VP Cheney comes out and starts throwing elbows (transcript here):
Mr. Cheney, who was the administration’s toughest, most persistent advocate for the war in Iraq, depicted the senators as hypocrites swayed by antiwar sentiment and their own political ambitions.
“Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein,” Mr. Cheney told the group, Frontiers of Freedom, at the Mayflower Hotel. “What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.”
Questioned in South Korea, President Bush responded:
At a news conference in Kyongju, South Korea, where he will attend the Asian economic summit, President Bush said Thursday that he backed the vice president’s comments.
Mr. Bush said it was “patriotic as heck to disagree with the President.”
“It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That’s exactly what is taking place in America.”
Like, for example, Jay Rockefeller.
Armando is free to pretend that all the administration is doing is ‘questioning his patriotism,’ the rest of us can look at this as a long overdue response to a series of willful misrepresentations of history- lies, if you will.
It seems to me there are plenty of things to flay this administration about that you don’t need to start lying yourself. Or playing the tired old victim card. Armando and his ilk have had several years of attacking without any response, and finally the administration is fighting back.
About damned time. And Jay Caruso is right– it does piss me off that the press continues to refer to the pushback as the ‘President lashing out at critics,’ when what is actually happening is that Bush is refuting accusations from Democratic partisans.
Jon H
“and finally the administration is fighting back.”
Too bad they’re still embracing Chalabi.
Kinda makes their whole self-defense look like, well, a lie.
Jon H
“Bush is refuting accusations from Democratic partisans”
Nah, he’s trying to refute the biased, partisan facts.
Kinda like when Cheney went on NBC and denied, in Gloria Borger’s face, that he’d said something, when he very definitely said exactly that on Russert’s show.
Sorry, but your boys mislead the nation into war. Call it lies, call it a big mistake if you need to excuse their behavior, but they fucked us all, on purpose.
norbizness
You sure you want Dick Cheney as one of your point-people on this? A guy who said “[W]e do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon”?
Steve
Please keep sending Cheney, the only guy less trusted than Bush, the guy who said Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, the guy who kept citing false intelligence long after it was known to be false. Yes, he is the perfect guy to rebut these bogus, partisan attacks.
AG in Houston
Jonhn Cole
No questions asked, it’s about time Bush started throwing the lies of people like “Jon H” right back at them.
The refusal to recognize the perfidy of the lying charge is not because of a truth that will eventually come out, but of a hope that will lead to the vindication of the far-far left theories that Bush lied, People died, 9/11 was a Mossad plot and Al Qaeda never ever even dialed Saddam’s number.
Jon H
And John, if they didn’t lie, why don’t they just lay it out?
They don’t want to, because if they did we’d know it’s much worse than we even suspect.
So all they can do is attack the messengers in a desperate attempt to change the subject.
Fuck that. The Bushies lied us into this war, they mismanaged it from the point when it was a glint in Rumsfeld’s eye, and they can fucking well take responsibility for it now.
If they don’t like it, they should have been straight with us in 2002 and 2003. They weren’t. So they can fucking well shut up take it like men.
Pb
Personally, I think that the “long overdue response to a series of willful misrepresentations of history- lies, if you will” *is* what the Democrats are doing in the first place. And I commend them for it. At least Cheney didn’t lie in that quote by calling the IWR a “vote for the war”, although it’s a shame he can’t then later see the simple distinction there. As for Bush, I agree that “people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics”–and he’s been front and center on that one for quite some time.
Shygetz
John, are you seriously buying into the canard that the Senators had all of the same intelligence as the Executive? I thought that had been pretty thoroughly debunked. If the President wanted to protect himself from stuff like this, then he should have presented the intelligence, warts and all, instead of only picking that which supported his desire to invade.
I agree that most of the Senators didn’t do their jobs properly in evaluating what intelligence was provided. However, when you cherry-pick intelligence to try to make your case seem stronger than it is, you set yourself up for second-guessing down the road. When Bush put out the intelligence he did, he made a gamble–the report would make it easier to convince the country to invade Iraq; but if there were no WMDs, then he would pay for overstating his case. Bush lost that gamble, and now he’s paying.
Al Maviva
See, there you go again, John, lashing out at people who have criticized the war. Criticism of the war is entirely legitimate. I for one am tired of your intensely personal attacks.
OCSteve
This is just going to be a repeat of LIED/DIDN’T LIE all day with 300 comments by dinner time.
I’ll get mine in now and then move on: DIDN’T LIE!
Blue Neponset
Bush led us into Iraq based on cherrypicked intelligence. Blaming the Democrats for trusting him isn’t going to work, IMO.
Repub partisans like you may think it is ‘about time’ that Bush started fighting back, but I think to non-partisans it looks like he is passing the buck for the horror show that is Iraq. “You fucked up, you trusted us” isn’t a very good response to critisism.
Jon H
If Bush were a real manly Texan, he’d come out and say “Fuck yeah, we lied. We wanted to kick Saddam’s ass, and we did what we had to do.”
But he’s a pussy. A silver spoon prep-school cheerleading pussy.
I mean, good lord, he doesn’t even have the balls to be a proper Christian.
Have fun with your man-pussy, guys!
Steve
The idea that these guys in the administration, who so desperately wanted to take out Saddam from the day they got into office, simply “happened” to get the intelligence wrong is beyond belief. That’s why this pushback is never going to gain any traction with the voters.
M.A.
Harry Reid did a good job of throwing the “playing politics” line back in Cheney’s face, pointing out that it is Bush and Cheney who are playing politics — deflecting legitimate questions about their conduct by pretending that the only people asking these questions are political opportunists. If Reid, Kerry and a few other Senators who voted for the war resolution are opportunists, how about answering the millions of people who agree with them and who didn’t vote for the war resolution?
Or, put another way: when more than half the country thinks you weren’t honest about the war, pretending that it’s only a few evil obstructionist Dems asking these questions is a very stupid and dishonest strategy from the very stupid and dishonest people in the Bush administration.
Matt F.
I’m usually not one to leave comments on blogs, but John’s loving embrace of Cheney’s remarks annoyed me enough to post this.
Simply put, Dick Cheney was the primary guilty party when it came to making clear, unequivocal — and false — statements about the threat from Iraq. It is clear that such statements were — at the time he made them — at worst contrary to, and at best materially different from, the state of American intelligence. For him to call his critics “liars” is truly amazing.
