T Nation

Bush Lied?

The dems, and the loony left of course, have been peddling this line for quite a while now. Too bad it’s not that simple, as the article below points out. Oh well, the whole “Bush lied, People died” line makes quite a catchy bumper sticker…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.

html

[i]‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; A17

Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . .

To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read.

The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in “Bush Lied” mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the “Bush Lied” bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran’s nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

[/i]

The “Bush Rulz!” paraphernalia is sitting in a warehouse with the “Elect Gore Another 4” paraphernalia. It seems both were a bad investment.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The “Bush Rulz!” paraphernalia is sitting in a warehouse with the “Elect Gore Another 4” paraphernalia. It seems both were a bad investment.[/quote]

When I helped my brother move a few years back he had some Mondale Ferraro crap in his basement. I found it rather amusing.


.

Amazingly enough, we had even more information about Iraq collaborating with terrorists prior to our invasion…

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-

did-not-lie-saddam-officials-had.html

It wasn’t the lying, it was the manipulation. Even if they had been corroborating with terrorists, Bush clearly made it look like Iraq was the DIRECT cause of 9/11, when they clearly were not.

Plenty of countries had greater ties to terrorists than Iraq, and yet we didn’t invade any of them.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
It wasn’t the lying, it was the manipulation. Even if they had been corroborating with terrorists, Bush clearly made it look like Iraq was the DIRECT cause of 9/11, when they clearly were not.

Plenty of countries had greater ties to terrorists than Iraq, and yet we didn’t invade any of them.[/quote]

The mantra Bush has repeated over and over again is that terrorism will be defeated by the spread of democracy. This is what he hoped to prove in Iraq by removing Saddam, but it’s false.

Obviously they lied, but the main issue as everybody now knows was the manipulation of the intel to present a certain case by eliminating all of the dissenting intelligence. Hiatt uses that same selective quoting technique to make his fake case here.

Hiatt says:"On Iraq�??s nuclear weapons program? The president�??s statements �??were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.�??

the report says:"U) Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community

and this is how it goes for each case Hiatt makes, he is truly a douche.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
It wasn’t the lying, it was the manipulation. Even if they had been corroborating with terrorists, Bush clearly made it look like Iraq was the DIRECT cause of 9/11, when they clearly were not.

Plenty of countries had greater ties to terrorists than Iraq, and yet we didn’t invade any of them.[/quote]

Where and when did he say that? How exactly did he imply this?

And why does this argument keep evolving? Maybe its because we did find WMD’s, precursors, and a very large WMD program in place?

The only lies I keep hearing are about the Bush administration. An attempt to twist things and destroy a presidency for the sole purpose of getting a Democrat into office.

The way the left and the media has used the propaganda has left me totally disgusted.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Amazingly enough, we had even more information about Iraq collaborating with terrorists prior to our invasion…

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-did-not-lie-saddam-officials-had.html
[/quote]

Fixed the link

I don’t give a flying duck what the intent of Bush was. Countless people are dead and maimed gratuitously. For that, Americans should hold their leadership accountable. What happened is the total opposite where the criminal and his crew were rewarded by a second term in the White House.

Get into technicalities if you will. Any such analysis is flawed anyway given the public’s limited access to internal communications. Such bickering will not bring back the dead or make the amputee grow limbs (be they Iraqis or Americans). All this does, is attempt to comfort the bunch that voted for that disgraceful human being.

We didn’t know. Nobody told us. Intelligence community this. It’s not our fault, or Bush’s for that matter. WMDs. Saddam and Ben Laden are in cahoots.

Complete and utter rubbish. The whole bloody world was warning you that it would turn into a carnage, but the so-called “liberal media” kept hammering FUD in America’s collective psyche. Mushroom cloud in NY. Anthrax in Seattle. The population swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Five years later, now that the bases in Iraq are secured, the same scenario is warmed and served with a side of Hitler and Holocaust revival.

And it doesn’t matter how many insiders come out and denounce the manipulation and deceit laid by the White House and its circle. They’ll be dismissed as liars, opportunists or unpatriotic terrorist-sympathizers. Better yet, just play the partisan card and denounce the evil plans of “the Left” (which, for all intents and purposes, is politically inexistent in the U.S.) to socialize medicine and take away the freedoms to drive giant cars. Present a false dichotomy where you either sentence foreigners to die by USAF bombs or let the “loony left” relieve your wallets for their grand communist project, and you’re all set.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
It wasn’t the lying, it was the manipulation. Even if they had been corroborating with terrorists, Bush clearly made it look like Iraq was the DIRECT cause of 9/11, when they clearly were not.

Plenty of countries had greater ties to terrorists than Iraq, and yet we didn’t invade any of them.[/quote]

I am not calling you a liar on this but…

When was this done? I recall the fear was that Saddam would give his nukes to Al-Qaeda like Khan (no relations) from Pakistan gave his knowlege of nukes to North Korea.

