Bush never lied to us about Iraq

[Big Don]

Bush never lied to us about Iraq



The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick
June 16, 2008
LATimes
Excerpt:

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
((END EXCERPT))
James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic. Even in that bastion of liberalism (American style for our British friends who will argue against the term AGAIN) he can understand truth, why can't some of you?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Because he's wrong.
Bush's reasons for the war change more often than a germ phobic changes his socks. They "knew", they had "proof", etc. The "they got bad intel" excuse is just that, an excuse. Maybe, they did. But if that's the case, then it was absolutely criminal that they didn't wait to confirm and solidify it before launching a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. How many dozens more threads are you going to start here to try and swing the view that GW Bush is some kind of good person? He's a dimwit, his administration is corrupt and has done more harm to this country and what it was founded upon than any other administration in US history.

 

[Kacey]

So... the president of the US got "bad intelligence", and that makes everything okay? Somehow, I think that's rather cold comfort to the families of those killed in this war, and to those wounded and maimed as well.

It is the president's job to make good decisions - to ensure that intelligence is checked, re-checked, and re-re-checked - especially before committing funding, much less lives, to any venture, but especially before declaring war. He screwed up. He needs to accept responsibility for his actions instead of making excuses.

 

[Twin Fist]

gee, you might consider it checked and rechecked if your predecessor thought the same thing, and every other intelligence agency on the planet thought the same thing............

 

[Big Don]

Maybe Carter's slash and burn of the CIA with the Church Committee wasn't such a great idea... Maybe eight years of blase attitude towards national defense didn't help...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ok, Carter was -20- years before GW Bush. Why not bring up Kennedy too?

 

[mrhnau]

Kacey,

Suppose he did eventually find out the intelligence was bad? Troops are already there, Saddam already toppled and insurgents on the rise. Immediately evacuate and let the country fall into complete chaos? Leave is in worse shape than when we entered? Allow it to potentially become a safe haven for terrorist, or allow Iran to possibly invade and occupy? Exactly what is the graceful exit strategy once committed?

Twin Fist,

National memory is very short sighted, isn't it? I seem to recall months of negotiations, desperately trying to get inspectors in to check out Saddam's palaces, only to not be allowed entry. This whole thing could have been avoided by a compliant Saddam.

 

[Big Don]

So... the president of the US got "bad intelligence", and that makes everything okay? Somehow, I think that's rather cold comfort to the families of those killed in this war, and to those wounded and maimed as well.

How much comfort of any kind is it for those families to hear democrats brand them mercenaries, murderers, etc? It's great to actually worry about the troops, but, claiming to worry about the troops and their families as a way of attacking the president and his administration is reprehensible.

It is the president's job to make good decisions - to ensure that intelligence is checked, re-checked, and re-re-checked - especially before committing funding, much less lives, to any venture, but especially before declaring war. He screwed up. He needs to accept responsibility for his actions instead of making excuses.

Yet congress bears no responsibility?
77 to 23 is a pretty strong majority, all of whom had access to the same intelligence. At least two of whom, have been touted on this board as brilliant, and yet, congress too believed the intelligence reports.

 

[Big Don]

Kacey,

Suppose he did eventually find out the intelligence was bad? Troops are already there, Saddam already toppled and insurgents on the rise. Immediately evacuate and let the country fall into complete chaos? Leave is in worse shape than when we entered? Allow it to potentially become a safe haven for terrorist, or allow Iran to possibly invade and occupy? Exactly what is the graceful exit strategy once committed?

Twin Fist,

National memory is very short sighted, isn't it? I seem to recall months of negotiations, desperately trying to get inspectors in to check out Saddam's palaces, only to not be allowed entry. This whole thing could have been avoided by a compliant Saddam.

Not to mention a decade of nearly daily attempts to shoot down British and American aircraft in the no fly zones, each instance of which is a casus belli...

 

[Big Don]

ok, Carter was -20- years before GW Bush. Why not bring up Kennedy too?

