Did Bush Lie?

[SamCA]

thestickman:

So as it stands, we are 217 posts into this thread and no one has offered any proof Bush lied.

How’s the Downing Street Memo work for you? I have yet to see an explanation other than outright lies for the fact that Bush told the British government that the USA was definitely going to invade Iraq, back when he was telling us that we’d give the weapons inspectors time to work.

 

[walstan]

thestickman:

Only in the mind of those who’d rather Saddam were still in power, IMO.

So let’s review: You complained earlier the gassing of the Kurds was too long ago to be evidence of Saddam’s WMD. After ignoring the reality of the Clinton administration’s 1998 policy of regime change in Iraq you then go back to an EARLIER era & post the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands with the suggestion it’s the Goose and the Gander"–the ol’ “it’s all America’s fault” tactic.

Are you trying to set a record for most fallacious arguments in a thread, perhaps?

So as it stands, we are 217 posts into this thread and no one has offered any proof Bush lied.

I posted the picture? Look again my friend! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_146_29.gif

p.s. If you read my posts occasionaly you will find I normally refer to the “WEST” not America. That means ALL of us,… including America.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_67.gif

 

[thestickman]

SamCA:

How’s the Downing Street Memo work for you?

Works fine for me. The full memo offers zip to show Bush lied.

I have yet to see an explanation other than outright lies for the fact that Bush told the British government that the USA was definitely going to invade Iraq, back when he was telling us that we’d give the weapons inspectors time to work.

There’s nothing that needs to be explained, IMO. The memo contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.

 

[thestickman]

walstan:

I posted the picture? Look again my friend! smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_146_29.gif

p.s. If you read my posts occasionaly you will find I normally refer to the “WEST” not America. That means ALL of us,… including America.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_67.gif

So let’s review: You complained earlier the gassing of the Kurds was too long ago to be evidence of Saddam’s WMD. After ignoring the reality of the Clinton administration’s 1998 policy of regime change in Iraq you then go back to an EARLIER era & post the picture of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands with the suggestion it’s the Goose and the Gander"–the ol’ “it’s all America’s (the west) fault” tactic.

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

And yet, a year later, with the march to war hotting up:

mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/meet.htm

A slightly more involved answer than a categorical ‘no’, that one, isn’t it?

Mike

I dealt with those different answers many posts ago. In 2003, Cheney gave the more nuanced ‘no’. At the time, the intelligence was being evaluated about the Iraq - Al Qaeda meetings and possible connections. He didn’t say there was a direct link, but he did say more information was being looked at. What is dishonest about that?

Now, as to whether that answer confused some people and led them to believe that Iraq was responsible…sure, I’ll buy that. But, whose fault is it? Cheney’s or the people who jumped to false conclusions based on his statements?

 

[walstan]

thestickman:

Works fine for me. The full memo offers zip to show Bush lied.

There’s nothing that needs to be explained, IMO. The memo contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.

Ahhh… that was the mistake Downing street made… Assuming the President thinks!!!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_13.gif

 

[SamCA]

thestickman:

There’s nothing that needs to be explained, IMO. The memo contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.

Well… yeah. I mean, you’re doing your best to minimize that, but what you’ve just described is how diplomacy works between nations. That’s how it gets done.

The Downing Street Memo shows pretty solidly that the highest levels of the British government had been led to believe that the USA was already intent on invading Iraq even back then. If the British cabinet officials had that impression, they didn’t form it based on some random hearsay. They based on exactly what the document says – communications between members of their government, and members of the US government.

If you won’t accept that as proof, I’m curious as to what exactly you require as evidence. What do you need, Bush himself going on TV and admitting it? Because short of that, assuming Bush learned the lesson of Nixon and didn’t actually keep records of all his dealings on tape, all you’re going to get is other high level officials’ view of what happened.

For what it’s worth, I personally suspect that Bush didn’t lie about believing there were WMDs. Even the DSM shows that the British and American governments really did believe that Iraq had WMDs, and that those WMDs might be used against us in an invasion.

But that doesn’t change the fact that there certainly appears to be something very shady about the way the buildup to the war was portrayed to the American public in the days before the invasion.