Look — Bush defenders can kick up dust by pointing at what Democratic politicians also said at the time. Many Democrats followed the Administration’s war plan in lockstep because they feared the political consequences of not doing so. It certainly was spineless, and criticism of that spinelessness is warranted. And they can’t complain that Bush defenders are throwing their words back at them now.
But most who question the veracity of the adminsitration in the lead-up to war — about 60% of Americans — didn’t get to see the intelligence, didn’t get to weigh the evidence. They believed what they were told. “We know where the weapons are.” “He has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” The meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence was “pretty well confirmed.” Almost 60% of America is who Bush has a problem with, which is why pointing out what Democrats said won’t really help any.
Also, the lefty blogosphere, most notably Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum, have posted explicit, easily catalogued cases in which administration officials said things demonstrably at odds with the available intelligence at the time they said them. Until someone in the righty blogosphere refutes those points, one by one — and nobody has yet, because I keep tabs — then the criticisms and accusations that Bush et al. misled America into war are warranted, fair, and will continue unabated.
Calling Jay Rockefeller an unpatriotic liar won’t change a thing.
Blue Neponset
I don’t think that is what is happening. Bush has never taken responsibility for his mistake of leading us to war in Iraq. It was the wrong choice whether you think he lied or not. He keeps shaking off responsiblity by saying everyone else knew everything he did at the time and they came to the same conclusions he did. That just isn’t true. If I didn’t trust the President’s judgement when I heard his administration talk about mushroom clouds and unmaned drones filled with biological weapons I wouldn’t have been in favor of invading Iraq at the time.
This isn’t about lying this is about taking responsibility. A thing Bush doesn’t seem capable of doing.
Jon H
Also, the whole “we didn’t lie” thing would work a lot better if Bush weren’t standing up there and flat-out saying “we don’t torture” when everyone plus the baby Jesus knows that we damn well do, and Bush is working hard to keep torture safe and legal. Or at least legal.
norbizness
Maybe we can stave off the flood if we could all agree that being lectured by Dick Cheney on the importance of historical accuracy is like being lectured by KU football coach Mark Mangino on the importance of a sensible diet and moderate exercise.
Ancient Purple
I listened to Cheney’s speech on the radio on my commute home
Did the audience seem as lackluster about Cheney as it sounded on my radio? Their applause was polite at best. There weren’t any extended minutes of applause at any time or cheering or snippets of “that’s right” or “YES!”
It could have easily been the crowd watching a professional golf tour.
ppGaz
Twety nine percent now think that Cheney is honest and ethical. For my money, they can send him out every day to make his asshole speeches.
It’s the lying potatoheads who turned terrorism and Iraq into political strategies for their own purposes. Let them now enjoy the rewards. Fuck them. Fuck them very much.
Jay
And John, if they didn’t lie, why don’t they just lay it out?
Hey Jon, I hear that you like to screw farm animals.
Now prove that you don’t.
Jon H
Knight-Ridder, today:
“ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate – who had access to the same intelligence – voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”
CONTEXT: This isn’t true.”
Now, what’s another word for an untrue statement? Class?
Jon H
“Hey Jon, I hear that you like to screw farm animals.”
You’re projecting, Jay.
Also, you’re basically ceding the argument.
Bush should lay out all the intelligence, all the caveats that were not presented to Congress and the press.
Steve
When the head of MI6 said in 2002 that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” was he just making a partisan attack?
The people who are the Republican base on this issue are the same ones who believe we should have stayed in Vietnam another 10 years and that we would have done so if not for those darn anti-war protestors sapping our will to fight. Allow me to suggest that if a bunch of aging hippies had the ability to turn over half the country against the war simply by waving a few “Visualize Peace” signs, Bush wouldn’t have been re-elected in the first place.
This argument is a political dead-end for the Republicans. At best, all they can do is drag some of the pro-war Democrats down with them. But they’re not going to restore their credibility by showing that the Democrats were complicit. Lots of voters believe they were misled and they really don’t care about the nuances of whether Democrats were shown some of the intelligence.
feral1
Look, many, if not most, of the Democrats in Congress knew, or should of known, that the Bush Admins case for attacking Iraq was bullshit. But they accurately concluded that if they openly opposed Bush, they would be crushed by the War juggernaut. That doesn’t excuse their cowardice or lack of due diligence, it’s just reality.
The big problem for the Administration is citizen’s like Blue Neponset above, who sincerely believed what Bush, Cheney et al said to convince them that invading Iraq was necessary. They KNOW they were lied to willfully and repeatedly through direct statements and inference. Bush has lost their trust and he will never get it back.
Shygetz
Hey, I’ll even be easier on Bush than Jon H. He should lay out all of the intelligence to the Senate. I don’t need to see it, and the press doesn’t need to see it. Let the Senate examine all of it, and they can make conclusions based on it without undue danger to national security.
Tractarian
Surely there’s room for some nuance in this debate, Steve?
For instance, I don’t think Bush lied. He just misled:
But Bush didn’t lie, strictly speaking. He left all the outright lying to Cheney:
Keep in mind that I’m someone who supported the war and thinks the current Dem strategy of cut-and-run is despicable. But to defend Bush here is ridiculous. The man should just admit he made a mistake about the Saddam threat, and we can all move on.
Jon H
“The people who are the Republican base on this issue are the same ones who believe we should have stayed in Vietnam another 10 years and that we would have done so if not for those darn anti-war protestors sapping our will to fight.”
Also there are some who think we should have stayed in Europe and fought Stalin after Hitler was beaten.
Jon H
Tractarian writes: “Keep in mind that I’m someone who supported the war and thinks the current Dem strategy of cut-and-run is despicable”
Not nearly as despicable as the Bush administration’s apparent decision to plan for the war as if it was a game of capture-the-flag, as opposed to anything resembling a real war.
Lines
And if people had voted against giving Shrub his war powers, would they not have their patriotism questioned then, as well?
Whats the difference? When anyone at anytime speak out against the Iraq War their patriotism is questioned. “You hate our troops. You hate America. You don’t care about the poor poor suffering Iraqis”
In my opinion, this Democratic attack mode has been too slow and too lackluster. Both Bush and Cheney need to be arrested.
Aluminum tubes. HA! The most easily refuted LIE that contradicted every bit of evidence and intelligence.
