Did Bush Lie?

[SamCA]

2shelbys:

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.

It’s post #231, complete with quotes and sources. Scroll to near the end of that post for where Bush made claims based on already-discredited intel.

Additionally, if anyone’s interested, here’s a link to a half a dozen additional leaked internal, classified British communications which bring the veracity of what the American people were told before the war into question:

downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

Note that unlike the original Downing Street Memo, several of these were not written by aides, but by the actual officials in question, often in regards to meetings with specifically named high level US officials, so even that spurious “It was only written by an aide!” defense doesn’t fly.

 

[2shelbys]

SamCA:

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.

Actually, Clarke’s allegations have been addressed at length and dismissed as bunk for the following (and more) reasons:

At the time of his leaving the Bush administration, there
was no mention of the “grave concerns” he claims to have
had pursuant to the president’s directing of the war on terrorism.

In 2002 he told Jim Angle of Fox News and a handful of other reporters that:
A) There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to Bush’s.
B) That the Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaida.
C) The new administration “Then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al-Qaida over the course of five years which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al-Qaida.”
D) In his resignation letter, he wrote, “I will always remember the courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th …”

He claimed March 24, 2004, that the Clinton administration had “no higher priority” than destroying the terrorism, whereas the Bush administration made it “an important issue, but not an urgent one.” Yet he told Angle and the reporters in the August 2002 interview that the Clinton administration “never had a plan” for dealing effectively and forthrightly with terrorism.

He claimed in his book that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s facial expression during a briefing in 2001 led him to believe she had never heard of al-Qaida. Yet an audio clip aired by Fox News on March 24, 2004 proves unequivocally that Rice had mentioned Bin Laden and al-Qaida as threats a full year before said briefing took place.

Clarke’s allegations are so full of contradiction, misrepresentation, and proven falsehoods that no one (almost no one anyway) places any value on them at all.

 

[SamCA]

2shelbys:

Clarke’s allegations are so full of contradiction, misrepresentation, and proven falsehoods that no one (almost no one anyway) places any value on them at all.

If you’ve got the links, or post numbers in this thread that have links, I’d like to read them. ( I don’t mean that as a way to rhetorically knock your argument or what have you, either. If Clarke is unreliable I’d like to know it.)

Meanwhile, any thoughts on all the other stuff I posted?

 

[2shelbys]

SamCA:

It’s post #231, complete with quotes and sources. Scroll to near the end of that post for where Bush made claims based on already-discredited intel.

So, NPR says there is no link between Iraq and Bin Laden’s people but the 9/11 Commission and every other investigation says there is… Hmmm…Who should we believe???

[
Note that unlike the original Downing Street Memo, several of these were not written by aides, but by the actual officials in question, often in regards to meetings with specifically named high leveUS officials, so even that spurious “It was only written by an aide!” defense doesn’t fly](downingstreetmemo.com)

Maybe not, but the fact that the Sunday Times reporter who “found” the infamous Downing Street Memo makes the ridiculous claim to have destroyed it and kept only “retyped copies” flys like an eagle. The Democrats have continually latched on to the most ridiculous, known-to-be-false things to attack Bush but the Downing Street memo was too unreliable even for them. That is why it was in and out of the news in the same week and remains largely ignored.

 

[SamCA]

2shelbys:

So, NPR says there is no link between Iraq and Bin Laden’s people but the 9/11 Commission and every other investigation says there is… Hmmm…Who should we believe???

NPR didn’t come up with that on their own. This was a major news story only a couple weeks ago – Congress got ahold of the intelligence briefing in which the testimony was debunked, ironically right at the time Bush kept repeating that Congress saw the same intelligence he did.

You really didn’t hear about this before now? It was all over the news.

A few more links: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30909-2004Jul31.html

mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434737

select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B16FD3F5A0C758CDDA80994DD404482
(The NYT one requires payment to view.)

Maybe not, but the fact that the Sunday Times reporter who “found” the infamous Downing Street Memo makes the ridiculous claim to have destroyed it and kept only “retyped copies” flys like an eagle.

