The amount of irrational writings trying to justify Bush’s disastrous policies in Iraq is amazing. Some Bush apologists, such as here, quote from Tom Nichols of the Naval War College. I wouldn’t attempt to rehash all the reasons going into Iraq at the time and in the manner which George Bush did was a huge mistake, but there are a few quick points I can’t resist commenting on.
“All this talk about “deception” regarding the question of WMD in Iraq has really turned into Monday-morning quarterbacking of the very worst kind.”
This is no Monday-morning quarterbacking. We had warned that this was a mistake during the months leading up to the war. Subsequent evidence has made the case even stronger that 1) Bush was repeatedly lying in the run up to the war, 2) Bush did not understand the situation in Iraq, and 3) the Bush Administration had no sensible plan to fight and win this war.
“First, let’s start with the one thing on which everyon–and this means everyone, including the UN, the French, and even the most angry critics of George Bush–can agree: the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction at some point.”
Of course we know we had them at one point. After all, we have the receipts. By the same logic, let’s invade Russia because they had their nuclear arsenal pointed at us at one point in the past.
“Critics of the war could argue at the time that they were destroyed, but they couldn’t have known that with any more certainty than those arguing they might be buried in the desert somewhere.”
That’s why it was essential that we continue to contain Saddam, and get the inspectors back in. Both Howard Dean and John Kerry were clear in supporting going to war if Saddam prevented with this. Of course they would have done so in a more sensible manner with both a true international coalition and a plan to win the war.
Then there’s the Clinton quotes. Supporters of the war often quote Bill Clinton but there are two major errors in this logic. Bill Clinton contained Saddam, but never went to war as Bush did. If Clinton had advocated Bush’s policies, he also would have been wrong and this still would not justify the manner in which George Bush has undermined this our national security with his disastrous policies.
While some conservatives have faced reality and admitted this war was a mistake, some continue to twist logic and the facts to justify it. Glenn Greenwald provies further examples of this.
kj,
I never did think much of Bush 41. I actually liked him less than Reagan, between his attacks on “card carrying members of the ACLU” and resorting to campaigning in those flag factories.
Ron, exactly.
And the narrower, the better. Tunnel vision is still quite in vogue.
I thought Bush 41 was squishy ever since he reversed his opinion on abortion. That was sometime in his primary run against Reagan. (I’m too young to remember this stuff! lol)
kj,
“Afghanistan was/is also home to a strand of Islam that wasn’t radical,”
Now what country is pushing one of the more radical strains? Could it be the home of many of the 9/11 hijackers? Could it be a country the Bush family has been very friendly with?
to bad SteveMG left, this was getting to be a good arguement.
Presidents and politcs aside, and narrowly focusing on just WMD’s, could I just get some clarification from the other side:
If the Government (not just the pres, but the congress also, and the UN and related nations also for relative sake) were all in agreement that Iraq had WMD’s, of unknown quantity, and he refused inspection and confounded inspection at point A, then at Point B, then at Point C, how can it be said that the latest president, on his own, having come into at the end of a 14 year issue, be the one who lied to everybody?
From my point of view (I was Dem going into Clinton’s Presidency, but rolled over to Independant by the end of it) I had always been a supporter of regime change in Iraq. To me, there was no big lie from GWB, because he said the same things the had been said since his father was in office. The same things that had been said by Pres. Clinton.
I went through congressional records, and alot of the anti-war favorites were saying the same things the POTUS is saying now. Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, and the like.
So my BIG issue is how could people (not nessicarily you guys, but alot of people I know around) in looking back at the statements by the previous administrations that are in some cases more damning comments (where a Clinton Adminsitration Official said that there were direct ties with Saddam and A-Q to produce the chemical Ix) and then now with ferocity and complete determination still say that our current sitting president lied? And fooled “Us all!” in a way that included congress, the UN and the rest of them?
I am sorry, but the “Bush Lied” comment doesn’t seem to make since if President Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of the Dems, the UN and several other nations all said the same thing before GWB was considering being president.