Pb
ppGaz,
29%? I thought it was 19%. Then again, SUSA has him at 34%, so go figure. (Exercise for the reader: what do you think Cheney’s approval numbers are in DC, and how much would that affect SUSA’s poll results? :))
I should also mention that 19-44-37 isn’t that far from 34-61-5 if you remove or allocate undecideds–looking only at approval numbers can be deceptive when there are a lot of undecideds. I’d guess that Cheney’s real approval numbers amongst those who know who he is are probably around 33%–plus or minus 3 percentage points or so. :)
Jill
Cheney is insulting the nearly 60% of the American population that are now having the same realizations -as the senators and representatives- that we were misled into war.
Steve
Good point, although that argument isn’t as ideological. After all, it was the Republicans who didn’t want us in WWII in the first place.
neil
Armando and his ilk have had several years of attacking without any response, and finally the administration is fighting back.
Are you totally insane?
Jon H
“Armando and his ilk have had several years of attacking without any response, and finally the administration is fighting back.”
Aww, poor widdle Bush administration.
I’m sure they’ve been crying all the way to the bank.
OCSteve
OK 1 more (hmm I guess I lied when I said I would move on). Can we suspend this argument until we know more about this?
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
My favorite:
Al Maviva
On the VietNam thing and the supposedly disproven domino theory, I’ll only quote Black Flag here:
Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot.
Okay, fine, I’ll paraphrase Madison Ave too: 6 million dead people can’t be wrong!
ppGaz
The polling question was whether the respondent thought Cheney is honest and ethical. Twenty-nine percent said yes.
Which, considering who and what this man is, seems remarkably high to me. If Dick “Last throes” Cheney said the earth was round, I’d be double checking the satellite pictures.
Lines
Bush and Cheney better start fighting back or they’ll never get elected.
If you stole 2 elections, you never really won, so can you run again?
I’m wondering how long the MSM will continue to allow these thugs to get away with this before they start pointing out things like the aluminum tubes, Chalabi, Hans Blix and countless other things that show how dishonest this administration has been about Iraq.
ppGaz
Snort. Maybe he meant “Armando and his elk.”
Support for the war is in the toilet, and will go lower, because these guys are incompetant liars.
Armando doesn’t get the credit. The potatoheads get the credit, they have done this to themselves …and us.
Lines
Poor OCSteve, he hasn’t realized that Newsmax is usually on the wrong end of everything.
Quoting Newsmax is pretty much the equivalent of lying, Steve, don’t you think you can find better sources?
Jon H
” Can we suspend this argument until we know more about this?”
It’s from newsmax. What more do we need to know?
Jay
No Jon, I’m not ceding the argument. The Democrats have thus far, not provided a single shred of evidence to support their charges. Not one. Yet, they keep going out, day after day and saying the same things over and over again.
The administration’s problem is that it took too long for them to hit back at these dirtbags. Jay Rockefeller spells out in a memo (that nobody but Democrats were supposed to see) how Democrats could use this entire issue as a political weapon, and that’s what they’ve been doing.
Jon H
Jay writes: “The Democrats have thus far, not provided a single shred of evidence to support their charges. Not one. ”
Curveball.
Boombo
Guys, you need to understand. John Cole doesn’t actually care about the facts in this particular case. He just wants to see Cheney start an actual rumble with the Senators. Do you really want to deny this man his blood? Have you no decency? Give the man his blood!
Lines
But I’ll bite, Steve, just because taunting assholes early in the morning is just a fun thing to do:
If there were documents that exonerated this Administration, proving that there were Taliban/Al-Queda links back to Saddam, don’t you think PNAC, Chalabi and the Bush Administration would be combing through them and using them as proof of their “correctness”?
Your “embargoed” document post denies all logical debate. Stop trying to apologize and defend a group that has shown that they can’t even defend themselves. Why do you like to be lied to, Steve? Were you so abused as a child by a liberal uncle or something?
Lines
hey Jay C:
aluminum tubes.
Jon H
Apparently, the Newsmax story refers to a Stephen Hayes article in the Weekly Standard.
Hayes is a lapdog of the Pentagon, and if Rumsfeld told him the moon was made of green cheese, Hayes would publish that as a scoop.
Awfully convenient timing for an awfully convenient story from an non-credible faux-journalist. Hayes couldn’t even stand up to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.
Ancient Purple
You’re citing Newsmax???
Wow. Even the tabloids at the supermarket have better credibility.
Jay
Hey John, you have to post Hitchens today. It’s beautiful.
Jay
Yeah, don’t believe Stephen Hayes, believe Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi!!
You guys are hilarious.
Shygetz
Jay–Downing Street Memo
Two words–Terry Schiavo. Your party lost all rights to the despicable use of human tragedy for political gain with that crap.
Jon H
Paraphrasing Jay Caruso, “Who you gonna believe, a neocon hack, or your own lyin’ eyes?”
ppGaz
From Hitchens’ absurd piece.
Answer: Oh yeah? Then how did that vast organization with its license-plate-readin’ amazo-satellites GET IT SO WRONG? And why did the lying scumbag George Bush see fit to make a “comedy” film about not being able to find those “darned WMDs?” He actually laughed about it, while people were, and are today, dying over the mistake.
Sorry, these assholes have lost the right to pretend to have the high ground here. They have created a clusterfuck, and they will now pay the price.
Otto Man
Yeah, and the news there isn’t looking good for Bush.
Jon H
Jay Caruso points to Hitch’s column, subtitled:
“Are you sure you want to keep saying we were fooled by Ahmad Chalabi and the INC?”
We? Who you calling “we”, cirrhosis-boy?
Just because Hitch can’t stand to fess up that he’s a sucker doesn’t mean the whole nation has to play along.
But, then again, Hitch is an ex-Trotskyite, so he’s got a long history of being a sucker for weakly-supported ideology.
Are you sure you want to pin your hopes on a Trot, Jay?
Lines
How does this jibe with the lie that Saddam “moved” the WMD’s to Syria or somewhere else?
Mr Furious
Dennis Kucinich does not a “Dem strategy” make. Show me exactly who, when and where somebody is callling for cutting and running. and I mean at a high party level or a politician of significance.
John S.
I don’t get it…
Immediately following the admission that the MSM has buried the story of the GAO report on Ohio voting irregularities (thus challenging the ‘liberal media’ myth), we have John patting Jay Caruso on the back for re-constituting the ‘liberal media’ myth.
The mind just boggles.
