Lib admits: Bush never Lied about Iraq...

[Judge]

the dhims just lied about bush lying... who's surprised at that??

Bush never lied to us about Iraq - Los Angeles Times

Bush never lied to us about Iraq



[COLOR=#333333 ! important]The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.[/color]
[COLOR=#999999 ! important]By James Kirchick
June 16, 2008 [/color]
Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.




Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

[Etta Place]

The left wing has a branch of the War Party too judge. Mr. Kirchick and other members of The New Republic writing staff are members of it.

[yeahYeah]

i am amazed a lib newpaper printed this. I wonder how much more play it will get....Ha, not much.

[AZXD]

Dihms lied
People died


Ehhh, it just doesn't have the same ring.
Maybe it needs more cowbell.

[Judge]

For once etta, just deal with the truth, instead of deflection...

Your lib buds lied. Bush didn't.

End of story.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

The left wing has a branch of the War Party too judge. Mr. Kirchick and other members of The New Republic writing staff are members of it.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by yeahYeah

i am amazed a lib newpaper printed this. I wonder how much more play it will get....Ha, not much.

Why are you "amazed"? Papers like the LA Times have always given space on their editorial pages to opinions from every political and social perspective.

Because YOU think the LA Times is a "lib newspaper" doesn't make it so. What is it exactly that makes you believe the LA Times is a "lib" paper? Was it their endorsement of Ronald Reagan?

Can you possibly define what the term "lib newspaper" even means?

My guess is that either someone told you it was a "lib newspaper", or in your mind ALL newspapers serving major American cities that are not owned by Rupert Murdoch are "lib newspapers". Whatever.....nothing changes the FACT that the editorial was just that...an editorial.


Whatever......the point is that the editorial you read that was posted by Judge is an opinion piece, not hard news. If it were, it would have been printed in the news section, not on the editorial pages.

Just because Judge presented the column as if it was "news" - well, we all know that Judge has his somewhat predictable take on all things political and has a tendency to present opinions as if they were facts. Nothing new here.

Originally Posted by Judge

For once etta, just deal with the truth, instead of deflection...

Your lib buds lied. Bush didn't.

End of story.

LOL.....I can just imagine how you would react if someone posted a left wing opinion piece stating that Bush lied, whatever and then said "End of story".

Yeah, you'd certainly say "Gee, it says so in a newspaper editorial, therefore it must be the absolute truth and who can possibly even express a different opinion? It is indeed the "End of story"....

That's exactly how you'd react, right Judge?




Peace,
D.

[Judge]

Actually no Dejia, I can tell the difference between fact and opinion. If you can't feel free to ask others for help. These things are not "opinion" and I'll repost them for you, since either you didn't read, or you ignored or you didn't comprehend:

"In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

"Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.""

"Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

"In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist."

These are all quotes except for the last one, which there have been many posts on the Dhims comments pre-invasion - they all agreed with the comments from the Bush and previous Clinton admins...

It has nothing to do with opinion.

Originally Posted by Delija

SNIP
LOL.....I can just imagine how you would react if someone posted a left wing opinion piece stating that Bush lied, whatever and then said "End of story".

Yeah, you'd certainly say "Gee, it says so in a newspaper editorial, therefore it must be the absolute truth and who can possibly even express a different opinion? It is indeed the "End of story"....

That's exactly how you'd react, right Judge?




Peace,
D.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Judge

Actually no Dejia, I can tell the difference between fact and opinion. If you can't feel free to ask others for help. These things are not "opinion" and I'll repost them for you, since either you didn't read, or you ignored or you didn't comprehend:

.

No need to re-post. I can read it as well as you can. One committee says "no conclusive reason to believe" the other says "conclusive reason to believe".

Just more opinions. You keep saying FACTS when not one of your tidbits of information gives an absolute indisputable conclusion.

Believe what you wish.

As I said before....if this was hard news, why was it published on the op/ed pages?

How 'bout just dropping it? Agree to disagree. There's nothing to prove either case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there was we'd certainly know about it.

Peace,
D.

[Judge]

you simply can't prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" something that didn't happen.... Those quotes clearly say - there is ZERO evidence that the administration lied. There is no proof, no evidence.

Let me repeat: there is simply ZERO evidence that Bush lied. That's not opinion, that's not theory, that's the facts.

For one to beleive something that didn't happen is delusional. To state something happened when you know it didn't/have zero evidence that it did, is a lie. The evidence is in, the libs lied about bush lying/manipulating the evidence. If you have something to the contrary, I'm sure Peloisi would love to see it.