We know from a number of high level sources who’ve come forward (Richard Clarke being the most prominant, but certainly not the only one) that immediately following 9-11, Bush’s first response was to try to find a way to use it to justify invading Iraq. We know that the highest levels of the British government were informed by the USA government that invasion was immanent back when the American people were being told otherwise (and the DSM isn’t the only such leaked communication; there are a half a dozen others which corroborate the first very strongly.)

We know of at least one specific case where the truth was, at the very least, bent like rubber – the only source of intelligence we had that Iraq had trained Al Queida members came with a big warning that the CIA was pretty sure the man telling the tale was lying through his teeth, but that didn’t stop Bush from putting it in his speeches, or other administration officials saying it on talkshows.

My personal suspicion is that, as with most things, the truth is somewhere between the two poles. I don’t think the entire war was based on nothing buy pure moustache-twirling, cackling evil and deciet, but I also can’t even begin to fathom how anyone could look at everything that has leaked about the pre-war buildup and not see evidence of at least a few shenanigans.

 

[thestickman]

SamCA:

Well… yeah. I mean, you’re doing your best to minimize that, but what you’ve just described is how diplomacy works between nations. That’s how it gets done.

Really? You’ve worked in the diplomatic field?

The Downing Street Memo shows pretty solidly that the highest levels of the British government had been led to believe that the USA was already intent on invading Iraq even back then.

Repeating that over and over again won’t make it so.

If the British cabinet officials had that impression,

They didn’t. One aide did.

If you won’t accept that as proof,

I don’t, cuz it’s not.

I’m curious as to what exactly you require as evidence. What do you need, Bush himself going on TV and admitting it?

Nope. But some real evidence–a Pentagon report or a document from the CIA or a memo written by Bush/Cheney or a member (not an aide) of the Cabinet would do nicely.

For what it’s worth, I personally suspect that Bush didn’t lie about believing there were WMDs. Even the DSM shows that the British and American governments really did believe that Iraq had WMDs, and that those WMDs might be used against us in an invasion.

Agreed.

But that doesn’t change the fact that there certainly appears to be something very shady about the way the buildup to the war was portrayed to the American public in the days before the invasion.

I keep reading/hearing this–but no one ever has any proof to validate it.

We know from a number of high level sources who’ve come forward (Richard Clarke being the most prominant, but certainly not the only one)

An out of work diplomat who’s wife got him a free trip to Niger is a high level source?

that immediately following 9-11, Bush’s first response was to try to find a way to use it to justify invading Iraq. We know that the highest levels of the British government were informed by the USA government that invasion was immanent back when the American people were being told otherwise (and the DSM isn’t the only such leaked communication; there are a half a dozen others which corroborate the first very strongly.)

Richard Clark went on a trip for set up by his wife for the CIA and never filed a report.

We know of at least one specific case where the truth was, at the very least, bent like rubber – the only source of intelligence we had that Iraq had trained Al Queida members came with a big warning that the CIA was pretty sure the man telling the tale was lying through his teeth, but that didn’t stop Bush from putting it in his speeches, or other administration officials saying it on talkshows.

Your evidence this was the only source of intellegence regarding Al-Qeada being trained by (this is a new one to me…I know Al-Qeada trained in Iraq…but never heard it suggested they were trained by Iraq)

My personal suspicion is that, as with most things, the truth is somewhere between the two poles. I don’t think the entire war was based on nothing buy pure moustache-twirling, cackling evil and deciet, but I also can’t even begin to fathom how anyone could look at everything that has leaked about the pre-war buildup and not see evidence of at least a few shenanigans.

Suspicions do not = evidence Richard Clark went on a trip for set up by his wife for the CIA and never filed a report.

Once again, no one has presented any evidence Bush lied.

 

[2shelbys]

SamCA:

The Downing Street Memo shows pretty solidly that the highest levels of the British government had been led to believe that the USA was already intent on invading Iraq even back then.