Pb
ppGaz,
Thanks… that’s the Newsweek poll then. Probably the same 29% as in the Fox poll that think the Bush administration is “more ethical” than other recent presidential administrations.
OCSteve
Fine – here is the Weekly Standard link – not that you’ll take that as any better of a source.
Did I say believe it at face value? I said Can we suspend this argument until we know more about this?
It certainly has bearing on the topic. The bottom line is that it may be years (and another regime change) before we know the full truth. But everyone here already knows what the truth is – any anyone not on board is lying.
EL
I have to take issue on this one. Both sides have been using their positions and playing politics all along, but the administration has had the stronger position to do it from.
If you go back and look at speeches and statements right before the vote, you notice a few things:
1. Bush’s repeated talking point insisting that “America speak with one voice” to Saddam Hussein:
The politics was very much on display afterwards. Here’s a representative snippet:
So here are democrats advocating patience with inspections, and their reply is to be accused of being on the side of Iraqis, not quite an accusation of treason, but darn close.
2. The administration cast this vote as a way to threaten Iraq into complying with inspections:
If you read the speeches from the Senate floor before the vote, many people who voted ‘yes’ spoke about the resolution in those terms – as a way to threaten and compel Hussein to comply and thus avoid war.
Then, when Iraq did allow inspections, and the inspectors were finding nothing and asking for a little more time, Bush took that resolution and in effect said “I don’t care what I told you before – I’m invading anyway.”
Anyone who ignores the way this resolution was ‘marketed’ to the Congress and the public is missing a piece of the picture.
Pb
Chalabi *has* been busy!
Jon H
“Can we suspend this argument until we know more about this?”
No, because that’s the whole point behind their releasing that bit of chaff (which is all it is – a cheap and flimsy decoy meant to draw off incoming fire).
Frankly, at this point, are you really going to believe the Weekly Standard on anything Iraq-related?
Their record is not exactly good.
Jon H
EL writes: “So here are democrats advocating patience with inspections, and their reply is to be accused of being on the side of Iraqis, not quite an accusation of treason, but darn close.”
And this shows how it has been the Democrats who have been serious about the war, not the GOP.
Any attempt at being serious was met with contempt from the GOP, for whom being “serious” means “get busy blowing people up”, as opposed to being mature and professional and realistic, and applying the due diligence required to achieve actual success.
Jane Finch
One person’s “lashing out” is another’s “refutation”. Cheney merely used all the administration’s lines on this one…the proof of their effectiveness will be in the polls, I suppose.
Tractarian
You are exactly right, Jon, and that’s really the whole point here, isn’t it?
There were many, many greivous errors committed in the execution of this war (to name a few: failure to have a post-invasion plan, failure to have an exit strategy, failure to send enough troops, failure to properly equip the troops, failure to secure the borders, failure to secure any infrastructure other than the Oil Ministry, failure to secure known ammo dumps, failure to treat prisoners humanely, etc.).
Yet where do the Dems focus? On attacking Bush for persuading them that Saddam was a threat.
And where does Bush focus? On attacking the weak and feckless opposition party. We all knew he was much better at campaigning than he is at governing, so it’s no surprise that he goes back to his strength when his numbers are in the shitter.
Mr. Cole, the administration spent half of 2003 and the entirety of 2004 attacking their political opponents. Were you paying attention?
You really sound like a wingnut here. This blog is looking more and more like goddamn Hannity and Colmes.
John S.
Well said:
But its just the Democrats re-writing history? And here I thought history was written by those who held power (and the pen).
Davebo
Props to John Cole for staying out of this comment thread.
Like the old saying goes, if you don’t have anything honest to say, keep your mouth shut.
Jay
we have John patting Jay Caruso on the back for re-constituting the ‘liberal media’ myth.
Who said anything about the “liberal media?” I don’t subscribe to that.
Lazy media? Yes.
Irresponsible media? Yes.
A media looking to create a particular narrative? Yes.
But liberal media? No.
And Jon H, are you actually going to refute anything anybody says or just continue down the path of intellectual dishonesty and attack the sources simply because you don’t like them?
Ed
Check out the Knight-Ridder fact checking of the administration attack:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13185357.htm
Maybe if Bush/Cheney didn’t lie, while saying they weren’t lying, they might have a little more credibility.
34% and dropping.
Steve S
On behalf of the press, I would like to apologize.
From now on we will refer to it as Bush is whining about people questioning his decisions.
Get real. If you can’t take the heat get out of fucking politics. After putting up with “Clinton is an immoral jackass” for 8 years, what Bush is getting thrown his way is NOTHING.
Maybe we ought to investigate some fabricated scandals. Why did you hear when he was Governor of Texas the State Troopers supplied him with blocks of cocaine? No, wait, did you hear he was actually smuggling cocaine through the Crawford airport? Even better, wait… I heard that several of the people he had executed were old political opponents.
I mean christ, 2-3 years ago, some guy that Bush had intended to become a new commerce ambassador or something like that committed suicide down in Texas. If that’d been Clinton, we would have been investigating whether Hillary had pulled the trigger.
Whine whine whine whine… ohhhh, politics is so unfair! Everybody is out to get me because they’re calling an OBVIOUSLY incompetent decision… shockingly… incompetent.
Jorge
I love that Hitchens article. He completely glosses over the argument about the nature of the intel that the Senate had. How does he refute the claims – he says, “Yes they did.” Again, numerous specific arguments have been made specifiying which reports, intelligence, and counter intelligence had been withheld from the Senate. The bulk of these claims have to do with nuclear weapons and Iraq’s ties to Al Qeada. Until Hitchens deals with those specifics he’s just blowing smoke.
The he goes on the lionize his boy Chalabi. Forgetting that it wasn’t the Democrats but the current administration who went after Chalabi last year, by going through his offices and releasing information that Chalabi was working in concert with Iran and had mislef the administration. But yes, it is now the fault of the Democrats that Chalabi has become a pariah.
Jon H
Snicker, Jay Caruso, crusader against ad hominem.
Riiiiight.
John S.
I appreciate the clarification, Jay. I suppose given the recent ‘tone’ of your blogging, I assumed that you were subscribing to that theory.
I apologize for inferring something that was not explicitly stated, but rather implied.
However, regarding your statement:
Claiming the Democrats are lying or re-writing history or being dishonest, etc. also does not constitute criticism, but rather fits your definition of a ‘charge’ or ‘accusation’. And as always, two wrongs do not make a right.
