Who Really Lied About Weapons Of Mass Destruction?
May 25th, 2008 by joe
You are not going to see a lot of pro-Bush commentary on this blog. But the truth needs to be told: The president has not been wrong about everything. His Supreme Court appointments, for instance, have been stellar.
On the Iraq war, for which the Republican party is getting spanked on a Zeusian scale, the president can be faulted on the prosecution. But it’s important to cut through the ideological fog and recall that the instigation and original rationales for invading Iraq were solid. John Lillpop yesterday noted as much:
For example, a popular refrain is that President Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in order to implement a grand strategy fashioned by neo-conservatives well before Bush actually took office. Said strategy was supposedly aimed at using military force to install democratic regimes friendly to the U.S. throughout the Middle East.
However, the left has never adequately answered the following question. If Bush knew there was no WMD, why would he send 150,000 troops into Iraq since his “lie” would be immediately exposed by invading coalition forces and reported by a large contingent of media embedded within those forces?
NOT acting on the information available would have constituted criminal negligence by the Bush administration. As it turned out, there was a connection between Saddam and major terrorist groups. More importantly, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction programs in place to be activated as soon as international pressure and watchdogs let up.
As Lillpop notes quite clearly, the “Bush lied” charge is a fallacy. Bush acted on intelligence that was affirmed by his very recent predecessors in the Clinton administration and, in fact, throughout the world. Innumerable pieces of evidence of Iraq’s support for international terrorism, including the terrorist training facilities in Iraq should have been sufficient for Democrats and media intelligentsia to acknowledge that Saddam in 2003 was a clear and present danger. And at the time, for the most part, they did.
But the ugly head of politics has been reared for some time now, and many Americans are unaware or have forgotten that the Bush administration was on solid ground with the decision to invade Iraq.
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 at 2:06 am and is filed under War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
John Loftus isn’t exactly the paranoid individual that you want to rely upon. If he said there were WMDs, it’s probably suspect.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
1. Hussein used WMD against the Iranians.
2. Hussein used WMD against the Kurds.
3. After Gulf War I the Coalition and UN found amounts of WMDs that went far beyond what anybody thought Hussein had.
4. All through the Clinton years Hussein place hide and seek with the UN inspectors.
5. Clinton/Blair ordered a 4 day air campaign in Dec 98 against suspected Iraqi WMD sites.
6. The Iraqi WMD report of 2002/2003 didn’t come close to accounting for everything they had.
Given Hussein’s track record of aggression and skullduggery in order to believe he didn’t have WMD one would have to believe that either a) the 4 day air campaign in Dec 98 destroyed everything he had or b) following Dec 98 he repented of his ways and destroyed what what was left and never attempted to re-establish his programmes and that the failure to account for everything was simple a bureaucratic error.
The face that “nothing” has been found (nevermind that 500 or so weapons supposedly destroyed following GW I have been found) proves nothing until a full investigation is made of the dozens of truck convoys and cargo flights from Iraq to Syria is made.
Are people so naieve as to think that Hussein wouldn’t have taken advantage of the 6 months between the authorization for war and the war itself to to get rid of any a trace of any WMD programme(s)?
May 26th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Thank you Joe, and thank you Ted. I’ve been trying to relay exactly that for a number of years…to no avail.
In fact, the democrats tend to believe what they FEEL, instead of factual evidence…and they get downright trenchant about it…all while standing in a puddle of idiocy, holding on to a live current wire that is the liberal press.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
10cm
Every body left of stupid has been trying to get this through the Democrat’s heads since Saddam’s regime fell. I call it mission impossible. This is akin to teaching poetry to monkeys; you can try, but you are likely to get screamed at and find someone throwing poop at you.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I suppose the fact that he was wrong about WMD does make him look more like a fool than a liar. I’ve never really believed him to be a liar.
The fact that this admin was wrong about that doesn’t kill the notion (simply a topic in polite debate) that to go in and topple them was the plan all along, even before 9/11. Please explain how the simple error of reliance on faulty intel logically negates intent?
To tie it to 9/11 has got to be the biggest insult to the American people from this admin. But sure, it worked, the ratings were up and the people were bloodthirsty.
Speaking of downright trenchant. . .let idiocy ensue. . . .
May 27th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Did you even read the article, Kevin. Hussein did have WMD. We found quite a lot, and more were probably trucked off to Syria before the war.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Kevin,
“To tie it to 9/11 has got to be the biggest insult to the American people from this admin.”
GWB is not my cup of tea, but he never drew a connection between Saddam and 9/11, that is something liberals keep spouting off. “GWB said Saddam had something to do with 9/11″ You won’t find it. What you will find are liberals claiming that GWB was wrong/lied about that as well.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Joe,
Stop writng articles where I have to defend Jorge Bush, it annoys the devil out of me.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Kevin’s generation I believe gets its news from The Daily Show, so we need to cut him some slack.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
We have a large segment of an entire generation of people who get a big chunk of their political information from John Stewart, a man two clicks above a clown.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Joe,
“Kevin’s generation I believe”; ha! You know I don’t have cable, so c’mon now. I at least get my news from AP, Nightly News, etc. Sometimes I get it from the newspaper, sometimes I get it from Newsweek, SOMEtimes. . .if you can even call it news. . .I read Harper’s (pretty commie stuff there!). Sometimes from the Post, sometimes from the TIMES. Sometimes I get it from my parents, God bless them, and yes, sometimes I hear newsworthy stuff from you. So no need to diminish me by insisting that I belong to a generation which cannot help itself, though I do appreciate you’re looking out for me. The unintended consequence, however, would be to indicate that I am somehow deficient. Is there “a large segment of an entire generation people who get a big chunk of their political information from John Stewart”? Maybe.
Jack, nice, forgive me for not reading ALL the articles, I got through the very good opinion piece that handily quoted bipartisan support for the war. I’ve never been one for the old, “We were misled” defense, as I think I stated earlier. I’ve never thought of our fearless leader as a liar in this regard. And I certainly don’t believe the excuse from the people who voted to give up their right to stop the pres from waging the Iraq War, now, in their “oh he lied to us”.
Jacob, you are absolutely right, my bad. Not once have I seen him say that Hussein was behind 9/11, had something to do with it, etc. Nor do I believe GDub thought Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. He certainly started the War on Terrorism as a result of 9/11 and then broadened the War on Terrorism to include War on Iraq, pairing the two all along, insinuating that somehow War on Iraq was part and parcel of the War on Terrorism “which began as a result of 9/11″. In fact, he even struggled with it himself when called to admit the two had nothing to do with each other. His response was a yes/no and then couldn’t resist the urge to tie them back together by saying, “but imagine if”. Please.
I don’t understand how any of you is diminished in your repub-ism by agreeing that Gdub used 9/11 as a battle cry to achieve the MUCH desired goal of taking down Hussein, something that was on the books from the beginning. Shouldn’t America be strong? Shouldn’t America reserve the right to take out a government we don’t agree with when they continuously defy UN resolutions? And what teeth does the UN have, anyway? I mean, isn’t this what you all believe? Why do you cower, then, when someone calls it out into the open? As though you suffer from you’re own PC complex? Be proud, I say. Damn right (say it!). The goal was to reassert America’s power and behave unilaterally, if need be. To give the president the power (s)he’s been lacking all this time? Why does the insinuation of such roil you so, when it so clearly was the purpose of this administration?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I’m not diminishing you, bro’, just pointing out your youth!
May 28th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I’m old, therefore I forget easily. I thought the senior Bush caught hell by not going far enough and taking Saddim out during the first war? I also thought that the continued harrasment of U.S. aircraft flying in the declared “no-fly zone” was also part of the second war with junior Bush (as well as WMD’s and helping save face for senior Bush).
We tend to go back and rectumfy mistakes that should have been taken care of the first time round. The battle cry of this nation should be “2 steps backward, one step forward” which translates to “we ain’t never going to get there”. Face it, Kevin. Agression has its place and without it, YOU get the country of your making. But you’ll never be satisfied and you’ll ALWAYS find fault somewhere. Mature a little, bud.
When Bush is gone, you can compare him to whomever you please. The good part is, he will be gone. The bad part is whoever replaces him. Can’t wait to see your comparisons then. By the way, the “sources” you named are not good sources for news. Besides Joe, of course!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
ACTor,
You must not have been around enough to know that I’m all for aggression when properly applied. I’ll never be satisfied? I’ll always find fault somewhere? I suppose you may be right in that regard when it comes to “sources” of news. I suppose you would say I ought to consult only WND or some other conservatively biased source. There are no impartial sources, IMHO.
As far as being satisfied with the Bush presidency, I’m MOSTLY unsatisfied. Probably more like 15% satisfied. I was actually pretty satisfied by Bush #1. Mostly satisfied by certain aspects of Clinton #1. Would not be at all satisfied by Clinton #2. I can’t say whether I’d be satisfied with any of the current candidates. With Bush #2 as a barometer I’m willing to bet I’ll feel pretty satisfied with anybody.
I am even more deeply unsatisfied by the inception of a useless war in the middle of what should have been a focused effort to dismantle Al Qaeda. Instead of feebly attempting to settle an old freakn’ grudge under the pretense that it was all part of the same plan. To send our troops without the supplies they needed. To send less troops than were necessary. To treat the veterans returning so shabbily. Give me a break! How can you stand behind this guy?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Kevin,
I don’t stand behind him on many issues. He has let me down and people who think like me. I read many sources of information and find lots of mistakes. When I can get “insider” info I realize how the general public is being misled. I have a war-whore friend of mine that is going back for the third time in this conflict. Like me, he likes the action. Also, he will not leave his Marines behind. He stands by the order-politics don’t play into it. Not everyone can be an expert. That is what advisors are for. BUT (<see that but?) there are times you have to let those who know more than you guide you. That is what Bush did. Remember hind-sight? And as far as “To treat the veterans returning so shabbily.”, where did you come up with this? Nancy Polosi? Harry Reed? I’m sure it isn’t a first-hand experience!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
ACTor,
“And as far as ‘To treat the veterans returning so shabbily.’, where did you come up with this? Nancy Polosi? Harry Reed? I’m sure it isn’t a first-hand experience!”
You win. It isn’t first-hand experience for me, but don’t you fear, the half of them haven’t been brought back yet and I promise to see plenty over the next number of years, don’t fret. I currently work for plenty of veterans of other wars, though I can’t say they received shabby tx as a direct result of Bush, et al. My first instinct is really to say that this country doesn’t afford the veterans of ANY war after WWII very much, but you’re right, that’s just my silly layman’s impression.
On the ones coming back from this war, all I have to go on were the news reports and statements made by veterans in front of cameras for said news reports, Bush’s acknowledgment that things were not as they should be at Walter Reed, etc. I guarantee you that the way our gov’t (for years to come) treats the MANY men and women who’ve nobly served our country will likely never be what it should. But yeah, you’re right. I haven’t yet begun to work for a vet returning from this war yet, and not one of my immediate family members is involved at this point in the military. The fiance of a friend of mine was just recently called upon and I’ve seen the disruption and the sacrifice they’ve made to do what they believe in, which is to serve our country when our country asks.
But, you know, you’re right, nothing beats first hand experience. I suppose if I’d made the decision to join the military I’d have a little more authenticity to advocate for better treatment for soldiers and personnel. But what the hell, now that I know I have no right to argue that returning vets should be treated better, I’ll just stop all my advocating.
BTW, I just learned some cool stuff today about “shellshock” or what used to be called shellshock. As it turns out, and forgive me if you already know this, but the concussions of explosions and weapons, even from a few miles away, cause one’s brain to move around in the skull. The difference in density between the white matter and the gray matter in the brain cause each type of matter to move at different velocities so that axons running through the brain become stressed and often even torn. From what this guy was saying, and of course I don’t have his list of citations yet, a lot of the symptoms that were once thought of as shock, trauma (basically psychogenic or born out of the stress of war), are actually caused by the mild traumatic brain injuries received as a result of just being in the vicinity (a couple miles) of bombs and weapons firing. That’s some pretty crazy stuff. Anywho.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Kevin,
You do not have to have cancer to understand cancer enough to have legitimate opinion. Same thing goes for poverty, and the military. Does not mean I agree with your opinion, but not having served does not disqualify your opinions.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Well said, Jacob.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Kevin,
And I am not disqualifing your opinion of things. I am questioning you on what is first hand (remember that there are many John Kerrys out there that get in front of the camera). My brother deals directly with Veterans Affairs and is a judge for same. Any given time he is beating up the government on what is not happening and what should be taking place. I will never say that it is a well tuned-fine oiled machine. It is not but things like that are getting taken care of. Ca-ca falls thru the cracks…anywhere!
Your statement on “shell shock” has to do with peak particle velocity-how quickly things move and at what intensity. It is a blasting term used to gauge the impact of a shot, both from the ground and in the air. It can also be used to measure other impact equipment. On this basis you should understand something. In the rock-and-roll error, loud music caused neuro-ear damage. Todays music with intensified base notes does exactly the same thing bomb concussions do. So when the low-rider comes down your street turned up, he is messing with your health. Go have a brick-friendly talk with him.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:37 am
ACTor,
“So when the low-rider comes down your street turned up, he is messing with your health.”
Agreed, my friend, indeed. We talked about that too but the presenter didn’t seem very confident about that. He had an agenda of talking about brain injury symptoms. Yawn.
“Any given time he is beating up the government” I like him already!!
