?

It’s a very provocative thread title.

 

[rlg94086]

Thekla:

I prefer that my politicians govern according to the truth.

As President Bush is doing…

However, it’s difficult to reconcile that people who believe the top levels of the administration have misled the nation for war will simply forgive and forget. There are many things that people can change their views on, but when we think about our own relationships with others, trust is not something easily returned once it has been forfeited.

You are projecting strong opinion onto others. Most people polled don’t feel as strongly as you do. When the Iraq situation stabilizes and our troops start coming home, people will see what a success it was and others who tried to rewrite history will have egg on their faces.

When 60% supported the war, I believed that their support was based on a deliberate campaign to sell the war and predicted that when many Americans discovered the truth, they would pull their support. And when you think about it, is it really support if the foundation for your support is built upon falsehoods and misinformation?

**So, when the polls disagreed with you, people were deceived. Now that they agree with you, everyone was suddenly enlightened. Great. **

I agree with you that they intend to “cut and run” starting in 2006. There has been a constant theme in our government of saying one thing and doing another.

**No one is cutting and running, despite the Dems demand to do it. We will decrease our troop numbers as the Iraqi troops strengthen and/or when the Iraqi government asks us to leave…just as the President has said. **

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

Still no proof. How can a thread about someone lying become so long without anyone producing proof that someone lied?

The question posed in the OP is obviously rhetorical, given your views. Did you really start this thread open to the possibility that what’s said here could influence your views?

The title of this thread is “Did Bush Lie?”, not “Proof that Bush Lied (or didn’t lie)”. Those on either side have offered their views.

Your statement is self-serving because those who would defend Bush are not willing to accept any proof that the administration acted out of less than pure motives, and there is plenty of evidence for that. Those of us who smelled a rat in this Iraq adventure from the beginning likewise have a tough time accepting any of the “proof” offered here that Saddam really had a WMD threat.

Resisting the truth is something we all struggle with at times. In my younger days, I firmly believed that Republicans could do no wrong, that the Democratic Party was the embodiment of evil, and that only liberals were susceptible to fits of ideological utopianism. The run-up to the Iraq War disabused me of these notions.

 

[rlg94086]

gnjsdad:

Resisting the truth is something we all struggle with at times. In my younger days, I firmly believed that Republicans could do no wrong, that the Democratic Party was the embodiment of evil, and that only liberals were susceptible to fits of ideological utopianism. The run-up to the Iraq War disabused me of these notions.

Your “younger days” were only a few years ago? You age quickly!

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Mike,

He chose his words very carefully, so as not to make a fallacious claim. Shouldn’t that be commended? Obviously, he believed in the possibility that Saddam was involved, but he didn’t want to state that possibility as a fact.

I would be more willing to commend if the administration as a whole had made it clear that the reason for the invasion was not involvement in 9/11. Even if the belief wasn’t fostered deliberately, the administration knew very well that a large amount of the support for the invasion was coming from people who erroneously believed Iraq was behind 9/11. It would have been far more honest to say in very clear terms that this wasn’t true, but we were invading Iraq for other reasons.

Errors of omission are as important as errors of fact (‘what I have done and what I have failed to do’) and going to war with a large proportion of your population believing the reasons for that war are different from the actual reasons is, in my opinion, a pretty deceptive practice without a concerted effort to get across the fact that they are misinformed. At the least, it causes all sorts of difficulty when people realise the incorrect reason they thought we went to war was indeed incorrect, and they weren’t corrected. Support for the war drops, and allegations of lying start to abound.

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

I would be more willing to commend if the administration as a whole had made it clear that the reason for the invasion was not involvement in 9/11.

The reasons for invading Iraq are right here. Nowhere in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq is Iraq accused of involved or blamed for 9/11. No one in the Bush Administration ever said Iraq was involved in or responsible for 9/11. In fact, none of than the Vice President said on more than one occasion that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11.

Yet, things still aren’t clear enough for some people.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Once again: Isn’t there still a commandment against bearing false witness?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

The reasons for invading Iraq are right here.