I am not asking for a debunking, but given the comments and actions previous of politician before #43 was on the scene, on just the issue of “Bush Lied!” can somebody show me how that bumper sticker statement is correct?
Josh
kj,
Bush 41 had to reverse a lot of ideas to win. Remember Voodoo Economics?
Ron,
Ummm, Saudia Arabia?
One ammendment to my comparison between Bush 41 and Reagan. Remember when I posted those pictures of the bright red Nancy Reagan Suite I stayed in at Grand Hotel? The Barbara Bush suite is a much calmer blue. While I wouldn’t want to stay in the suite of the mother of the anti-Christ, the Barbara Bush Suite does look much better than the Nancy Reagan.
Fortunately I didn’t have to pay to stay in Nancy Reagan. They gave it to me for a night at no charge as our regular suite wasn’t ready the first night of our stay.
“Both George Bush and Bill Clinton said the sun rises in the east. That’s about as relevant.”
I see. And if both George Bush and Bill Clinton said that Iraq had WMD, that’s “about as relevant” as the sun is rising in the east as to whether or not Bush lied, and Bill Clinton didn’t, about Iraq having WMD.
Just wow. You guys can’t even hear how totally illogical you sound to anyone actually attempting to evaluate things in a normal, sane manner, do you?
The question being addressed in the post that Ron called “absurd” was whether or not “Bush lied”. Nothing else. It was not about “how Clinton vs. Bush chose to RESPOND to the uncertainty.”. It was about whether or not Bush knew that Iraq had no WMD, and lied to us about it. That is a charge made over and over by the Left, and one that does not hold up to scrutiny. It is not surprising, however, that when called on it, you decide to change the subject to how they -responded-. That’s a different argument. We can have it, but don’t totally change the subject and then insist that we’re engaging in tunnel vision, for God’s sake. No one’s falling for it.
Qwinn
Oh yeah, Voodoo Economics. That worked so well!
Qwinn, glad you’re here. I know I was just chatting with Ron, waiting around for SteveMG to come back or, call in reinforcements.
As for normal and sane, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question to SteveMG, above. Number 14.
So Qwinn, you believe GWB didn’t base his invastion of Iraq on a lie?
Josh,
Regarding Bush lied, there’s the point that he used WMD as a justifiction for the war at a time that the inspectors had gone back in and were finding that there was no WMD. Previous opinions from anyone that Saddam had WMD are irrelevant.
He also lied at the time of the IWR vote when he claimed it was not a vote to go to war and he would seek a diplomatic settlement. The Downing Street Memos (along with his conduct after that point, and the testimony of others) show he intended to go to war all along.
There have been multiple specific points he also has been caught lying on–which literally have been the topic of entire books. Plus the lies have far from been limited to his justification for Iraq.
In question 14, you are still attempting to change the subject to how they responded. That is a different argument. We can have it, but not until you address the original argument. That is whether or not Bush “lied”. Do you deny that Clinton, Kerry, Gore, etc., all made the same statements about Iraq having WMD that Bush did? Or do you believe that Clinton and all the other Democrats lied as well?
I am not averse to having the “how they responded to the information” argument, but I’m not about to allow you to change the subject -first- in order to evade the clear evidence that Bush did not “lie” in the first place. One argument at a time please.
Qwinn
Qwinn,
Read above. Your points have been answered several times already.
Sigh. Okay, so NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE whether or not Iraq still had capable WMD’s.
Is that anything anyone here can agree on? Or are we to agree that EVERYONE said Iraq had capable WMD’s.
I just want to try to talk on the same page, as I’m extending the same benefit of the doubt to everyone else. Where shall we start?
“Regarding Bush lied, there’s the point that he used WMD as a justifiction for the war at a time that the inspectors had gone back in and were finding that there was no WMD. Previous opinions from anyone that Saddam had WMD are irrelevant.”
