« closer - c = benitez |
| let's talk about sex (again) »
Posted by on July 17, 2003 07:43 AM | Permalink
I don't think Bush lied. I do think he was told what he wanted to hear, and ignored what he didn't want to hear. I think he believes it doesn't matter what he says as long as it serves his goals. You don't have t o be a lying, stupid Lefty Moonbat to be concerned with the wafflings and backtrackings coming out of this administration, though to do so will undoubtedly get you pegged as one, at least around here.
Speaking of Moonbats, here's a quote from that lying, conniving Lefty Washington Post:
"But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier."
You can read more of this terribly mean and unfair trash here:
July 17, 2003 09:53 AM
When what Bush said is taken in context, it can't possibly be interpreted as a lie.
The fact that the British lied and Bush chose to believe them doesn't equate to Bush himself lying. Of course, the British government lies all the time, so everyone should really know better than to believe what they say...
July 17, 2003 10:33 AM
Well, of course Bush Lied ™. As did the French, British and German intel services, all 14 other UNCS members, Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and a host of other conniving participants in this unholy conspiracy of liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, European socialists, and Zionazis ™ to defame and overthrow the duly elected leader of a sovereign nation. Why can't anyone see this?!?!?!? [Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat?]
Tongue Boy |
July 17, 2003 10:42 AM
I just find it amusing that the White House is using this as a smoke screen to try and make people not ask questions on the huge WMD lies that were fed to us (most egregiously, Powell's testimony to the UN, going on about thousands of WMDs that haven't appeared and may never have existed).
Joseph J. Finn |
July 17, 2003 01:49 PM
Or the UN's own resolutions that Saddam hadn't complied with inspectors... oops, isn't it convenient to say that only the Bush administration thought that there were WMD's?
July 17, 2003 01:57 PM
Many years ago, when I was young, the British and Australian parliaments were based on something called "The Westminster Tradition". No doubt other parliaments and administrations were too, but I can only speak from experience. I can recall several occasions where an Australian cabinet minister resigned for "misleading the parliament". Even if the advice given to him (they were all hims then) was wrong, he said it in parliament, and misled his peers.
Sadly, that era has passed. Back in Australia, the current leadership are past masters at makeing statements that later prove to be no so.... lets not mince words, the bastards lie bluefaced. Are they held accountable? No. Maybe some minor flunky in the depths of the bureaucracy will say "Yes, we saw some contradictory evidence, but we didn't pass it on". No one takes the fall.
What happend to President Truman's "The Buck Stops Here"? Frankly, I - and I am sure, many others - are pissed off with political leaders - in the US, UK, Australia, and no doubt other countries - who treat us like fools. I am a big boy now George / Tony / John -I can handle the truth. If you think Saddam Hussein is a bad man and should be kicked out - say that. Don't invent some cock and bull story about "Weapons of Mass Destruction", buying nuclear material in Niger / Africa / whatever. No need fro crap like "They can launch biological attacks on us within 45 minutes".
If you have a sounds case - tell it like it is. Sack all your spin doctors and political consultants. If you tell the truth and are fair dinkum with me, then I will give you a measure of respect. But you gotta earn it, Dubya / Tony / Little Johnny.
And before people condemn me as yat another whining liberal, I put Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton in the same category. So what if you screwed her on the presidential desk in the oval office - just don't lie about it. At least one ex-Aussie prime minister was honest when confronted about having affairs while in office.
Someone once castigated me for saying the US President shouldn't automatically get everyone's respect (no more of this "Mr President" crap). Sorry, but respect is something you EARN. And you can only earn respect by respecting other people - and that means dealing honestly with then.
July 17, 2003 01:58 PM
Crazy stinkin' Moonbats! Some of them claim that Bush has lied about other stuff, too! Idiots! Stupidheads!
"My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." Bush, 04/26/03 (The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million taxpayers who would receive no tax cuts. )
"During the campaign the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building." (Ari Fleischer, 2/27/03)
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." (Bush, 10/11/00)
"The budget would be in double digit deficit if had there never been a tax cut in 2001. The budget returned to deficit because of war, recession and emergencies associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11th." (White House Budget Fact Sheet)
"The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief provided to help offset the economic slowdown and additional spending in response to the terrorist attacks produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits ($157.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002 ." (Historical Tables Volume of the White House Budget) [The deficit is now $455B, but only a stinkin' Moonbat would think that matters.]
