Did Bush really lie? If so, who else has been Lying?

[dakotagopher]

OK, I know this probably won't be all that constructive, but I found the following pretty interesting. One of the things that has really been pissing me off lately is how so many are harping on the "fact" about how Bush "lied" about the Iraq situation.

I personally do not believe he lied, and find it quite amusing that many who are playing politics with this issue also "lied." I especially like the ones from Senators Kerry & Kennedy that aren't even a year old. What a joke.

+++++++++++++++

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from us, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is selling and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton(D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[SunDevil]

If Bush lied or not isn't the real problem. We know the Iraqi's had lots of weapons, we, the US, gave weapons to them. We wanted to protect Iraq from the extremists in Iran. We assume that Russia and China gave/sold them weapons. And I'm sure there is a lot of classified documents that the general population doesn't know about on the matter. Even if they found weapons, I'm not sure if the government would tell us.

The problem is "why Iraq?". Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, and about 10 other countries would have made better canidates to invade and 'liberate' the people. Why don't we go into Cuba, a place where 87 billion dollars would make it into a topical paradise. A place that Americans would visit in droves.

Bush had something against Saddam. It is that simple. Iraq wasn't going to harm us anymore than Cuba is. I bet there will be more military casualties in Iraq than what happened on 9-11 by the time it is over.

And I don't even want to think about what will happen if Iraq becomes a Islamic extremist state like Iran...

I just hope the presidental canidates in 2004 look toward the future and not at the past.

[dakotagopher]

QUOTE:
why Iraq?". Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, and about 10 other countries would have made better canidates
________________________________________

Why Iraq?

Among all those countries you mentioned, only Iraq had a years-long record of invading neighboring countries, using weapons of mass destruction, and ignoring UN resolutions. Not to mention playing an endless cat & mouse game with weapons inspectors. And we barely got any international support to take them on!!! Iran has generally been behaving itself….Saudi Arabia is invulnerable since it contains the two Muslim holy cities…..North Korea is probably just playing the same tired old extortion game and is unlikely to attack anybody other than their own poor citizens.

Considering the lukewarm support we got for Iraq, how much international support do you really think we could've gotten to take on North Korea or Saudi Arabia? Much less Cuba, who doesn’t exactly have a record of supporting terror?

Not much. Our “allies” in Europe would’ve been content to keep their heads in the sand.

The only target that Bush had any chance of getting international support on was Iraq. So, he went for them first, tried to rally that support, and mostly failed. Hussein was still a serious danger in his own right and needed to be taken out. Bush deserves credit for staying the course in my opinion.

The other targets will just have to be hit later, unfortunately, and without international support (assuming our politicians have the political will, which i'm doubting by the day.) But it's clear now that we never would have gotten such support anyway. If we HAD been able to build more international support, then success in Iraq would've made the rest of the world more receptive to taking on the rest of the targets. The inability to garner said support, even though it may have been a hopeless quest from the beginning, may be Bush's biggest failure.

Was Hussein the most dangerous target? No. Was he the most logical target to go after first? Yes.

[SunDevil]

I do agree that Hussein needed to be taken down, and we did a good job doing it. He won't return to power again. And Iraq did have a past of attacking neighboring countries, but they didn't do that this time. The government hasn't convinced me that they were dangerous to anybody. And they are killing more Americans there now than they ever could, and costing the country billions to do it.

North Korea, and possibly Iran (I'd bet they are talking with Pakistan) have nuclear weapons which could do major damage. And North Korea doesn't really need long range missles to launch them against the US. They could get a cargo ship, stick a Chinese, US, Japanese, or South Korean flag on it and be in international waters until they got 12 miles off the US coast. They could probably install a rocket launcher on the ship so they would only need to get to where ever their longest range missle is now. And I'm sure they could hit LA, Seattle, San Fransico, or San Diego easily. And that missle sheild idea that nobody talks about anymore wouldn't do much against one in close proximity.

Attacking Saudi Arabia would be like attacking China or Russia. I didn't really say Saudi Arabia was a canidate. There may not really be 10 even. You would have 1.5 billion muslims jihading(?) if you attacked Saudi Arabia though. And that would be more dangerous than any nuclear bomb.

I just said Cuba because if we gave the people there $87 billion it would become more luxurious than South Beach. And they wouldn't be shooting RPGs at the troops. It wasn't because they supported terrorists, but they are as 'oppressed' as anybody else. I'm not really sure what makes someone oppressed though.

---------------------------------
It looks like this missle problem has been realized, and Isreal and the US are doing something about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/29/laser.cannon.ap/index.html

[jku]

It's clear from the quotes Dakota posted that there was a PERCEPTION that Iraq was a threat. Clinton et.al and Bush obviously believed it. The plan to invade Iraq has been floating around since 1992, and if you read the quotes carefully, the general tone is support of isolated strikes, and not unilateral war. There is a big difference.