May 31st, 2008 at 12:54 am
Oh, and also on a totally unrelated topic, it was said that less than one percent of crime is attributable to gang activity in Fairfax Co. For Joe, that might be a big number but to me it seems like an almost non-issue. Almost.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:25 am
Saying something does not make it so, Kevin. Can you provide some references?
May 31st, 2008 at 9:18 am
Oh, yeah, Jack, I totally agree. I’ll see if I can find them.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Jack, can you make any sense out of slides 17,18,19, and 20?
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/gangprevention/gangpreventionreport_092407.pdf
May 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Yes. Slides 19 and 20 directly relate to your assertion about gang-related crime. The only category that gets over 10% is Aggravated Assault.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Yeah, looks like ALL CRIMES category showed 2.0% were gang related from 2003-2006 and then it looks like it further says this is all “reported” crimes. Slide 17 seemed to indicate that the trend for 2007, at the time of this publication, was increasingly downward. I imagine, depending on the F.Co. crim justice system, that still even fewer resulted in actual convictions (as opposed to reported. . .unless “reported” means reported convictions. . .hard to tell). So it’s possible that the person who asserted that number (not me) was right. I just thought it was interesting.
The F. Co. website notes that their gang task force/prevention plan, is one of the most innovative in the area. It also cautions that no specific ethnicity is more represented than the others in gang related activity.
This guy was saying that one of the single most correlated factors was truancy in school. He had some numbers about thresholds of “days missed”, etc. Kinda makes you worry a little when one talks about keeping a whole group of people from being able to attend school, taxpayers or not!
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Kevin,
We had gangs and the idleness of youth in the 60’s. It is especially worse in the summer (no school). The problem back then was a lack of role models in authoritative positions as well as a lack of parental supervision. Times may change but the situations and causes remain basically the same.
Are you trying to say that it is better to have those that don’t belong here in school (a supervised incarceration as it were) rather than running lose on the streets? Gang activity will prevail amongst the weak and lonely regardless of school. School tends to be more of a recruitment site
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
ACTor,
I absolutely disagree with school being a recruitment site for gangs and what’s more and I also disagree with your reasons for why gangs form, but I promise not to blame it on your age. Fair?
And yes, I think those who do and those who do not belong there, if they are there, should be in school. To call it a supervised incarceration is sort of silly, but you know that.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Kevin,
Gangs are grown because of individual’s needs to “belong and feel wanted”. That is the nature of the beast. Very little has to do with the “adventure” aspect. And those that don’t want to be in school aren’t there to be educated. We had kids 20 years old that couldn’t graduate. Why? They couldn’t grasp the curiculim but they had fun being the oldest and baddest. Then they were booted out when reaching adulthood.
You don’t have to agree but at least have an understanding that it is so (or was up to about 15 years ago) schools are a focal point for many “ventures”, inclusive of gang recruitment.
One more thing. Military, public school (especially with truancy laws), jail, mental institution; these are all forms of supervised incarceration, silly as you may think. Why do you need a hall pass? A note of absence? A phone call home when a student is absent? A parent or guardian to pick a student up during school hours? Where is the free will to come and go-do as you please? Or has that changed in public school? I know that private school is exactly that way.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
ACTor,
Ok, maybe things have just gotten lost in translation between #27 and #29. “A lack of role models of authoritative positions”, to me, is much different than “needs ‘to belong and feel wanted’”. I agree that very little has to do with the adventure aspect. If you want to add “feel important” to “belong and wanted” you may, however simply “needing to belong, and feel wanted and important” does not make a gang. In that right, depending on how obtuse you want to get, the whole lot of the human race is one big gang. To say there is a lack of role models is similar. Plenty of people grow up without good parents. Some, you hope, get some of those needs met elsewhere, whether it be the wherewithal to not want to repeat the same mistakes, or through other institutional functions such as schools, churches, after school programs, neighbors, friend’s parents, etc. To say that gangs form over a lack of such safety nets is a little specious. That is my main point in disagreeing with those statements.
“And those that don’t want to be in school aren’t there to be educated.” Please clarify.
I would say jails are more “ventures” for recruitment. So are neighborhoods more than schools. Schools may be one place that gang members hope to draw people away from, sure.
And I think a lot of it is just lost in translation here. Call whatever institution for social engineering “incarceration” if it makes you feel better. The word “incarceration”, in this society, generally carries with it the negative connotation of imprisonment. If that’s what school was like for you and whatever kids you may have, then I’m sorry
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Kevin,
If one is forced to be at some guv’mint building, at some appointed time, for a given period, that IS by definition incarceration. Just because the security is light or non-existent the fact remains, truancy is against the law. These students are there by force of law.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
whatever.