Originally Posted by Delija

No need to re-post. I can read it as well as you can. One committee says "no conclusive reason to believe" the other says "conclusive reason to believe".

Just more opinions. You keep saying FACTS when not one of your tidbits of information gives an absolute indisputable conclusion.

Believe what you wish.

As I said before....if this was hard news, why was it published on the op/ed pages?

How 'bout just dropping it? Agree to disagree. There's nothing to prove either case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there was we'd certainly know about it.

Peace,
D.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Judge

you simply can't prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" something that didn't happen.... Those quotes clearly say - there is ZERO evidence that the administration lied. There is no proof, no evidence.

.

Right. So you decide which of the conflicting Senate Intelligence Reports to take as gospel and which to disregard.

It looks to me like a clear case of "he said/she said".

I am stumped at trying to understand how you come to your conclusions as "fact".....it seems abundantly clear you are just stating a preference.

Judge, I can't bang my head against the wall like you seem to enjoy. I have no dog in this fight. Whatever happened happened. Whatever the truth is, chances we will never really know with certainty.... It is how the government seems to work. They can classify whatever they wish under the guise of "national security" for durations beyond belief.

JFK was assasinated 45 years ago and still documents relating to the event are classified AFAIK.

And as far as I care, it makes no difference at this point. Does it matter who was responsible after everyone who was possibly involved is dead? It just becomes a non-factor after enough time passes.

If you wish to continue to hold Mr. Bush in high esteem, why would I want to argue with you?

The seven frozen minutes of the "deer in the headlights" is an image that is permanantly etched in my brain. I saw that and to me, this was not the kind of action that reassured me that this is a man capable of leading a Cub Scout Den, let alone the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

But if his actions impress you, then that's fine. I understand that for many Americans being lost as to what to do was just great.....as long as he was not getting a blow job from an intern, that made him vastly superior to what preceeded him.

I worked in Liberty Plaza. I knew people who died on 9/11. I have a long time close friend who lost dozens of employees that day and tried to attend something like 40 seperate funerals and memorials in the days that followed.

So maybe I just can't see beyond seven minutes of complete inaction. I know this same seven minutes is a non-issue to other people. We make our decisions, right or wrong, on our own standards.

As I said, in my case actions speak far greater than words. If Bush called the Constitutioin "nothing but a piece of paper" or not, it makes no difference. What he has DONE does make a difference IMO. If he lied intentionally about the intelligence he had on Iraq's WMDs or not makes no difference now. But it seems (doesn't mean it's true, just that it seems) that Bush believed what he wanted to believe is enough for me.

You don't see it the same way. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so why bother to argue?

I hope you are right. I hope he was sincere in his beliefs that Iraq was an immediate threat. A "clear and present danger". At least then the deaths of our troops will have been for a perceived real purpose, not to settle a family feud.

Beyond that, what's done is done.

The past is finished. We cannot change it. We need to focus on the future. So does it really matter what was going on in the head of one individual?

Is it so important to you to stand in defense of the man? Here? Now?

Are you expecting that anyone will take your position as "fair and balanced" when you refer to the Democrats as "Dhims"?

Calling names.....it's what generally happens when an argument has been lost. Do you feel some personal pain and is that what compels you to use names like "Dhims' and to start so many threads all in the attempt to make Bush look good by making his opponents look worse?

Whatever. I don't really care about the past. I don't care about pointing fingers and spreading blame. I wanted Bush to be right. I was disappointed he turned out to be wrong. I was NEVER pre-disposed to care about an outcome based on wishful thinking. I only wanted to feel that no American troops died for the wrong reasons.

Now we can't turn back the clock. If you feel better believing that the Democrats lied, that's good for you I suppose. To me it makes not one bit of difference. Someone lied. Our intelligence was faulty. Our analysts were inept. Our inter-agency competitive spirit was part of what allowed the events of 9.11 to occur.

Whatever and whomever was to blame doesn't matter now. Now it's time to go forward. To make things better.

Sitting around trying to lay blame is a waste of time, effort and emotion.

Ask the parents of the American kids who died in uniform in Iraq if they care who was right and who was wrong and if it mattered that Cheney and Rove and the rest rattled their sabres and said all the right things to create an environment of fear and loathing that made war seem like a good idea to Republicans and Democrats alike. Ask those parents if it matters that these same men refused to put their own lives at risk 30 years before in another war fought for no apparent benefit of the US.

No one cares. Dead is dead. Blame is what gets passed around when everyone loses.

Peace,
D.