I hope you can recognize that.
constate
Conservatives/rightwingers seem to be suffering from moderate/extreme cognitive dissonance.
Blue Neponset
Jay,
One thing Bush et al do well is play politics. If, as the Weekly Standard article suggests, there is ample evidence that Saddam was involved with terrorists I don’t believe they would keep that a secret.
Also, it is way too easy to blame the media for Bush’s woes. The President of the United States has plenty of opportunity to set the record straight and he has either chosen not to do that or his attempts at setting the record straight haven’t been successful. Either way Bush, or any President for that matter, can’t claim to be a victim of the media when he has more communication resources at his disposal than anyone or anything in the rest of the world.
Ancient Purple
Okay. Now what?
I have seen a very disturbing pattern developing where the tact is to list the failures and then take a “but let’s not dwell on the past; let’s move forward.”
That’s really nice if you spill a glass of water, but in something like this, I have to wonder what you believe would be acceptable accountability and consequence?
Steve S
You know, if Bush wants to put this behind him, it’s real simple.
Toss the evidence out into a public forum. Call for a Senate investigation, and lay it all out on the line. If he’s got nothing to hide, then he shouldn’t be afraid of this.
But I think you’ll find, he does have something to hide, which is why he’s responding the way he is. He’s afraid. Bush has always been a coward, this is just another example of this.
Mike S
Some of Dick Cheney’s statements and why they are misleading.
People need to stop calling them lies. To lie they would have had to be certain that none of it was true. What they did was mislead us by refusing to admit that there were deep divisions in the intelligence community about these claims.
Mac Buckets
Stop pretending that the Iraq intelligence flap is about truth. This is 100% about partisanship, opinion polls, and re-election bids, and it’s about time that the Bush Administration started fighting back to remind everyone of real history.
The Democrats and Republicans both supported removing Saddam when Clinton wanted to do it. They passed the Iraq Liberation Act, they didn’t ask for a single shred of proof of WMD, and they went on every media outlet and said what a WMD threat Saddam was. They didn’t demand that the UN would be involved, because the UN was in Saddam’s pocket then, too, so what would be the point? They just wanted Saddam out because he was a madman and a threat. The Democrats, in particular, backed their President, who didn’t even tell them or the UN (much less ask) before bombing Iraq. But no WMD proof, no consent, no warning, no UN — that was OK with the Democrats with a Democrat in office! Plus, dropping 10,000 tons of ordnance on Iraq isn’t really “war,” because nobody was killed (well, no Americans at least, which is all that matters), which is evidently the new standard by which America is allowed to throw around its military might. Do whatever you want, as long as no Americans get killed (this Democrat standard strangely does not apply to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo — so you can bomb them, but can’t stack them naked, got it?).
In 2002, when going to war with Iraq was popular by a two-to-one margin, Republicans and half the Democrats voted for the War Resolution, which everyone with ten working brain cells knew was punching our ticket for forced removal of Saddam. But with a GOP president, all of a sudden the Dems demanded proof of WMD, and UN approval, and the Protest Marchers asked “what Saddam had done to us.”
As soon as polls showed the “unfavorables” surpassing the “favorables” regarding Iraq, half the Democrats had to find a way out of their earlier vote for war, which they did by claiming, first, that they never voted for war (which no one bought) and then, that they were lied to by Bush, despite the fact that written records show the Democrats’ belief that Saddam was a WMD threat pre-dates Bush’s presidency by over three years.
So we see a pattern of doing whatever the politicians think will get them re-elected, regardless of what they think, what’s best for the country, or what history must be rewritten.
So feel free to hate Bush, feel free to try and fool the electorate, and feel free to misquote and lie and rewrite/forget history when it’s convenient, but don’t pretend to be concerned about the truth, because that’s the big lie.
OCSteve
John Murtha:
House Democrat calls for immediate troop withdrawal
Tom Daschle:
withdrawal of 80,000 of the 150,000 American troops next year.
Kerry:
beginning with the draw down of 20,000 troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.
Russell Feingold:
the chamber’s first member to call for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq
Lynn Woolsey:
Honor our troops — bring them home
I mean you could go on all day…
ppGaz
There are two issues here: One is the war itself, and the fact that it’s a mess, and the public support is below the waterline and still sinking.
Two is accountability. This one, to the chagrin of the right, affects the other one. Until and unless the lying assholes start showing some signs of being the real world and taking responsibility for the numerous failures here going all the way back to the spring of 2002 when Spud changed from “Wanted Dead of Alive” to “I am really not that concerned with him” ….
Until and unless they learn to take responsibility and stop blaming everybody in the world — literally, from the French to the New York Times — for their problems, they are not going to be in a position to effectively deal with the war. They are not going to be able to effetively govern this country, because the country isn’t listening to them any more.
They continue to not get this despite the rising din of voices telling them this.
Until the get it, fuck them. Let them stew in their own juices. That’s Spud, his administration, and all the idiots who are carrying water for them, including those who hang around this blog.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Where have you been? Sadly, that has been the standard for quite some time. Sure, some people have been attempting to keep track of the body count of Iraqi civilians since the war started, (hint: it’s not the Pentagon) but by and large, Americans don’t know or don’t care, and therefore the media doesn’t feel the need to add it all up for them very often, and the administration doesn’t publicize it either (go figure).
I won’t address the rest of your usual “Clinton did it too” rant, because I see no point in doing so–I have in the past, and I doubt it’ll get any more true or relevant in the future.
Steve
I want the truth to come out. The claim that the politicians only care about partisanship is the same old argument that always gets fired at the other side, but I don’t even care. I care about the truth coming out even if the politicians don’t.
What Mac says has a lot of relevance to all the terrible things the Republicans said about our adventure in Kosovo, the need for a clearly defined exit strategy, the idea that you can support the troops without supporting the mission the President has sent them on, yadda yadda. I don’t see a lot of relevance here. Yes, I want to see more proof when the issue is an actual war than when the issue is passing some resolution calling for regime change. That’s common sense.
ppGaz
Stop weaseling. That’s a LIE. They weren’t talking about changing the price of a postage stamp, or adding more control towers to airports. They were talking about starting a FUCKING WAR.
It was a lie, and we are going to call it a lie until they own up to it.