Scott McClellan, responding to a reporter's question about Bush's statement that we went to war because Saddam refused to admit weapons inspectors into Iraq:
A: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way, and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to in that statement.
Q: But that isn't what he said.
(Source: Lying , traitorous Moonbat Timothy Noah, Slate,com)
July 17, 2003 02:02 PM
Your definition of "lying", BTW, seems to include anytime anyone either: misspoke, was wrong due to a lack of the ability to predict the future, or has a different interpretation of data.
July 17, 2003 05:23 PM
Well, you would be wrong.
What in heck does "YWP" mean?
July 17, 2003 05:52 PM
What I find hysterically funny is how people conveniently overlook the decades of destruction perpetuated by Saddam Hussein and eventually, funded by the United Nations and yet, we continue to question the actions taken by Bush/Blair and a host of other nations..but then again...this same rhetoric was heard while Hitler rose to power and managed to slaughter million of Europeans while "peace-loving" people bickered over "justification of war"
Another comical scene from the book of human tragedies.
July 17, 2003 07:02 PM
I think the point jasond was trying to make is the larger one: "If they lied/fudged/obfuscated about WMD and yellowcake from Niger, what the hell else have they lied/fudged/obfuscated about, and isn't it time that people started looking, instead of blissfully believing everything they've been told?
July 17, 2003 08:45 PM
Yep. I'm pretty sure Hitler won't come along and ruin everything if we do.
July 17, 2003 09:39 PM
The problem is that in order to prove Bush Lied And People Died ™ you must first lie about what Mr. Bush said. In those 16 words that shook the world, Mr. Bush made no mention of Niger, nor yellowcake.
Y'all sophisticates and smart people must pardon this tired ol' redneck but when you deliberately misquote (ie, lie) to prove your point i just gotta ask, what else are YOU lying about?
Trouble is, I can't ask you what you're lying about because of the slight problem of you bein' a liar.
July 17, 2003 10:33 PM
I just watched that democrat commercial linked to via Instapundit, and.... Damn! They show Bush in the address, and cut off the first few words so he's making "the statement" without mention of Brit intelligence, then they say America is entitled to the truth.
Man! Talk about unmitigated, colossal.... I'd better leave it at that, because what I want to say about the dems after that would get me barred not only from here, but from the entire Internet for all time....
July 18, 2003 12:53 AM
Yeah, people do blissfully believed everything they hear. For decades people blissfully believed that Saddam could never possibly be a threat to anyone, anywhere, ever.
I mean, the invasion into Kuwait never happened, Kurds were never poisoned and the torture chambers were really just left over Hollywood film sets.
And, even though he ruled a country surrounded by eager radical Islamic terrorist organization, who really do not have the intention of destroying infidels, he really had no interest in capitalizing off their endeavors. After all, his weapons programs were really just a hobby.
Just ask some the the Iraqis who dealt with him, they know...oops, I am sorry, I blissfully forgot their tongues were cut out.
Now, being in the blissful state of mind that I am in, what is all this fuss about yellow cake?
July 18, 2003 01:32 AM
"What I find hysterically funny is how people conveniently overlook the decades of destruction perpetuated by Saddam Hussein and eventually, funded by the United Nations and yet, we continue to question the actions taken by Bush/Blair and a host of other nations.."
As members of the electorate in a democratic (sic) society, it's our responsibility to question the decisions and actions of our elected leaders and to hold them accountable for them. To follow them blindly would not only be irresponsible on our part, but make a mockery of the whole democratic system.
As such, it's immensely irritating when politicians lie to the public, are found out to have lied to the public, and yet still persist with those lies despite increasing evidence to the contrary. That shows immense arrogance and a complete lack of respect for the people they are supposed to represent.
Moving onto the topic of tyrannical leaders such as Saddam Hussein (which I don't think anyone had really mentioned up until that point, because that isn't really the issue any more), it's the responsibility of the international community as a whole to deal with people like him, rather than individual citizens of other countries (or at least it should be).
