John Hawkins ends the “Bush Lied” debate on WMDs.
People who say Bush “lied” are the same ones who can’t finish a sentence without saying “extreme right wing” or who wear cute t-shirts insisting Bush isn’t their president. These people mirror those who insisted Hillary killed Vince Foster while Clinton was president. They are fringe-dwellers.
A more sensible approach to the invasion of Iraq is to question the timing. Saddam had been killing his own people for thirty years. He’d been flaunting the U.N. on and off for 15. He’d already invaded Kuwait and Bush, Sr. left him in power. No, the reasons were no more imminent last March than they were ten Marches ago.
What changed was our policy toward terror-promoters. We are no longer content to launch a few missles and call it a day. We are going to take out those that we can without significant risk to our troops. N. Korea is a bigger danger than Saddam ever was, but we took out Saddam because we could. We’d do it with Dear Leader if the ramifications weren’t so dire for us and our allies.
This is our new way of doing things people. If you don’t like it (and there are many good reasons why you might not) then vote Bush out of office. Otherwise, shut up with the “lies” and the “international terrorist” slogans. They only reveal your ignorance.
If the statements from the White House had been to the effect of ‘we’re pretty sure Saddam has chemical weapons’, there would be no claim of ‘lie’. It was the extent of the message, its constant repetition, its exaggeration beyond what was known for certain, that drove some people to the point where we feel misled. Scan over the list of WMD statements with me. “We know for a fact that there are weapons there” – exaggeration. “We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” Out of date information presented as gospel. And so on. Then, in the April-May timeframe, we start to see – okay, lies is pushing it, but certainly misleading statements regarding what had been said before. Condi’s “U.S. officials never expected that ‘we were going to open garages and find’ weapons of mass destruction.” Well, no, true, that exact phrase was never used, but the message pushed by the White House in the run-up to war was certainly that WMD were going to be easily found.
It’s not as catchy as “Bush Lied” – harder to fit on a T-shirt – but do you honestly deny that Bush Misleads?
In the case of WMDs, Skinny, no.
If there’d been ANY OTHER INTEL SERVICE that had questioned whether Saddam had WMD, then you might have a case. You’ll notice that NOT ONE, not the German BND, not the Deuxieme Bureau, not the FIS, not “Er Bu,” not even Mossad said that there weren’t WMD.
Try reading this!
If Hillary didn’t whack Vince, WTF did?
The partisan wrangling over it is into JustPlainStupid territory.
99% of what Dubya said, Clinton said before him. Either a) both were wrong and our intel sucks, or b) both were correct & each side should really be barking at themselves for having taken this long.
Now, was it inflated? Of course, every administration inflates data, on various issues, to better support themselves. It can’t be wrong for Bush but right for anyone else, nor vice versa (personally I’d rather no one inflate anything).
BTW: the ones shouting “what about North Korea” really annoy me. They already have nukes, no military option is available there that wouldn’t result in the melting of Seoul (or Los Angeles if Kim has the range). They’re basically calling for suicide.
Yabbut b psycho, if it’ll hurt Dubya, what’s the problem w/ that?
I understand that both left and right leaning pundits, columnists, etc., are guilty of spreading around “themes” or “memes” from time to time. It’s based on a sorta’ ripple effect/echo chamber, of writers responding back and forth creating the new resonant “meme” that hangs around until the next one comes along. I also understand that both left and right propagandists AMPLY employ the advice of Goebbels that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Bob Scheer has become my favorite example of the latter recently. In his article in the L.A. Times yesterday (which was about the latest meme that it was Reagan and Bush I who created Hussein) Scheer fit in this line, “We were told that Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world…” in such a throwaway fashion that it would be insane for anyone to infer that the statement was anything but solidly accepted Truth. He does this in every article, no matter what the topic. Saddam’s Arrest: Bush lied. Economy’s jobless recovery: Bush lied. The medicare bill: Bush lied. I, however, KNOW that we were not told that Hussein was an imminent threat to the world, and that the fact that he was not an imminent threat was what made the Doctrine of Pre-emption such a tough sell. Logic dictates that conclusion. But when you hate Bush as much as Scheer, throw logic out. Logic doesn’t matter. It’s been repeated so often that it is now fact: Bush lied. In arguments with friends, I have to finally give in and say stuff like, “maybe SOME of his reasons were fuzzy enough to be construed as mistaken or misleading, but I believe that he didn’t just, boldfacedly lie,” which I don’t believe. I believe that Scheer’s constant historical revision of what Bush said is what has created the common, mainstream belief that Bush Lied. But if I say that, I’m a ditto-head.
Now, I happen to believe that I am a complete independent. I am as nonplussed by Scheer as I am by Coulter. I understand the “Right Wing” claim that the mainstream media is biased to the left. I can see it every day. I also believe the “Left Wing” claim that the media is in the pocket of major corporations, and is therefore a mere mouthpiece for the government. Anyone who’s ever seen any pictures of their Washington Self Congratulatory Balls, where the inside-the-beltway media elite dress up in Tuxedos and elegant evening gowns and hob nob and waltz with the government officials they are supposed to be the watchdogs over, should seriously wonder about the state of the 4th estate.
I can see plenty of examples of Scheer’s tactic of repeat the lie on the left. There must be examples from the right, by the Limbaugh’s and Coulter’s. My question: What are they, and why don’t I know what they are? Is it because when I do hear Coulter’s ridiculous lies, I can discount them as quickly as the mainstream media does, while mainstream media gives Scheer a platform once a week? Seriously, a good example of “the big lie” perpetuated by the left is the continued repetition of “Bush Lied.” What is a good example of a right wing “big lie?” Am I not independent, but a delusional rightie based on the fact that I’ve clearly bought all the right wing “big lies” so easily that I can’t even see them as lies, or are there any out there? There’ve gotta be, don’t there? Am I a ditto-head?
Just wondering. I sent this letter to Andrew Sullivan and others hoping for an answer somewhere.
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000034