Blue Neponset
If the Repubs want to respond to Dem critisisms like this I think they are in trouble. Regardless of how they came to believe it, almost 60% of Americans think Bush mislead us into a war in Iraq. Calling nearly 60% of Ameircans disingenuous isn’t going to get them back on your side.
Pb
Mike S,
Actually, they lied in saying that there was a consensus in the intelligence community, when there clearly wasn’t. Or, to put it another way–I think you’d have a higher burden of proof to show that they weren’t lying in this case, considering Cheney’s frequent CIA contact (bullying), the swiftness of their propaganda campaign, the timing of their rush to war, and what we know (then and now) that the IAEA, the weapons inspectors, and people in the intelligence community were saying. Sure, they’re incompetent, but they also knew what they were doing.
Mac Buckets
“There are none so blind…” The relevance is that it clearly shows the hypocrisy and true self-serving motivations of those who claim the only reason they thought Iraq had WMD was because Bush mislead them.
John S.
Mac’s Big Lie:
He has been pimping this every day. He (and others) keep dragging out the ILA as if it somehow justifies Bush going to war with Iraq. Let’s be very clear:
The Iraq Liberation Act did not call for the use of American military forces to overthrow Saddam.
Mac somehow sees the stated goal of wanting to see Saddam gone (what the ILA really says) as synonymous with the act of waging war on Saddam. This is completely false, no matter how many times Mac restates, reconstitutes or revisits this argument.
Repetition ≠ truth.
ppGaz
Exactly right, on both counts. They played fast and loose with the facts, and then unleashed the attack dogs if anyone dared question them.
It was an arrogant, foolish and destructive thing to do. And now they want to whine that theor opponents are being nice to them about it.
This strategy will backfire big time. The people now are convinced that these guys are living in their own world and do not have the interests and concerns of the majority of citizens at heart. They don’t trust these guys any more … and why should they? They have been dead wrong about everything having to do with Iraq since about 1980.
ppGaz
errata …
being nice => NOT being nice
Mac Buckets
We’re not talking about “passing resolutions.” We’re talking about dropping 10,000 tons of bombs on the enemy. That isn’t war? What is it, diplomacy and negotiation? Again, the fact that you must selectively forget history (even though you just read it seconds before) is proof of the 100% partisan nature of this latest strategy.
ppGaz
Select one:
a) The buck stops here.
b) Criticizing us is irresponsible.
Gee this is hard. What kind of leadership do we need?
Well after five years of “B”, I’m ready for “A”.
Send in the “A” team.
Mike S
The argument is that we went to war because the entire administration misled us.
I also now see why you think the liberation act is so important. It’s because your boy Steven Hadley tried to do exactly what you did earlier this week.
You’re doing a heck of a job Maxy.
Mac Buckets
I know you don’t read well, but I never said that the ILA called for US force. I never said it, and I never will. So save your whining. The ILA made regime change in Iraq our official policy.
Anyone who wants to stand up and pretend that we could’ve ousted Saddam from his thrones without waging war on Iraq is free to do so. I mean, far be it from me to stop someone being a fool!
Steve
The idea that all the Democrats would be cheering for this war if President Hillary Clinton had waged it is ridiculous, but go right on saying it.
Blue Neponset
Mac,
Is regime change our stated goal in Cuba?
Mac Buckets
Bush was governor of Texas when these Democrats were saying what a WMD threat Saddam was, but he misled them? You can’t mislead someone who already believes teh same as you. The President can’t, by definition, mislead a Congress who has been on record as agreeing with him about Iraq’s WMD for six years. That’s why the “we were naive, ignorant, and misled” argument is a huge sack of crap.
Exactly correct. Hadley never said “US” force, either (good to see he’s reading my stuff, though — hey, Steve, what’s up?). The ILA authorized the US to foment armed rebellion in Iraq — the use of force.
Mac Buckets
I don’t know. Did we pass an Act saying Cuba was a threat and funding armed rebellion in Cuba? Probably not.
Steve
Of course you can mislead people who already believe there are WMDs, by hiding from them the current intelligence which casts doubt on that conclusion. I can’t tell if Mac is missing the point or being deliberately dishonest.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, “regardless of how they came to believe it” is the tough part. When the pervasive media only reports one side without questioning it (except for Chris Wallace, who showed Rockefeller to be a lying weasel), the polls will flip. That’s why it’s important that the Administration fight back now.
They aren’t calling the people disingenuous — they’re calling the politicians who are lying and revising history to serve their election campaigns disingenuous.
Jorge
Hans Blix.
Supporters of Bush’s honesty have no way around Hans Blix. The administration very publicly and very clearly attempted to discredit the one person who had any new intel on Iraqi weapons since 1998.
Also, let’s not pretend that Rice or Bush said “the smoking gun will be a cloud of mustard gas.” The biggest falsehoods and lies about the war had to do with Saddam’s attempts to get nuclear weapons in the 2000’s. And Bill Clinton did not put together the intel that was given to the Senate in 2002 – including the claims about Al Qeada having meetings with Iraqi officials in Prague.
Mike S
You’re a hoot Maximus. Deny, obsfucate and repeat. Totally indicative of your beloved party. Tell me, how many people have you fooled with your attempts to mislead with the Iraq Liberation Act argument?
Mac Buckets
“Slam Dunk” doesn’t sound like the Tenet and CIA had any doubts. Intelligence works on consensus, because nothing is ever unanimous and concrete. No President in history has ever been required to offer the dissenting intelligence before a war.
Mac Buckets
I can’t help you if you can’t read at an adult level.
Mike S
Oh no you dint!
I’d laugh at you if I didn’t pity you so much.
Blue Neponset
I don’t think anyone will make that distinction. If I have the same questions those politicians do and Cheney calls them irresponsible for asking those questions why would I think he is excluding me from his remarks?
I believed Bush in 2003 and now I think he exaggerated the case for war. I very much dislike Bush now but I would at least gain some respect for him if he were to take responsiblity for his mistakes and stop blaming others (including me) for trusting what he said in 2002/2003.
Bush and his administration basically scared the shit out of me with his talk of ‘mushroom clouds’ and ‘unmanned drones’ and now he wants to accuse me of being irresponsible for questioning his motives for doing that. Nothing he said about Iraq turned out to be correct and he questions my patriotism for asking him to take responsibility for that.
Andrei
Reading this post, then reading the comments, one has to presume that while John Cole thinks many of us are gluttons for punishment reading his thoughts when we so largely disagree with him, he’s a far worse masochist for posting them in the first place.
And for my personal pile on:
This is a ridiculous statement. The reason the administration didn’t “fight back” is because they bullied everyone into submission in the first place by using the bloodlust the country felt after 9/11 to mass everyone into a war-raged frenzy so the Republians could to stay in power. Seems many are forgetting how horribly this administration started in 2001 which 2005 is now starting to reflect. And considering just how poorly this adminsitration has done pretty much everything with regard to legislation they’ve enacted and the deficit they’ve run up, the war has done a good job of disguising their serious failings.
They are now “fighting back” because they now find themselves in unfavorable poll positions and approval ratings, something that has occured through their own incompetent execution of an entire war strategy. Except this time, the Dems are playing politics right back at them finally. The GOP dug its own hole here, not the Dems.
If you don’t want the Dems playing politics with soldiers lives on the line, I got a suggestion for you: Tell those in POWER, you know, all the Republicans and a little guy called the President, to stop playing bully politics over and over with the war.
A clue for all of you crying foul on the Democrats: Had the Republicans not turned this into a game of political football back in the run up to war in 2002 into 2003, the Dems would not be allowed to play it.
What should the GOP do instead of playing politics? I don’t know… LEAD perhaps?
Tractarian
My point was not “let by-gones be by-gones.” My point is this: Dems should focus more criticism on the failures of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war plan rather than the pre-war intel, which, while distorted and cherry-picked, was still ambiguous at best as to Saddam’s capabilities.
You don’t even see any Repubs even trying to argue that the Bushies fought this war well; they can’t argue that. Having decided to go to war, there is no excuse for failing to use overwhelming force and failing to have a exit strategy. There is no excuse for rushing to invade undermanned, underplanned, and underequipped (my very own talking point, thank you very much). These are much more potent and effective criticisms of the administration, IMO.
Mac Buckets
JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found?
HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we…there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error.
Yes, Blix had new intel — that we didn’t know where these WMD went. Violation of UN Res 1441.
John S.
Yeah, Mac, you just keep trotting out the ILA for posterity sake. I’ll buy that for a dollar.
Again, the same bilge. And again, the same response: The policy of regime change created by the ILA did not include the measures used by the Bush administration.
Anyone who wants to pretend that America ousting Saddam by waging war was a natural extension of the ILA is free to do so. Of course, they would be incredibly disingenuous in doing so…
Except as we all know, this is not what happened. The use of force that was applied was AMERICAN (rather than an Iraqi rebellion fomented by America), and not at all what the ILA authorized. But you know that already.
Steve
The administration said they KNEW the WMDs existed. They said they KNEW where they were. They didn’t say “we don’t know where they went.”
John S.
Perhaps Mac missed this part of the Lehrer/Blix exchange:
Let’s follow the logic…what would whip the American public into a frenzy over invading Iraq?
“Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he will use to attack America.”
or
“Saddam Hussein has unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction that he could use to attack America.”
Obviously, Bush went with what was behind door #1.
Mac Buckets
Think of what you’re saying. You think 60% people were fully willing to believe that they were misled by Bush, but will become offended by the suggestion that they were misled by self-serving politicians? I think people will listen to both sides (now that FINALLY the GOP sides is being expressed), and make their decision on who misled who.
He made the same case for war that the Democrats had been making since 1998, and I’ve shown that repeatedly. They all believed the same intelligence, only one side is trying to weasel out of it by rewriting history and hoping most Americans are too ignorant to notice.
Didn’t you hear the Clinton Administration say the same four years before? Why were you not scared then? It was all the same intelligence, believed by both sides, as I’ve shown.
Please. He’s done no such thing. He’s accusing self-serving politicians of doing to the people the same thing the Democrats accused Bush of doing to them, only he has the force of recorded history to back him up. If you believe all this “questioning my patriotism” whining, then you must admit that the Democrats questioned the President’s patriotism first.
Mac Buckets
No one — not Hadley, not Bush, not me — is claiming that Iraq was invaded under the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act (and yes, for your info, the provisions of the ILA as far as arming Iraqi rebels were tried, to predictably disastrous consequences). Iraq was invaded because that act failed to achieve its purpose — the ouster of Saddam. Had it succeeded by some miracle, the invasion would’ve been unnecessary, because democracy would be in place. A War Resolution was passed in 2002 that superceded the ILA’s action plan while retaining its goal of replacing Saddam with a democracy.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
As Bill Hicks once said about Iraq, “A war is when *two* armies are fighting.” Cheers. :)
Tractarian
You forgot Poland!
Mac Buckets
Bush said what all those Democrats had been saying since he was governor of Texas. But he made it all up, right, and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow. They were misled into saying what they’d been saying all along! Whatever.
What Blix did show clearly is that Iraq had violated the provisions of UN Resolution 1441 (and over a dozen others) by not verifiably destroying these “unaccounted for” WMD.
Mac Buckets
I think dropping, say, a nuke on a country might be, in some circles, considered an act of war — even though the other side wasn’t able to shoot back. Bill Hicks was a funny dude (my sister was a friend of his), and he’d no doubt be honored, or possibly horrified, that his comments are showing up here!
Mike S
Everybody read that. Maximus may actually be more dishonest than the leaders of his beloved party.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
I agree, for once. And of course Bill Hicks was talking about Gulf War I, which I think pretty much everyone agrees was a ‘war’ of some sort, though short and without many real devastating consequences or losses for the US at the time. I guess we’d need to set a threshold for ‘war’. Still, your average definition isn’t that far off from what Hicks said: “A contest between nations or states, carried on by force”–Webster, 1912.
Retief
John you couldn’t be more wrong. The president has repeatedly asserted that he hasn’t made any mistakes. We’re just taking him at his word. You gave us a nice list of his justifications for war in the SOTU 2003. None of those were true. Bush says that wasn’t a mistake. How then can it not be a lie?
ppGaz
That might not be the best challenge to issue today.
Mac Buckets
I bet that the “between nations” part is only to exclude you fighting with your neighbor, or two street gangs fighting. I don’t think it’s to imply that each side has to get its licks in.
Darrell
CIA head tells Bush it’s a “slam dunk” case that Saddam has WMDs. NIE concludes with “high confidence” in 2002 that:
This assessment is shared by the intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, France.