Actually, the inspectors went in and found, conclusively, that Saddam did -not- meet his obligations to the U.N. to disclose his weapon programs. Resolution 1441, which was voted on unanimously, agreed that Saddam did not comply with the demands of the “international community”.
The inspectors did not go in and find out that Saddam had no WMD – how the hell could they have proved a negative? They went in and did not find evidence of the weapons (although they did find evidence of -other-, more convential weapons that were similarly banned), but to believe that that means “he had no WMD’s” would mean to assume that Saddam was complying completely and giving them full access, which we knew he wasn’t, a matter on which the entire security council agreed.
And even if you believe that “previous opinions” are irrelevant, the fact is that Clinton and other Democrats were giving the same opinion even AFTER we went to war, as late as 2003, after the inspections you’re discussing.
No, I’m sorry, your arguments still don’t hold up.
Qwinn
Arg, we are all probably posting over one another by now.
Qwinn, we armed Iraq with WMD’s. So yes, as Ron said above, we knew AT ONE POINT Saddam had them. Whether they were still viable weapons by 2002 is a point we should consider, because that is the point where you are saying that everyone was on the same page, that everyone agreed that Iraq had WMD’s, correct?
Sorry, I tried to respond, and my response didn’t show up? Consider this a test post.
Qwinn
Or were Dems and Republicans saying, we know WMD’s existed in Iraq at one point (because, as Ron said above, we have the receipts and Rummy was actually there, and Cheney involved), but did we know FOR SURE that the weapons were a threat?
Qwinn,
If you posted a link, your comment might be in the que for a minute.
New spam filter. I don’t know why it picked up Qwinn’s comment–which is now above.
kj, to ammend this, I’ve now gone to two separate layers of spam protection compared to what we had at Dem Daily. Layer two has worked well until today when it picked up two non-spam items in error.
“Actually, the inspectors went in and found, conclusively, that Saddam did -not- meet his obligations to the U.N. to disclose his weapon programs. Resolution 1441, which was voted on unanimously, agreed that Saddam did not comply with the demands of the “international community”.”
That still does not justify Bush’s actions. First of all, just failing to meet all his obligations is not the same as meaning Saddam had WMD which threatened us and justified going to war.
Secondly, citing UN resolutions is only valid if the UN voted to go to war for such violations. The UN did not do so. The United States cannot legitimately cite a UN resolution to justify its own unilateral (or near unilateral) actions.
Hrm, alright, I’ll try again.
“Regarding Bush lied, there’s the point that he used WMD as a justifiction for the war at a time that the inspectors had gone back in and were finding that there was no WMD. Previous opinions from anyone that Saddam had WMD are irrelevant.”
The inspectors went in and found out Saddam had no WMD? How could they possibly prove a negative? They went in and couldn’t find evidence of them, but that’s nowhere near the same thing as establishing that he didn’t have them. They DID find that he had other more conventional weapon systems that were also banned (such as missiles exceeding the range he was allowed). And they did find that he was -not- in compliance with UN demands for full disclosure. As far back as 1991 he signed an agreement where he would provide evidence of their destruction. He never did so.
To claim that inspectors “found there was no WMD” would imply the assumption that Saddam was in full compliance and giving them full access. Who in their right minds would believe that? Not even Hans Blix claimed that. He said the precise opposite, in fact. And every nation in the security council signed Resolution 1441 which stated:
“1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); ”
How you come from that to claim that inspectors proved Saddam had no WMD is mind boggling.
Qwinn
“And even if you believe that “previous opinions” are irrelevant, the fact is that Clinton and other Democrats were giving the same opinion even AFTER we went to war, as late as 2003, after the inspections you’re discussing.”
First of all, most of the quotes of Democrats supposedly giving the same opinion tend to turn out to be misquotations when verified. Whether or not a Democrat said something which can be taken out of context to support the war is irrelevant. There even were some Democrats who supported the war, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a mistake.
Okay, yes, there’s a delay in posting… so you’ll likely see another post from me that’s effectively a reiteration of my previous post. Sorry about that. I’ll just wait a while from now on before assuming something didn’t make it.