Maybe people ASSUMED that Iraq may have been involved, but I do not remember Bush or any of his inner circle ever making a direct connection between Saddam and 9-11. Al-Qaeda said they wanted a nuke and Saddam was just the guy to give it to them, I think was their argument.

Do you have any information linking Bush to Saddam and
9-11? If you do, I would like to read it.

Hey, where’d the weaponized Anthrax come from anyhow?

Anyone know?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mushroom cloud in NY. Anthrax in Seattle. [/quote]

Funny.

Except people did die from Anthrax and it’s source was never discovered.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
It wasn’t the lying, it was the manipulation. Even if they had been corroborating with terrorists, Bush clearly made it look like Iraq was the DIRECT cause of 9/11, when they clearly were not.

Plenty of countries had greater ties to terrorists than Iraq, and yet we didn’t invade any of them.

I am not calling you a liar on this but…

When was this done? I recall the fear was that Saddam would give his nukes to Al-Qaeda like Khan (no relations) from Pakistan gave his knowlege of nukes to North Korea.

Maybe people ASSUMED that Iraq may have been involved, but I do not remember Bush or any of his inner circle ever making a direct connection between Saddam and 9-11. Al-Qaeda said they wanted a nuke and Saddam was just the guy to give it to them, I think was their argument.

Do you have any information linking Bush to Saddam and
9-11? If you do, I would like to read it.[/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/

Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 2:25 AM EDT (0625 GMT)

story.cheney.jpg
Cheney said the press is “often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said.”

RELATED
�?� Bush : Al Qaeda, Iraq had ties
�?� 9/11 panel: U.S. was unprepared
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Dick Cheney
Iraq
Al Qaeda
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were “irresponsible.”

Members of 9/11 commission found “no credible evidence” that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was “no collaborative relationship” between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network’s leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it�??s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don�??t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn�??t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we�??ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the �??90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in �??93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of �??93. And we�??ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in �??93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we�??ve had the story that�??s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we�??ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don�??t know.

MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn�??t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That�??s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the �??90s. That was clearly official policy.

MR. RUSSERT: There are reports that the investigation Congress did does show a link between the Saudi government and the hijackers but that it will not be released to the public.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don�??t know want to speculate on that, Tim, partly because I was involved in reviewing those pages. It was the judgment of our senior intelligence officials, both CIA and FBI that that material needed to remain classified. At some point, we may be able to declassify it, but there are ongoing investigations that might be affected by that release, and for that reason, we kept it classified. The committee knows what�??s in there. They helped to prepare it. So it hasn�??t been kept secret from the Congress, but from the standpoint of our ongoing investigations, we needed to do that.

…yeah, they didn’t encourage the connection at all…

Noooo, not at all…

Wow, Thanks.

The fact is, the real answer, the one the intelligence committees and the 9/11 commission have given us is that Iraq=/=9/11. Any relation is secondary and unimportant in he large scheme of things, IE: not big enough to start a war over.

Cheney continued to postulate that a connection was a distinct possibility, and that to say otherwise was “dangerous”. He also downplays the role of the Saudi gov by pretending he thought Russert’s question was referring to the nationality of the hijackers.

Look, I don’t think Bush is some evil war monger sitting behind his desk and petting his pet mini-me. But to say the American people were not manipulated into thinking Iraq=9/11 is kind of silly. If so many people believed such a connection, why was it not denounced? That, in itself, is a big part of the picture.

Even when the WMD “evidence” was considered slightly credible, no one gave even an ounce of cred to the claim that Saddam Huessein was in any way behind 9/11.

Not once did they say that Iraq was involved in 911.

And why is it suddenly Bush’s job to correct the media? Every fucking word out of his mouth is twisted into something else. Why should he be blamed for that?

If all he did was correct the media, there would be no time to be president.

An yes they did have a relationship. Did it involve 911? Nothing that was found indicated that, but there was a relationship.

When the 911 commission talked about Iraq, they only said they found no connection with Al-Qaeda, and when the pentagon said they found, “No Smoking gun” the media naturally twisted that into something it was not.

Neither time did they say there was no relationship, and in the latter case it was mentioned in the memo, but not the news reports (that I read) that Saddam was working with a vast worldwide network of terrorism. Some of that specifically against America.

So does it even matter if they were working with Al-Qaeda? They were working with terrorists and terrorist organizations.

Want a link? Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Admitted his allegiance to Osama, and Al-Qaeda. Received medical care and sanctuary from Iraq. Attacked Americans in terrorist acts.

It should also be pointed out exactly what Al-Qaeda actually is. Many terrorist groups existed before Al-Qaeda. Bin-Laden created Al-Qaeda as a loose umbrella to unify these terrorist groups, give aid, and help train. But many of these groups are still autonomous.

Remember, this wasn’t a war on Al-Qaeda, it was a war on terror. And Saddam was supporting terrorists, that is a fact.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey, where’d the weaponized Anthrax come from anyhow?

Anyone know?[/quote]

It was thought that it came from a military facility, causing a lot of heat on some scientists from there, but apparently it was not actually weaponized, and a more common strain then they thought.

Here is the most recent article I can find:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092401014.html

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc