Did Bush Lie About Iraq?
Rus Thompson posted this today, and naturally I had to click through and see whether or not the Los Angeles Times had, in fact, declared that Bush didn’t lie about WMDs in Iraq back in 2002 and 2003. One would expect to see a piece written by the editorial board of the LA Times, given such a declaration.
Instead, we have an op-ed submission written by an author for the New Republic. It argues that Bush didn’t lie - he merely got bad intelligence.
Two words: Hans Blix.
The problem with the “bad intelligence” meme completely ignores reality - UNMOVIC’s efforts in late 2002 to verify every piece of alleged evidence the US said it had about WMDs. Hans Blix and his inspectors checked up on every lead the Bush Administration deigned to release to him, and UNMOVIC found nothing. Maybe the intelligence was bad, but UN inspectors verified its falsity at the time, so the attempts to legitimize our attack on Iraq under UN auspices were knowingly false.
Whether you define “knowingly false” as equal to “lie” is a semantic issue I leave up to you, dear reader.
LC Scotty Says:June 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
TNR is clearly no apologist for this administration, why would a publication that has gleefully published the Beauchamp fairy tale have an editor is Bush’s pocket?
As far as the UN-is that the same UN that had scores of top officials making billions between them by skirting the Oil for Food program? Those weasels would say anything to keep that gravy train rolling.
Even if you don’t doubt the credibility of the UN, this becomes a case of Blix says one thing, and the intelligence community of several nations collectively are saying something else. It becomes a case of evaluating conflicting reports and choosing the incorrect one. That still does not rise to the level of knowingly false. If you tell me one thing, and The Geek tells me something different and I act on the wrong info, did I act on knowingly false information, or did I just choose incorrectly?
hank Says:June 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
LC Scotty writes:
If you tell me one thing, and The Geek tells me something different and I act on the wrong info, did I act on knowingly false information, or did I just choose incorrectly?
Scotty–that depends on how much you hate Bush. If you believed Algore was going to sit down with terrorist organizations and have a “Peace-In” that was going to end international terrorism on all levels due to the “Power of Gore’s personality”–backed up by John Fucking Kerry if he felt like he needed it–you acted on knowingly false information.
If you don’t suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, then he just chose incorrectly, because he believed what passes in Russia for the KGB, MI-5 in England, the CIA and the Israeli Mossad thought was true.
All about the remove from which you view the situation.
Scott Leffler Says:June 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Bush didn’t have “bad” intelligence. He had exactly the intelligence he wanted. Five years of news stories have made it quite clear that he picked and chose which intelligence he wanted to believe - and it was always the intelligence that supported his desire to attack Iraq. The definition of “lie” is to say something one knows to be untrue. By defintition, he didn’t lie. He was simply ignorant. The rabid right wing of this country is quick to point that out as though being ignorant is an honorable trait to be applauded in our commander in chief.
Rus Thompson Says:June 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The link to the LA Times article was right there in front of you.
The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.
Bush never lied to us about Iraq
LC Scotty Says:June 17th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
From the LA Times article:
“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.”
Scott, please cite a report from a reputable source (e.g. someone not sympathetic to George Soros and company) with evidence that Bush pressured analysts to come to the conclusion he wanted. I’ll be particularly interested in how he pressured the intelligence services of Israel, Russia, Great Britain and the Czech republic.
Terry Says:June 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
There is a huge difference between “getting” bad intel and “demanding” bad intel…..Few are privy to the inner circle at the Company and what operations analysts assessed and sent upstairs….What DCI does or did with it is another story……
Scott Leffler Says:June 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Three posts in a row seem to assert that I said something I did not say. I didn’t say he demanded bad intelligence. I didn’t say he coerced someone into giving him bad intelligence. I said he cherry-picked the intelligence he wanted and ran with it.
Terry Says:June 18th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I think there was more than cherry picking…I think the cherry trees were fertilized
LC Scotty Says:June 18th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Scott,
My bad-I did put those words in your mouth. My apologies. To address what you actually did say, I don’t know if you’re right or wrong. Maybe it was cherry picking or maybe the sources pointing to WMD were a little more credible. I really can’t say either way, and I have misgivings about reporters who think they can make those sorts of evaluations without seeing the data and it’s sources.