Now:
“Secondly, citing UN resolutions is only valid if the UN voted to go to war for such violations. The UN did not do so. The United States cannot legitimately cite a UN resolution to justify its own unilateral (or near unilateral) actions. ”
Of course not… the UN resolution in question was addressing the specific question of whether or not Saddam was in compliance. Every nation agreed that he was not – even Syria, for God’s sake. Now, if some nations refused to back up their own demands with actions, that’s a different issue. The reason for the citation of the resolution is to point out that they all agreed he was not in compliance.
That he was not in compliance is a refutation of the claim that “inspectors went in and found he did not have WMD”. How could they possibly determine that if Saddam was not cooperating? Not even they believed that he was. Hell, even if they HAD believed that he was, it would still not be possible for them to prove that negative, UNLESS Saddam gave us what was required of him – evidence that they had been destroyed. Such evidence is not difficult to produce, if those weapons were ever actually destroyed.
You claim inspectors showed he did not have WMD. Wrong. The only way they could have done that is if Saddam had complied, by offering evidence of their destruction. He never complied, and never did so. So your statement that inspectors changed “what we knew” about Saddam’s program is incorrect, period.
“That still does not justify Bush’s actions. First of all, just failing to meet all his obligations is not the same as meaning Saddam had WMD which threatened us and justified going to war.”
Yes it does. We knew Saddam had WMD. We demanded that he prove he destroyed them. He did not. Unless you think that such weapons simply vanish into thin air, the only logical assumption can be that he still has them, or has given them away, or whatever, but one does not jump to the absurd conclusion that the threat has simply disappeared.
Qwinn
Ron, exactly. Until we can agree on what statements were made, we can’t begin the discussion.
In other words, “What did the Dems and Bushies say that was exactly the same, and when did they say it?”
kj,
“Sigh. Okay, so NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE whether or not Iraq still had capable WMD’s.
Is that anything anyone here can agree on? Or are we to agree that EVERYONE said Iraq had capable WMD’s.”
From my perspective, it’s not worth the effort to determine how close Bush’s opinion on one day was to Clinton’s opinion on another day.
I wasn’t a huge Clinton fan. I didn’t particularly like him until after 2001 by comparison. I see no point in going thru every detail of what he said as it is irrelevant.
Maybe he said what they claim, but we have to be skeptical. I know far more about what Kerry has said, and what conservative sites claim he said, as compared to Clinton. Kerry’s comments on Iraq are totally distorted on numerous Republican sites, and they get some pleasure in sending out their talking points based upon their misquotations of Kerry.
Maybe they are misquoting Clinton. Maybe not. As I said, comparing these statements is as relevant as comparing Bush and Clinton’s statements on whether the sun will rise. As Clinton never used these statements to justify going to war, while Bush did, there is already a major difference making it look like they are cherry picking comments. These were also at different times, with Clinton possibly speaking before Saddam destoryed the WMD. As I noted above, nobody’s opinion about WMD really meant anything. Decisions to go to war had to be made upon facts the weapons inspectors uncovered, not anybody’s opinion.
kj,
Regarding the distortion of Democratic statements, I even recall a troll at Dem Daily who tried to get me by quoting statements from Kerry which supposedly supported Bush’s policies in going to war. Fortunately I recognized the statements, which were taken out of context. They were from his pre-war Georgetown speech in which Kerry advised Bush not to “rush to war.”
Such misquotations represent the bulk of conservative arguments so I’m not going to waste the time playing their games.
I’d also add that the topic here is not whether Clinton and Bush said the same thing. That is rather meanignless. The topic of my post is a few of the absurdities in the arguments in favor of the war. Using an old Clinton statement to justify the war, regardless of whether Bush and Clinton said similar things,is one of the absurdities.
Ron,
I meant to add above, “even if I don’t think it’s worth having this discussion.” I thought you were being quite polite to SteveMG, even offering him coffee, but 75+ posts later, we still apparently can’t even agree to disagree.
What Clinton said has never been the issue about whether or not GWB lied to the American people to justify a non-justifiable, ground troop war into Iraq, all in the name of 9/11.
But, given that, I have no illusions about the bogus “reasons” the neocons still foster to try and justify this folly of Bush’s. Been there in 2001, 2002 and on, nothing seems to have changed in 2006. Well, the arguements have gotten even narrower, as would be expected, but not much else has changed.
It was fun chatting with you though, as always.
As you began this blog, Ron: “The amount of irrational writings trying to justify Bush’s disastrous policies in Iraq is amazing.”
Yes, they certainly are amazing.
kj,
No, what Clinton said was never the issue. Even if Bill Clinton had been standing right next to George Bush at the onset of the war, telling him to go ahead, the war would have still been a mistake.
With that, I probably should run by the hospital considring how long I’ve now procrastinated here.
A bunch of my posts are taking a great deal of time to show up, so, I will just respond and assume they’ll show up eventually.
“Regarding the distortion of Democratic statements, I even recall a troll at Dem Daily who tried to get me by quoting statements from Kerry which supposedly supported Bush’s policies in going to war. Fortunately I recognized the statements, which were taken out of context. They were from his pre-war Georgetown speech in which Kerry advised Bush not to “rush to war.””
Perhaps this “troll” was attempting to show that Kerry supported the “rush to war”, but I doubt it. He was probably posting quotes from Kerry showing that Kerry did agree that Saddam had WMD. And then later on, Kerry probably said that that doesn’t mean that Bush should rush to war. That’s fine. But to show one part and not show the other is not cherry picking or misquoting.
There are two different questions here, and for the life of me I can’t figure out why you guys can’t seem to distinguish between them, no matter how often it’s pointed out. One question is, did Saddam have WMD? The other is, what to do about it if he did. These Republicans you keep accusing of “distorting facts” are doing no such thing, they are simply addressing only one of the questions, while you’re insisting that since the people being quoted didn’t agree with the answer to the second question, it is therefore irrelevant what they said about the first. That’s ludicrous.
Kerry and all these Democrats agreed that it had to be assumed that Saddam had WMD. They differed on what to do about it, but that’s an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION. Why can’t you grasp that? Why do you have to keep making accusations of venal motives about how quoting one of them agreeing about the answer to one question is a “lie” and a “distortion” because they didn’t also include the difference on opinion on an entirely different question? It really makes it hard to believe that you guys have any interest in honest debate.
Qwinn
I’ve made an additional 3 replies. None of them are showing up. Sorry guys, makes it hard to have a conversation.
Qwinn
Yep, better get going. I’ve got to hang the clock and the rest of the pictures. Later.
(Hi to Dave, who I’m sure will be by later!)
My posts only seem to show up if they are one or two sentences long. Sorry.
Qwinn
Qwinn, if Ron hasn’t gone, I’m sure he’ll see what’s going on with your posts. I’ve known Ron for a long time, he doesn’t shut off a reasonable discussion by refusing to post comments.
Qwinn, hang on and see if Ron replies. Seriously, Ron goes the extra mile in conversation and isn’t adverse to other points of view. He said something earlier about installing a second spam filter. It might be acting up… ?!
I don’t know why this new plug in is primarily picking on Qwinn. It uses a system where another site screens the messages. They might somehow have Qwinn’s IP in their data base as a spammer. Supposedly it “learns” by telling it that certain comments aren’t spam so maybe it will ultimately stop blocking him. Not much time now but I’ll thru some of his last few comments quickly and look for key points.
“The inspectors went in and found out Saddam had no WMD? How could they possibly prove a negative?”
Nobody says it proves a negative. It was not necessary to prove there was no WMD. In contrast, it was necessary for Bush to have evidence that there both was WMD and that the WMD was an imminent threat to us in order to justify going to war. While Bush and Cheney made such claims of a threat from Saddam (along with the false claims tying him to 9/11) there was no evidence to back this up. In other words, they were lying.