Fortunately, we need not take his word for it, as Tony Blair said on camera that it was authentic in front of a bunch of reporters.

That is why it was in and out of the news in the same week and remains largely ignored.

Here, maybe. It was major news in the rest of the world, along with the rest of the memos, which is one of the many reasons why everyone else on the entire planet hates our leaders so much at the moment.

 

[thestickman]

SamCA:

Here, maybe. It was major news in the rest of the world, along with the rest of the memos, which is one of the many reasons why everyone else on the entire planet hates our leaders so much at the moment.

Another assertion with zero evidence to back it up, in addition to having nothing to do with the topic.

I must admit I was in error a few posts ago when I wrote about Joe Wilson’s nefarious antics and wrongly attributed them to Richard Clarke.

“An al Qaeda commander who initially told interrogators that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist organization later told CIA officers his statement was not true, according to intelligence officials.”

So a captured enemy admits to lying…and this proves???

“The senior intelligence official cautioned that al-Libi’s later contention that Iraq provided no help or training to al Qaeda could not be verified and that the CIA did not know whether he was telling the truth.”

So do we believe the liar (Al-Queda dude), when he says he lied or when he says he’s now telling the truth???

Still looking/waiting for the proof/evidence Bush lied. Be fun to see the evidence the world hates us too.

 

[SamCA]

thestickman:

So a captured enemy admits to lying…and this proves???

…quite a bit when the President used his lies in speeches after the DoD classified them as lies.

Still looking/waiting for the proof/evidence Bush lied.

Well, I’ve yet to see a single refutation of the Downing Street Memos beyond questioning its authenticity, which has been verified by none other than Blair himself, and saying it’s inaccurate for the bizarre reason that it was written by an aide at the cabinet meeting rather than a member of the cabinet.

And even that explanation doesn’t explain the Cabinet briefing memo from post 231 that discusses the fact that invading based on regime change is against international law, and that they therefore need an ‘excuse’ to make the war legal. Or the half dozen others linked a few posts back which openly discuss the use of weapons inspectors purely to provide justification for an invasion they were already set on.

Or the fact that Bush based at least one of his arguments against Iraq on intelligence the DoD had already debunked.

Be fun to see the evidence the world hates us too.

Not us – Bush. Although the fact that we reelected him hasn’t exactly warmed the world’s opinion of the American people.

" In public opinion polls conducted in 21 countries following the re-election of George W. Bush, majorities in 16 of the 21 countries view Bush’s re-election as negaive for world peace and security. Only in two countries (India and the Philippines) do majorities consider Bush’s re-election in positive terms. In two other countries, a plurality (but not majority) view the re-election negatively, and in one (Poland) a plurality but not majority consider the re-election a positive step. The most negative overall opinions were recorded in Western Europe, Latin America, and Islamic countries. Nearly half of those surveyed now view the U.S. influence in the world as mostly negative. Although still a minority, growing numbers now consider the American people in negative terms and none of the publics surveyed, even those with favorable opinions of Bush’s re-election, support sending their own troops to Iraq."

publicdiplomacy.org/41.htm

 

[SamCA]

Here’s something from Bush’s speech this week that was, depending on how generous you’re feeling, either a lie or a mistake:

Bush: “The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.”

Time Magazine reporter Michael Ware was embedded with the American troops who fought at Tal Afar. Here’s what he had to say about that statement:

“I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.”

Video: streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/ware.320.240.mov.html

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Let’s just say that Bush, Cheney, et al are delusional rather than liars and leave it at that.

Of course, if we say that they are delusional, then I guess that means we have unstable people running the country.

 

[SamCA]

Elaine's Cross:

Let’s just say that Bush, Cheney, et al are delusional rather than liars and leave it at that.