Actually, when the Sunday times reporter that “found” the infamous Downing Street Memo was asked to produce the original so it’s authenticity could be verified he said “um, uh, um, well I destroyed the original and only kept copies that I had retyped”. That shows pretty solidly that it is just as fake as Bush’s Guard documents. Do you really believe that anyone who had gotten their hands on something that important would destroy it. Come on, it is bogus.

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

I dealt with those different answers many posts ago.

Yes, we did (I think in a different thread) but it seemed to miss most other people.

What is dishonest about that?

It’s not dishonest, no, per se.

Now, as to whether that answer confused some people and led them to believe that Iraq was responsible…sure, I’ll buy that. But, whose fault is it? Cheney’s or the people who jumped to false conclusions based on his statements?

But people do that - and media managers, and politicians, know that people do that. If his words had that effect it isn’t unreasonable to at least suggest that he is well aware of this and chose his words very carefully (as indeed he said he did).

Mike

 

[SamCA]

2shelbys:

Actually, when the Sunday times reporter that “found” the infamous Downing Street Memo was asked to produce the original so it’s authenticity could be verified he said “um, uh, um, well I destroyed the original and only kept copies that I had retyped”. That shows pretty solidly that it is just as fake as Bush’s Guard documents. Do you really believe that anyone who had gotten their hands on something that important would destroy it. Come on, it is bogus.

If that’s the case, why hasn’t a single official in the British government denied their authenticity?

For that matter, why did Blair actually respond to a question about it with, “that memorandum was written before we went to the United Nations”?

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/07/national/w152752D27.DTL

Let me restate that again: Blair acknowledged it was authentic. He did so in the context of disputing how it’s been interpreted, yes, but he acknowleded that it’s not a fake. The only question now is how you want to interpret it.

 

[gilliam]

SamCA:

If that’s the case, why hasn’t a single official in the British government denied their authenticity?

Why would a Bush official deny that a UK citizen, attending a UK meeting in London wrote a note on a piece of paper? This is a non-issue… also avoids the original post, so it is off - topic.

 

[SamCA]

thestickman:

Really? You’ve worked in the diplomatic field?

No. Nor have I ever worked as a particle physicist, but that doesn’t mean I don’t follow the development string theory as an interested layman.

Just because you’re a layman doesn’t mean you can’t have an informed view.

They didn’t. One aide did.

One aide whose job was to transcribe a meeting, and whose memo was then sent to all the people at said meeting. Don’t you rather suspect that if an aide were to transcribe a meeting and then send immediately have that transcript read by all the people at the meeting, errors like the ones you’re talking about would be something to be a bit careful about?

I mean, how wrong do you imagine that he got it? Do you think the cabinet members were all sitting around discussing the President’s plan to let the weapons inspectors have time, and the aide went on a mad editing spree, writing the exact opposite and then immediately sending the erroneous transcript off to the cabinet, no doubt being fired almost immediately?

Or, rather more likely, would a government aide whose job is to take accurate transcripts of meetings get the transcript pretty much accurate, especially in light of the fact that the list of recipients did in fact consist of people who’d been at the meeting in question?

I don’t, cuz it’s not.

Repeating it over and over won’t make it so. (Heh.)

Nope. But some real evidence–a Pentagon report or a document from the CIA or a memo written by Bush/Cheney or a member (not an aide) of the Cabinet would do nicely.

How about this? Another leaked British document, this one a Cabinet Office briefing document circulated among the Ministers, which explicitly stated that they needed a legal “excuse” for the war, to “create the conditions” in which an otherwise illegal invasion was legal?

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-1650822,00.html

An out of work diplomat who’s wife got him a free trip to Niger is a high level source?

Huh? That’s Joe Wilson. I’m referring to Richard Clarke, a sational security advisor who served under every President since Reagan, and who has come forward to say that in the days immediately following 9-11, Bush told his national securityadvisors to figure out a way to use the attacks to justify an attack on Iraq.

Richard Clark went on a trip for set up by his wife for the CIA and never filed a report.

You’re mixing up your government officials who’ve come out against Bush’s policy on the grounds of misleading the public. Though I can understand how you would, there’s quite a few of them and the White House has tried fairly vigorously to smear all of them.

Your evidence this was the only source of intellegence regarding Al-Qeada being trained by (this is a new one to me…I know Al-Qeada trained in Iraq…but never heard it suggested they were trained by Iraq)

“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”
– George W. Bush, Oct. 7 2002
whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

It has since come out that this line was based on intelligence from a single source – Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi a man interrogated by the Defense Department who was almost immediately classified as unreliable and almost certainly lying.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408

That didn’t stop the President from using it in the speech which, according to whitehouse.gov, outlines the Iraqi threat.

Once again, no one has presented any evidence Bush lied.

Men have been executed on less evidence.

 

[SamCA]

gilliam:

Why would a Bush official deny that a UK citizen, attending a UK meeting in London wrote a note on a piece of paper? This is a non-issue… also avoids the original post, so it is off - topic.

If you can honestly think that a transcript of a British cabinet meeting which explicitly displays exactly the evidence you’re asking for doesn’t count simply because it was transcribed by an aide, there’s no point asking for evidence. You’re clearly rejecting anything that disagrees with your already-reached conclusions.

 

[gilliam]

SamCA:

Men have been executed on less evidence.

What kind of an arguement is that?

vogelein.com/images/Alice/57_OffWithHisHead_big.gif
The players all played at once without waiting for turns, quarrelling all the while, and fighting for the hedgehogs; and in a very short time the Queen was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and shouting ‘Off with his head!’ or ‘Off with her head!’ about once in a minute.

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

But people do that - and media managers, and politicians, know that people do that. If his words had that effect it isn’t unreasonable to at least suggest that he is well aware of this and chose his words very carefully (as indeed he said he did).

Mike

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.

Robert

 

[gilliam]

SamCA:

If you can honestly think that a transcript of a British cabinet meeting which explicitly displays exactly the evidence you’re asking for doesn’t count simply because it was transcribed by an aide, there’s no point asking for evidence. You’re clearly rejecting anything that disagrees with your already-reached conclusions.

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

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

Those numbers are very interesting, and I would agree that people may have been confused by the speeches in which the President and others said Iraq was part of the War on Terror brought on by 9/11.

Now, please show me where someone in the administration made a falacious link between 9/11 and Iraq. Prove to me that they intentionally deceived the American public.

“Shortly after September 11, respondents were asked the open-ended question: “Who do you think is more responsible [sic] for the recent terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon?” Only 3% proposed Saddam Hussein or Iraq, while 57% named Osama bin Laden as the most likely suspect. All who answered were asked for a second choice; this time Iraq scored higher, but still only got 27% of responses (Wirthlin, September 15-17, 2001).”

I believe that I have maintained that when you know that many in the American public are coming to a false conclusion and you do nothing to clear it up until 6 months after the invasion, you have deliberately deceived the American public.

I’m not certain what more proof you want. Legal proof? We’ll need a Democratic House and Senate in order to achieve that. It’s been proven to my satisfaction and apparently to a lot of other Americans as well. Since around 60% of the country now believes they deliberately misled for war, maybe now it’s for supporters to prove that there was no deception.

 

[gilliam]

Polls are not proof of wrong doing. Polls simply show the impression of the American populace at any one time. If I remember correctly the only people talking about Saddam and 9/11 were Democrats claiming the administration created such a link, which it did not.

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

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

 

[rlg94086]

“Shortly after September 11, respondents were asked the open-ended question: “Who do you think is more responsible [sic]
for the recent terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon?” Only 3% proposed Saddam Hussein or Iraq, while 57% named Osama bin Laden as the most likely suspect. All who answered were asked for a second choice; this time Iraq scored higher, but still only got 27% of responses (Wirthlin, September 15-17, 2001).”

I believe that I have maintained that when you know that many in the American public are coming to a false conclusion and you do nothing to clear it up until 6 months after the invasion, you have deliberately deceived the American public.

I’m not certain what more proof you want. Legal proof? We’ll need a Democratic House and Senate in order to achieve that. It’s been proven to my satisfaction and apparently to a lot of other Americans as well. Since around 60% of the country now believes they deliberately misled for war, maybe now it’s for supporters to prove that there was no deception.

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.