“One question is, did Saddam have WMD? The other is, what to do about it if he did. These Republicans you keep accusing of “distorting facts” are doing no such thing, they are simply addressing only one of the questions, while you’re insisting that since the people being quoted didn’t agree with the answer to the second question, it is therefore irrelevant what they said about the first.”
This confuses the issue by lumping every statement about WMD together. Sure virtually everyone thought Saddam had some WMD hidden away and we were surprised that absolutely nothing was found. But not all WMD is the same. Most agreed there was some type of WMD which Saddam could potentially use at a future point against his own population or possibly neighbors. Therefore most Democrats spoke out against Saddam and supported containment. Supporters of the war took this much futher in claiming the existence of WMD which presented an imminent threat to us. Democrats, such as Kerry, felt this had not been demonstrated and argued against going to war.
Simply saying that people on both sides believed there was WMD is an effort to obfuscate the issue and provides no justification for Bush’s actions. Each side was really talking about different things when they accused Saddam of having WMD.
Then can we take post #93 as an admission that Bush did not “lie” about Saddam having WMD?
“Sure virtually everyone thought Saddam had some WMD hidden away and we were surprised that absolutely nothing was found.”
Do you believe that Bush believed otherwise? If so, can you provide the evidence that Bush should have known something “virtually” no one else did?
I’m happy to have a conversation about whether or not a belief that Saddam had WMD justified going to war… but there’s no point even going there if we’re going to continue to maintain that Bush “lied” about something that “virtually everyone thought”, with no evidence that he should have believed anything different from “virtually” everyone else, including almost all Democrats. Why? Because it makes it clear that the objective is not rational debate, but simply to vilify Bush.
Qwinn
Nothing picked up by either spam filter at the moment. Will check again soon–fortunately there are computers with internet access all over the place. Looking back, it couldn’t be simply the IP address as it allowed some posts thru. Hopefully telling the new anti-spam plug-in four times that Qwinn’s comments aren’t spam will get it to stop blocking them! If this keeps up I’ll have to try out some alternatives.
“Then can we take post #93 as an admission that Bush did not “lie” about Saddam having WMD?”
No. If all Bush said was that Saddam had WMD, then this wouldn’t be a lie, but that is not what Bush is accused of lying about. Bush made many other claims about a nonexistent threat which were lies.
“Supporters of the war took this much futher in claiming the existence of WMD which presented an imminent threat to us.”
This is also false. Bush himself never said this. What he said was this, in his 2003 State of the Union:
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?”
This is outright saying that the threat was not imminent – that if we wait for it to be imminent, it’s too late. Supporters of the war have never shied away from calling it a preemptive war… if their position was that the threat was “imminent”, then the war would not have been “preemptive”.
Disagree with the position that one should not wait for an imminent threat if you like, but it completely contradicts the claim that Bush said Saddam posed an “imminent threat”. What he said was that we had to act now, before the threat became imminent, because Saddam’s intentions have always been clear, and after 9/11 it would be hugely irresponsible to count on his good behavior. Considering that Saddam was the head of one of only two governments in the world that celebrated the 9/11 attacks (the other was the Taliban), I would have to agree.
Qwinn
My posts are showing up right away now – thanks for fixing the problem
Qwinn
“No. If all Bush said was that Saddam had WMD, then this wouldn’t be a lie, but that is not what Bush is accused of lying about. Bush made many other claims about a nonexistent threat which were lies.”
Well, Ron, hate to say this, but I believe that EVERYONE on the planet who hears the constant refrain “Bush lied” believes that those saying it are claiming that he lied about Saddam having WMD. Opponents of the war indeed state outright all the time all over the media that Bush lied about Saddam having WMD. If the accusation is indeed about something else, then I’d say you guys are having one major problem coordinating your message.
Conservatives are addressing that charge, because that is the charge conservatives genuinely believe is being made.
Qwinn
Bush made many statements other than the one quoted, sometimes making the threat sound more imminent than others. If we add Cheney to the mix, there were far more misleading statements made.