I know that, you know that, and the 5 or 6 people who keep posting it know that. But how many of the nearly 300 million inhabitants of the United States read Congressional Resolutions, even the important ones? 1%?

Nowhere in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq is Iraq accused of involved or blamed for 9/11. No one in the Bush Administration ever said Iraq was involved in or responsible for 9/11. In fact, none of than the Vice President said on more than one occasion that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11.

I agree they didn’t say they directly did, despite Cheney’s dissembling I posted above. But how many times did they say they didn’t? ‘More than once’? You think that is enough times to make plain to the people your case for a, at best, controversial war?

Yet, things still aren’t clear enough for some people.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

A great many people are less interested in politics than we are. Yes, in an ideal world everyone would have a perfect grasp of the issues. But this isn’t an ideal world. 9/11 happened and soon after the military build-up to an invasion of Iraq happened. Most people would naturally connect the two. I don’t think they deserve your cynical roll-eyes. Going to war is a very serious business. It was up to the administration to make it clear that the invasion was for other reasons than direct involvement in 9/11. It demonstrably failed to do so, and that is the reason now that so many people are accusing it.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

Once again: Isn’t there still a commandment against bearing false witness?

Yes, and I have never accused Bush of openly speaking an explicit lie.

Equally though, when we say the Confiteor, don’t we say ‘we have sinned in what we have failed to do’? The administration demonstrably and utterly failed to make it clear enough that the invasion wasn’t linked to Iraqi involvement in 9/11 when it was fully aware that many people believed it was. Of course it is clear why they didn’t - it boosted support for a controversial war. That doesn’t make it right that they didn’t make more effort to make things clear.

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

I wonder if this thread would be different had it been titled, “Did Bush tell the truth?”

I’ve always been rather reticent to flat out claim that Bush lied, but then again, I most definitely feel he has been less than honest (which is not the same thing as a lie…quite).

Had THAT been the premise of the thread, I think anyone could very well post “X number of posts and still no proof that Bush was honest and forthright with the American people…”

It’s an impossible question to answer, as it goes to intention. Bush was wrong on the intelligence, which is enough for me, but whether it was purposeful or not, impossible to answer.

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

Yes, and I have never accused Bush of openly speaking an explicit lie.

As if that’s all the commandment against bearing false witness pertains to. It also prohibits rash judgment, detraction, and calumny.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[thestickman]

MikeWM:

I know that, you know that, and the 5 or 6 people who keep posting it know that. But how many of the nearly 300 million inhabitants of the United States read Congressional Resolutions, even the important ones? 1%?

So? Doesn’t negate the reality of it’s existence and validity.

post 248…and still no proof Bush lied

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

Yes, and I have never accused Bush of openly speaking an explicit lie.

Equally though, when we say the Confiteor, don’t we say ‘we have sinned in what we have failed to do’? The administration demonstrably and utterly failed to make it clear enough that the invasion wasn’t linked to Iraqi involvement in 9/11 when it was fully aware that many people believed it was. Of course it is clear why they didn’t - it boosted support for a controversial war. That doesn’t make it right that they didn’t make more effort to make things clear.

Mike

Mike,

They have made it clear, but as you said in your other post, not everyone is interested or motivated to pay attention. I know it’s hard to believe , but even the nationally broadcast speeches aren’t watched by a majority of the people. Most will turn the channel until they find any station not carrying the speech…like a re-run of Friends or some other rubbish.

I don’t think you can hold someone accountable for another person’s apathy.

Robert

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Mike,

They have made it clear,

Did they? I was living in the United States between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, and I read and watch a lot more news than the average person. (I’ve even been known to watch C-SPAN from time to time!). I don’t recall seeing any administration official deny that Saddam was related to the events of 9/11. Now we may have the odd quote on the odd program that has been listed in this thread and elsewhere. Which amounts to what - maybe 3 or 4 quotes from the entire administration in those 18 months?

I don’t think I’m unusual in not having ever seen a member of the Bush administration deny a link between Saddam and 9/11 in those 18 months. I’ll bet that applies to most Americans.

but as you said in your other post, not everyone is interested or motivated to pay attention. I know it’s hard to believe , but even the nationally broadcast speeches aren’t watched by a majority of the people. Most will turn the channel until they find any station not carrying the speech…like a re-run of Friends or some other rubbish.

I don’t think you can hold someone accountable for another person’s apathy.

I think there is a reasonable degree to which you can, actually. Politicians know very well that if they repeat a message often enough it gets through to most people.

The question is, really, did the administration have a duty to inform the people of the reasons for the invasion and to make it clear to the people what the reasons weren’t. I think they did have that duty, and I don’t think they did it to remotely the best of their abilities.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

The question is, really, did the administration have a duty to inform the people of the reasons for the invasion and to make it clear to the people what the reasons weren’t. I think they did have that duty, and I don’t think they did it to remotely the best of their abilities.

Mike

Okay. But, I don’t think it’s charitable to accuse someone of committing a sin “of what they failed to do”, when you agree that they have done it…but, not “to the best of their abilities” or not often enough. That seems to be a stretch to me.

I do think our government could have explained things better…and earlier. The President took far too long to defend his position against the people who charged that he lied leading up to the decision. It could have been handled much better. However, I would not accuse him of a lie of omission because he didn’t do a good enough job in explaining things. A lie of omission is a deliberate withholding of information or action. I have no evidence of that.

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Okay. But, I don’t think it’s charitable to accuse someone of committing a sin “of what they failed to do”, when you agree that they have done it…but, not “to the best of their abilities” or not often enough. That seems to be a stretch to me.

I think it is a matter of degree. If you give to charity only once or twice in the whole of your life, I think you are failing to do something. Whether it is a sin or not is another matter - but this already contentious thread wasn’t entitled ‘Did Bush sin?’, thank goodness

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

I think it is a matter of degree. If you give to charity only once or twice in the whole of your life, I think you are failing to do something. Whether it is a sin or not is another matter - but this already contentious thread wasn’t entitled ‘Did Bush sin?’, thank goodness

Mike

Hey now…you brought the Confiteor up, not me

So, I guess this thread is done?

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Hey now…you brought the Confiteor up, not me

Indeed. Oh well

So, I guess this thread is done?

Looks it…

Mike

 

[SamCA]

gilliam:

It was a note, if I recall, not an official transcript,

This bit, you’re correct about. I was using ‘transcribe’ incorrectly. It was the minutes of a cabinet meeting, not a transcript.

However, suggesting that the minutes of a cabinet meeting are unreliable simply because they were taken by an aide (one of whose jobs is to write accurate summaries of said official meetings) boggles my mind.

The whole point of taking minutes of meetings is to have an accurate record of what happened in the meetings. That’s why they exist.

and you have yet to produce the evidence that Bush lied. Which is the OP. We are all waiting. Either produce it or drop the discussion. This beating around the bush (pun intended) is getting dull.

I have several specific examples. In my last post I quoted a specific line from one of Bush’s speeches on Iraq which we now know was based on intelligence that was already known to be discredited.

The only way to argue that Bush wasn’t lying there was, perhaps, that Bush himself was out of the loop and that one or more of his advisors were lying to him, and he just passed it along. (Which, by the by, I think is probably more likely. A more instructive question than “Did Bush lie?” might be, “Has the Bush administration lied?”)

So far no one has addressed it at all. Nor have they addressed the allegations of Richard Clarke, a national security advisor who served every President from Reagan up to George W. Bush, who has testified explicitly that Bush began seeking a justification for Iraq within days of 9-11.

You can just keep repeating that there’s no evidence all day long, but if you don’t actually respond when people actually provide that evidence you look rather silly.

 

[2shelbys]

SamCA:

I have several specific examples. In my last post I quoted a specific line from one of Bush’s speeches on Iraq which we now know was based on intelligence that was already known to be discredited.

I looked at your last post and several before it and I saw no quote from Bush. Which post was it and if you have “several specific examples” post them with the appropriate sources please.