Same thing parrotted by Dems
But “Bush misled us into war”, Bush “lied”. Those on the left making that charge are dishonest as hell. Good for the Bush admin to call them out on their dishonest attempts to rewrite history, a rewrite which undermines our efforts in Iraq.
Mike S
link
ppGaz
Welcome to Darrell and Mac Buckets, John … your new crack legal team. There is “no controlling legal authority” saying that anyone lied to get us into a war.
Your page view inventory now rests mainly on the daily routine in which the Monkeys, Darrell “and his ilk” (to coin a phrase) take on the real world in a daily contest in which Darrell and Ilk get their asses kicked from here to Sunday. Except on Sunday, in which case they get their asses kicked from here to Monday.
Lefties? Don’t waste too much time on these Junior Potatoheads, they are really not worth it. Keep your eye on the ball. 2006 is almost here. We only need one house of Congress to stop the madness.
If Iraq were the only collossal fuckup of this stupid government, it would be a lot harder. But the disillusionment and disgust with these vegetables runs wide and deep. There are a LOT of pissed of people out there and plenty to be pissed off about.
B-b-b-b-b-b-but NIE!! Clinton!!
Get a stronger shovel, guys, you are almost down to bedrock now.
Mike S
Continuing, Clinton said: We must attack Iraq whether we have allies in this war or not. I am sending troops to Kuwait where we will start the war.
John S.
Mac/Darrell-
I look forward to your party marching out your talking points in 2006. I can just see it now…
Republicans: We’re just picking up where Clinton left off!
Republicans: We’re Democrats – with bigger balls!
Republicans: We’ll re-write a history America can be proud of!
Republicans: The buck stops with the minority party!
Good luck with that.
ppGaz
And then he went on to say, “Anyone who questions this policy is unpatriotic and irresponsible. They are hurting our troops.”
Then he explained that if a former US ambassador went out and gather information which contradicted his policies, he’d attack that man’s character and his wife’s character rather than just let the facts and the truth about the information speak for itself.
Because, you know, that’s what you do when you are being straight with the American people. You tell them you’re against nation-building to get elected, and you tell them your opponent has an illegitimate black child, and then once you’re in office, you start a war and smash down your critics with personal attacks.
Because, you know, that’s what strong leaders do. And they never take responsibility for anything later if things go wrong.
Bill Clinton said all these things.
Jorge
Mike S. – Thank you for the link. As my pastor is so fond of saying, “Half truth, whole lie.”
Steve S
I don’t understand the REpublican responses here.
Bush approval rating is in the toilet. 60% of Americans are fucking sick of this war, and want an explanation as to why we went in and why we are still over there considering every claim by the Administration turned out to be wrong.
How is it that you think the way you are going to respond to this, and turn the people around is by calling them names?
How is it that you think the answer to this is to keep repeating all of the ridiculous claims you’ve already made which didn’t convince anyone the first time.
Get a new argument, losers. Americans don’t like whiners.
Jorge
Bill Clinton has become the new Chewbacca defense.
“Ladies and gentlemen, this is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Bill Clinton lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense.
Look at me, I’m a lawyer defending the Bush administration, and I’m talkin’ about Bill Clinton. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!
And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation… Does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Bill Clinton lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.”
Kimmitt
Mr. Blog Owner, Bush’s MO is always to say nice things in front of the camera and leave the smearing to proxies. You and I both know that what Bush says in this sort of thing is not where the action is.
Steve
What’s important here is the MOTIVE. Some human being in the administration decided to delete that phrase when the unclassified NIE was released. What possible motive could they have had for doing so, other than to sex up the case for war?
Mac Buckets
Translation: Forget truth, forget facts, forget history, just lie enough to get elected!
And the day you or any of these other half-wit, high-school-dropout clowns “kick my ass” on this topic will be the first. At least you have the good sense to stay out of it.
Mac Buckets
You’re right, Jorge, all history started in Florida 2000. Nothing before that could possibly matter. How convenient for those who would rewrite history and lie about their past votes. Way to advocate covering up the truth.
Now tell me some more about Hans Blix, please.
Mike S
You’re a legend in your own mind. The rest of us know you as a lying sack of sh**.
t. jasper parnell
John Murtha (R-PA)VietNam vet, early supporter of the war, critic of the current president and vice president, calls for the pull out of the troops. Gosh darn, that danged Armando and his liberal ilkery.
John S.
LOL
You sure do have pluck, Mac. Then again, so do the folks who run the Flat Earth Society. In fact, their rationale sounds a lot like yours:
Pb
Mac Buckets Says:
The Republican playbook, in a nutshell. Projecting much?
Mac Buckets
It was Ppg who said it, and I don’t think he’s a Republican. Ask him.
John S.
Even in simple matters, Mac cannot tell
a liethe truth. After all, he is the one who said:Despite the fact that he insists otherwise:
The Disenfranchised Voter
Good thing they put out and honest and credible guy like Cheney.
Nothing like a VP with a favorable rating of 19% to back you up…
This latest tactic is laughable. The only people who will appluad this is faithful GOP members.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*an
Retief
You couldn’t be more wrong is rarely true but always a good way to start.
Darrell
All these Dems claiming Bush “lied about” or “doctored” intelligence on Iraq are themselves liars. No doubt about it
Mike S
Funny how you completely ignore the changes from the claasified NIE to the declassified one. Dishonesty must run in the party.
rkrider
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”- George W. Bush, September 12 2002
“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.”- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002
“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003
“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”- Colin Powell, February 5 2003
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons.”- George Bush, February 8 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”- George Bush, March 17 2003
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003
“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003
“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.
“Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”- Bush in October 2002.
“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.”- Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.
“Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”- Bush in February 2003.
“sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.”-Powell in his U.N. speech prior to the Iraq War.
“We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”-Bush in May 2003.
Stated that the Iraqis were “providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization.”- Cheney in September 2003.
“Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons.”- Cheney in October 2003.
Cheney said Saddam “had long established ties with Al Qaeda.”- June 14, 2004.
Bush said, “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”- June 17, 2004.
John S.
Edited video snippets can be fun!
rkrider
The Rendon Group: Proof The Administration Manipulated Intelligence
From “Saddam Hussein’s Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction” [White House website]:
In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. … Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations – and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.
None of al-Haideri’s claims were true. Today’s Rolling Stone reveals that the administration’s use of al-Haideri’s lies to justify the Iraq war were “the product of a clandestine operation…that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling a war.”