July 18, 2003 05:14 AM
Look, arguing that to question Bush's policies is to support people like Hussein is useless and stupid. To cite the massive slaughter in Iraq as a defense of Bush's actions is a specious, beside-the-point argument and anyway degrades Hussein's victims in the service of Making A Point. Unless you've been actively vocal about the fate of Iraqis and Kurds since 1991, you don't hold any more moral ground in that area than anyone else.
Like I said in the first post, I don't think Bush lied. I think Clinton did; I think he lied from sunup to sundown and reveled in it. Bush is a different case. I think he is completely capable of believing exactly what he wants to believe in a given moment, regardless of the facts. This gave him the appearance of strength and moral fortitude which we all needed to see in our President after 9/11, but it also leads to a dangerous mindset in which Bush is simply never wrong. Some of you may t hink that's great, and more power to you - I hope it works out for you okay. Me, I got doubts.
July 18, 2003 08:57 AM
"it is our responsibility to question our decisions and actions of our elected leaders and hold them accountable for them. To follow them blindly would not only be irresponsible on our part, but make a mockery of the whole democratic
We seem to once again be blissfully unaware of the actions taken in the late 90's. Congress signed a resolution of war against Iraq, the current adminstration based its actions on that same resolution, which was based on the intelligence information that Saddam was re-establishing his WMD's programs..President Clinton bombed a couple of factories..big deal. Oh, and we have only been paying with lives and money with years of military protection of the no-fly zones over Iraq.
Also, we blissfully have forgotten that Gulf War I never ended, it was a cease fire.
The congressional leaders in our country also have the responsibility to be consistant with their policies..they cannot vote one way in Congress and turn around and tell the public something else. They cannot vote two different ways under to different Presidents. Read what Senator Byrd said under the Clinton adminstration and then read his policy today. His policies are inconsistant and diametrically opposite to one another. Several of our congressional leaders, like Kerry, have also been inconsistant. THIS is what we have a responsibility to question! And, because we have not questioned these people, our democratic process has indeed been made a mockery.
"responsibility of the international community"
Right, I can trust that the international communitity acts responsibly. I can really put my trust in an international community composed of mafia run governments in Russia, attrocious human rights violators in Syria or corrupt and racist Socialist governments in France? I do not believe the international community bases any of their policies on "what is good for the people of the world" Except, when they need our military force in places like Liberia or Yugoslavia. Apparently, the international community considers the plight of a couple of hundred thousand people in Libera or Kosovo must be quickly addressed but, the oppressive torture of 24 million Iraqis is deemed irrelevant.
Like some members of our congress, the international community has not been consistant with their policies.
This voicer has been consistant with my beliefs since 1991, I believed then, as I do now, that Saddam was a threat and needed to be addressed. I remember thinking in 1991 that it was a mistake not to remove Saddam and that in about ten years we would be forced to deal with him again...I was a couple of years off on that one, it was twelve years later.
I have also consistantly believed that ALL adminstrations beginning with former President Carter in 1979 have failed to address the rise and empowerment of extreme Islamic facsism. It took the actions of 9/11 to wake everyone up!
We are blissfully ignoring perspective.
July 18, 2003 09:24 AM
My apoligizes jasond, I miss understood your earlier post (But, if you re-read your own 17 Jul 2:02 pm post, you'd have to admit that it's rather unclear that your point is about Bush being wrong, rather than "Bush lied").
Lileks coined the acronym"YWP" (Yeah, Whatever "point") to address such posts/od-eds etc. like some of those I've read above. In other words, you start out with a sentence that contains "Bush lied" and most conservatives think "Yeah, Whatever" and skip to the next post or paragraph. It works both ways; someone like you would read "Would you rather have Hussein in power?" and have the same reaction.
Both points (whether you agree with them or not) have been made multiple times before, unless you have something new to contribute, like your last post, don't bother (Incidentally, your very first post, was not near as clear as your last one; and not helped with the dripping sarcasm when refering to the WaPo article. Also sarcasm didn't work well in that instance as many feel that the WaPo is at least a "left leaning" paper; if the story was in the Wash. Times, it would have been appropriate).
You do make an interesting hypothesis on Bush's mindset, but I disagree... I'll email you on why (Too long for a post)
July 18, 2003 10:18 AM
I'm not sure why sarcasm - part and parcel of the tone of this particular blog, and a useful (if obnoxious) way of blowing off steam - is considered unhelpful, while a glib and obtuse "YWP" is a reasoned response. But, okay.
I admit that I veered between calling Bush a liar (my gut instinct, not fact-based) and wishing to make a reasoned argument, which I tried to do later. My mistrust of the President's motives and intent is not partisan-based, but comes from my instinctive wariness of abuses of power. I hold Bush to a high standard of integrity and insist on being treated fairly and with respect as a citizen, BECAUSE he's the President.
I do aplogize if my comments are unhelpful and all, but if sarcasm and "tired" arguments were banned form this forum then its population would dwindle pretty sharply.
July 18, 2003 10:39 AM
I'll freely admit my ignorance regarding Congressional resolutions and other such things. Being a Brit means I'm not as clued up on US policy and decisions as I am on UK ones, which is probably one of the reasons why I'm far more critical of the UK government in all of this than I am of the Bush administration.
I'm glad that Saddam's been removed from power, there's no question about that. What's angered me about the whole thing isn't the fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place, but the lies and deceit that went into repeated attempts to convince a largely sceptical UK public that it was the right thing to do. Instead of trying to concoct a case against Saddam that now appears to have been based on largely inaccurate information, it would have been much better for the government to be honest about their reasons for wanting rid of him (many of which are perfectly justified in my opinion). I'm sure many people wouldn't have been happy with that stance, but considering Blair went to war without public support in the first place, I don't think that would have affected the course of events at all.
At the end of the day, it's a British lie that Bush is being blasted for. He may have repeated it, but there's nothing to suggest that he didn't believe the information passed on to him by an ally (especially as it was information he wanted to hear).
July 18, 2003 10:56 AM
Good point about "YWP", especially if you're blowing off steam. It's very frustrating for someone to make a well reasoned point, only to read a specious response. You assume, many times rightly so, that the person didn't understand the argument, and therefore try to re-state it. Many other times, however, the responder understands your point and is just as frustrated that you don't understand the well reasoned other side of the argument. THUS the "YWP" (glib, yes; but no obtuse).
Sarcasm is fine, it's just that it's ineffective in an argument if the opposing side, agrees with the statement AND the subsequent information given after it supports the opposing side's point of view.
When you quote the "lying, conniving Lefty Washington Post" and the quotes like to a conservative like me to be a "left, conniving" (albeit not "lying") hit piece mascarading as objective journalism, you sarcasm falls flat.
July 18, 2003 11:25 AM
BTW, sorry for the poor grammer and spelling in the last post... didn't proofread before posting.
July 18, 2003 11:26 AM
My guess as to why the British population is sleptical towards Blair's policy and American population towards Bush's policy for war against Saddam can be attributted, in some way, to the news agencies whose reports have been biased and propagandized for years. The BBC is held in the same catagory as CNN. Each of these organizations were reporting the news as they saw fit to report, twisting and turning facts to fit a political agenda. CNN, the only western new agency in Iraq allowed to remain during the war, admitted their failure to report for nine years of the attrocities that were occurring in Iraq, their excuse was "protect the source" I guess what they meant by that statement is that they wanted to protect Saddam.
Regretfully, this practice is also employed at the New York Times. The danger with this publication's biased propagandized reporting is that their reports are picked up by every small newspaper around the world and are reported as truth.
Thankfully, we now have a worldwide web which is helping break the chains of politically driven media monopolies.
No sarcarsm here.
July 18, 2003 01:01 PM
It feels pointless to even say it, but:
Almost all Bush's statements about WMDs and Nukes and whatnot that have been mentioned as critical actually occurred after the Congress had authorized him to do whatever he wanted to do in Iraq. They gave him the go-ahead. So then he went to make the case to the UN, and now problems we can see in retrospect are being peddled as "lies to the American people."
If they were lies to anyone--not just mistakes, mind you, which the man is perfectly entitled to the benefit of the doubt on--they were lies to the UN, not to the electorate.
But the bulk of the evidence continues to lead me to conclude that they were not lies.
Just as some of the other things that are being quoted here are not lies, but are disagreements.
Well, partisan hatred being what it is, we shouldn't be surprised.
But by the way, can I take credit for the BushLied™ meme? I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to use it. :-)
Dean Esmay |
July 19, 2003 07:04 AM