Kerry and the other Senate members voted in giving Bush authority to use force if necessary, partly because they believed Bush wouldn't go into Iraq without UN support (remember 70%+ of the American public wanted UN support?), and partly because they were fearful of looking weak on foreign policy as their campaign to run for office was coming up.

The main issue with Bush is clear. He ruined our relationships with allies. He put virtually 100% of the cost on the backs of tax payers. He did not develop a true coalition, but still called it a coalition. At least Bush's father had the good sense to have Japan and Kuwait pay for the majority of the war.

And if Sadaam was a true threat this time around as claimed, why weren't neighboring Middle East nations supporting us with troops or money?

In 5-10 years when the REAL costs of this war start hitting home and our paychecks are decimated, where will the tax-cutting Bush Republican electorate be? Will they still be pointing fingers at Welfare mothers and "tax-raising liberals"?

It was right to get rid of Saddam. That is NOT the question.

But it was WRONG in how it was done, how much it will cost, and how it was SOLD to the American public via lies and manipulation of intelligence. The cronyism now, of how contracts are being handed out in Iraq to Bush's donors lead any logical person to come to two conclusions as to why this war in Iraq was fought:

1. It was Bush's re-election campaign, as he had nothing successful to run on. Even Rumsfeld said this past week that the war on "Terror" is failing. The economy sucks. Bin Laden is still sending videos.

2. The War was payback to Bush donors for their support. No-bid contracts for donors is open corruption.

I'm just amazed how some people can find any of this defensible?

[cazort]

Why does everyone constantly talk about Bush, as if he is making the decisions and setting the policy?

Bush doesn't do anything on his own; it is his cabinet, fellows like Cheney, Rumsfeld, as well as hidden characters such as Richard Pearle who are doing all the controlling. Bush has become no more than a pawn.

I think Bush is an honest, upstanding American who has been put into a difficult situation, in which he is being lied to and manipulated by a coalition of evil, self-interested men. What does it matter whether or not Bush is lying? Bush means well. He is not a smart man; I am fully convinced that he just doesn't really understand the situation, and he trusts his advisors far more than he should.

It is the other people who are behind the scenes who are "pulling his strings" so to speak, who are the wrongdoers. These people are smart men, but they are evil. I think once you adopt this viewpoint, it makes a lot of what is going on make a lot more sense...

[jku]

"Bush" is the face of his administration - he is the representative face and name of the coalition of greedy chicken-hawks; Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. Just as Ben Affleck is the face of a group of agents, lawyers, studio heads, accountants, so is Bush.

It's highly possible to get the easygoing mannerisms of Bush confused with his policies. I like laid back dudes who don't take themselves seriously, and use self-depricating humor. My boss is like that. But the difference is that my boss leads us in a direction that is positive for us, and for the company as a whole.

Bush leads us in a direction that is splitting the country, and reaffirming all the distrust and cyncism directed towards politicians rooted in the Watergate Era. Andy Rooney said this last week on 60 Minutes, and I agree with every word:

If I Were Bush's Speechwriter...
By Andy Rooney
CBS News

Sunday 2 November 2003

Years ago, I was asked to write a speech for President Nixon.

I didn't do that, but I wish President Bush would ask me to write a speech for him now.

Here's what I'd write if he asked me to - which is unlikely:

My fellow Americans - (the word "fellow" includes women in political speeches):

My fellow Americans. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because I suggested Saddam Hussein had something to do with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. No evidence that's so, I wish I hadn't said it.

I said we were going to get Saddam Hussein. To be honest, we don't know whether we got him or not. Probably not.

I said we'd get Osama bin Laden and wipe out al Qaeda. We haven't been able to do that, either. I'm as disappointed as you are.

I probably shouldn't have said Iraq had nuclear weapons. Our guys and the U.N. have looked under every bed in Iraq and can't find one.

In one speech, I told you Saddam Hussein tried to buy the makings of nuclear bombs from Africa. That was a mistake and I wish I hadn't said that. I get bad information sometimes just like you do.

On May 1, I declared major combat was over and gave you the impression the war was over. I shouldn't have declared that. Since then, 215 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the person who sent them there, how terrible do you think that makes me feel?

I promised to leave no child behind when it comes to education. Then I asked for an additional $87 billion for Iraq. It has to come from somewhere. I hope the kids aren't going to have to pay for it - now in school or later when they're your age.

When I landed on the deck of the carrier, I wish they hadn't put up the sign saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. It isn't accomplished.

Maybe it should have been MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

I've made some mistakes and I regret it. Let me just read you excerpts from something my father wrote five years ago in his book, “A World Transformed.”

I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero …

This is my father writing this.

...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.

We should all take our father's advice.

That's the speech I'd write for President Bush. No charge.