It’s funny you say that. Here’s a conversation that Times reporter Ron Suskind had with an anonymous Bush aide:

The aide said that guys like me were ‘‘in what we call the reality-based community,’’ which he defined as people who ‘‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’’ he continued. ‘‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’’

nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&en=890a96189e162076&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

SamCA:

It’s funny you say that. Here’s a conversation that Times reporter Ron Suskind had with an anonymous Bush aide:

nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600&en=890a96189e162076&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Yep, delusional alright. I had seen the quote, but had forgotten about it.

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:
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.

**They’ve pretty much blown it on Iraq already. Both our credibility and capability have been severely compromised by the ineptitude exhibited by the administration. Anything good that comes out of Iraq will be the doing of the American military in spite of the civilian command.

The administration clearly plans to “cut and run” for political motives. They will say that we are staying while backing bags and arranging for travel home.

To my knowledge, there were no opinion polls three years ago asking if the government was misleading the nation for war. However, it’s now clear that many people feel that they were deceived. That’s a good thing because its unhealthy for a government to deceive its people and get away with it; I want them to be caught and held to account.

 

[rlg94086]

Thekla:

They’ve pretty much blown it on Iraq already. Both our credibility and capability have been severely compromised by the ineptitude exhibited by the administration. Anything good that comes out of Iraq will be the doing of the American military in spite of the civilian command.

The administration clearly plans to “cut and run” for political motives. They will say that we are staying while backing bags and arranging for travel home.

To my knowledge, there were no opinion polls three years ago asking if the government was misleading the nation for war. However, it’s now clear that many people feel that they were deceived. That’s a good thing because its unhealthy for a government to deceive its people and get away with it; I want them to be caught and held to account.

Please give me the evidence that the administration “clearly plans” to cut-and-run. The only people calling for that are on the left side of the aisle.

The fact that people “feel” they were deceived does not mean they were deceived. It means the pr from the anti-war crowd has been better than the pr from the administration. Again, the polls could change…what would that prove?

Any good will be due to the military despite civilian command? Really? Our military is incredible, but they are executing the plan provided by the administration. When it is successful, and it will be, both should receive credit.

They’ve already blown it? Really? The president laid out a plan to:

• Remove Sadaam from power…done.
• Help the Iraqi’s create a new democratic government…soon to be completed.
• Build up their military/security to stand on their own…on it’s way.
• Pull out (not all, but many) our troops once Iraq can stand on it’s own…and not before then.

Looks like we are on track to me.

 

[SamCA]

rlg94086:

Any good will be due to the military despite civilian command? Really? Our military is incredible, but they are executing the plan provided by the administration. When it is successful, and it will be, both should receive credit.

"Here’s what the plan was: The plan devised principally in Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith’s office, and I have to believe, if Rumsfeld is the controller, the leader he says he is, that he was fully cognizant of this, and I don’t think he would have been cognizant of it without the blessings of the vice president either. The plan was to put Jay Garner, General Jay Garner, in his organization, called ORHA, on the ground in Iraq for maybe 90 to 120 days, install Ahmed Chalabi and his INC colleagues, or some other look-alike, in control, and then leave, withdrawing most of the major military force in the process, if not all of it, in a very short period of time.

This is ineptitude and incompetence of the first order. Ever since that plan failed, we’ve been in a pickup game and now we’ve transmogrified the mission from imminent threat and WMD into spreading democracy."
– Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, lifelong Republican, career military, longtime aide to Colin Powell, Chief of Staff of the Dept. of State during Bush’s first term in office
pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/wilk_11-4.html

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

Our military is incredible, but they are executing the plan provided by the administration.

Yikes!

 

[JSmitty2005]

This is all that needs to be said:

media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv

Get over it! We have to finish the job and then leave. The Iraqi people are better off with Saddam out of power. I’ve asked guys that were in Iraq and they’ve all said that the people are glad we did what we did.

Bush didn’t lie any more than Kerry did. He supported the war, kind of, some of the time. LOL. Watch the video and see for yourself.

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

The fact that people “feel” they were deceived does not mean they were deceived. It means the pr from the anti-war crowd has been better than the pr from the administration. Again, the polls could change…what would that prove?

It’s not as if people have no reason to feel they were deceived. I mean, it’s one thing if those feelings were entirely baseless but you really have to agree that people have some reason for feeling the way that they do. You may not consider it valid, but there is a mountain of various reasons why 60% of the country indicates that they believe the administration misled the nation for war.

I heard it described today in a way that made sense to me. The administration was able to keep ahead of the story of Iraq for a very long time. But events and past statements (Ex: “There is no doubt that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear program”) have caught up with them.

And this idea that they have a public relations problem and not a credibility problem just doesn’t seem correct. The Office of the President of the United States is the most powerful in the world and they can control and dominate the message. They had no problem doing it prior to our invasion of Iraq so what’s the difference now? What anti-war crowd? They control nothing, especially the bully-pulpit.

 

[rlg94086]

Thekla:

It’s not as if people have no reason to feel they were deceived. I mean, it’s one thing if those feelings were entirely baseless but you really have to agree that people have some reason for feeling the way that they do. You may not consider it valid, but there is a mountain of various reasons why 60% of the country indicates that they believe the administration misled the nation for war.

I heard it described today in a way that made sense to me. The administration was able to keep ahead of the story of Iraq for a very long time. But events and past statements (Ex: “There is no doubt that Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear program”) have caught up with them.

And this idea that they have a public relations problem and not a credibility problem just doesn’t seem correct. The Office of the President of the United States is the most powerful in the world and they can control and dominate the message. They had no problem doing it prior to our invasion of Iraq so what’s the difference now? What anti-war crowd? They control nothing, especially the bully-pulpit.

Again…so, if the poll changes and 60% don’t think they were deceived, you will change your mind, yes? Polls change. You assume this one will only go one direction. I assert that they are based on successful and/or unsuccessful pr.

Saying “See! See! Most people agree with me!” sometimes only lasts one polling cycle. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[thestickman]

rlg94086:

Please give me the evidence that the administration “clearly plans” to cut-and-run. The only people calling for that are on the left side of the aisle.

The fact that people “feel” they were deceived does not mean they were deceived. It means the pr from the anti-war crowd has been better than the pr from the administration. Again, the polls could change…what would that prove?

Any good will be due to the military despite civilian command? Really? Our military is incredible, but they are executing the plan provided by the administration. When it is successful, and it will be, both should receive credit.

They’ve already blown it? Really? The president laid out a plan to:

• Remove Sadaam from power…done.
• Help the Iraqi’s create a new democratic government…soon to be completed.
• Build up their military/security to stand on their own…on it’s way.
• Pull out (not all, but many) our troops once Iraq can stand on it’s own…and not before then.

Looks like we are on track to me.

Agreed! This is why the left is freaking out. Success in Iraq = political failure for them. They know and have staked their political futures on the hope America will fail in Iraq.

For instance, excluding Senator Kerry’s comment yesterday about a plan for success–when was the last time you heard a liberal or a Democrat beside Senator Liberman talk about winning in Iraq? Being successful in Iraq? You haven’t, despite all the evidence we are winning and successfully meeting all our objectives on the ground.

Frankly, I’m ashamed that many Senators and liberal talking heads talk about how they support the troops while giving speeches of how awfully things are going in Iraq.

If you support the troops acknowledge their successes. * All* of them. Daily.

They deserve nothing less.

 

[2shelbys]

thestickman:

For instance, excluding Senator Kerry’s comment yesterday about a plan for success–when was the last time you heard a liberal or a Democrat beside Senator Liberman talk about winning in Iraq? Being successful in Iraq? You haven’t, despite all the evidence we are winning and successfully meeting all our objectives on the ground.

And Kerry’s comment was not until after Bush’s excellent (and embarassing to the Democrats) speech at the Naval Academy. He made that comment while simultaneously lying through his teeth about how the Democrats “have never asked for a timetable” or a “pullout”. How stupid do they think everyone is? Do they think no one is paying attention to what they say? Do they think we have no memory? It is just laughable. I do not know how they say this stuff with a straight face.