Because Kennedy did not cripple our intelligence agencies.

 

[MBuzzy]

How much comfort of any kind is it for those families to hear democrats brand them mercenaries, murderers, etc? It's great to actually worry about the troops, but, claiming to worry about the troops and their families as a way of attacking the president and his administration is reprehensible.

For the most part, I'm required to stay out of the discussion. I will make one comment though, while I was there and even at home, I have never heard any democratic organization call the American troops in Iraq mercenaries or murderers. Possibly the occassional extremist and a few who are unable to separate those who are doing their duty from those who make policy.

If there was a public statement by the democratic party or from some influential politician....then I suppose I just missed it. I like to think (idealistically) that people who worry about soliders, sailors, and airmen are for the most part genuine - again there are exceptions....but for the most part.

 

[CuongNhuka]

gee, you might consider it checked and rechecked if your predecessor thought the same thing, and every other intelligence agency on the planet thought the same thing............

He also pulled out when the UN told him he was about to be screwed.

 

[Big Don]

For the most part, I'm required to stay out of the discussion. I will make one comment though, while I was there and even at home, I have never heard any democratic organization call the American troops in Iraq mercenaries or murderers. Possibly the occassional extremist and a few who are unable to separate those who are doing their duty from those who make policy.

If there was a public statement by the democratic party or from some influential politician....then I suppose I just missed it. I like to think (idealistically) that people who worry about soliders, sailors, and airmen are for the most part genuine - again there are exceptions....but for the most part.

I guess you haven't heard of John Murtha, prominent democrat congressman.

There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Contrary to Congressman Murtha's statement, US Marines are still being cleared of wrong doing in Haditha.

 

[MBuzzy]

Because Kennedy did not cripple our intelligence agencies.

In what ways have intelligence agencies been crippled?

I have worked with quite a few and honestly, even I know very little about what they can and cannot do and their procedures. Security within the intelligence gathering agencies is exceptionally tight. Their practices and procedures ARE NOT public knowledge for a very good reason.

I make no statement regarding the validity or quality of the information gathered, as one of the most difficult tasks of ANY intel agency is separating good from bad intel - only their procedures.

 

[MBuzzy]

Contrary to Congressman Murtha's statement, US Marines are still being cleared of wrong doing in Haditha.

This is a single situation and he was commenting solely on the individuals involved. Make no mistake, LOAC applies - even to actions involving insurgents. You can be tried for murder and war-crimes legitimately very easily if you do the wrong thing. Again, we're a microcosm, things go wrong and there are bad apples. If they were legitimately found to have violated LOAC by a Court Martial, then I would agree with the statement that they were murderers.

I was referring to a statement about the military as a whole.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Lets look at it a little differently.

You were told it was ok to take Kuwait, then smacked around.
You're now told that parts of your own country are off limits to you.
You're going to do things to save face in your own dictatorship, even if it means that every plane you launch ends up spare parts.
Sadamn expected the beginning of the war to be another short "US Muscle Flex", and played by those rules. He didn't know that GW was out to avenge his "Daddy".

As to "Bad Intel" the UN inspectors, and numerous other nations Intel was saying that GW's was wrong. GW said it was about WMD and 9/11. He later changed the tune on the 9/11 drum beating, but even Collin Powel went out repeatedly druming the "rock solid evidence" beat. He took it in his namesake as a result.

The whole "Bush didn;'t lie, he was misinformed" crap is little more than pissing on the graves of every loyal American, British and Allied soldier who went to war this time and paid the ultimate price for this "misinformation", not to mention the disrespect if pays to all those who are now maimed and crippled for life as a result.

Make all the excuses you want, rewrite history and ignore documented quotes and statements from those involved. In the end, Bush, Cheney and their gang will have to live with the fall out of their decision to set this nation to war, for their own personal reasons.

I'm outta here.

 

[Brian Johns]

Put it this way:

(1) Strategically, going into Iraq never made any sense. There was not one Iraqi among the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, 15 out of those 19 were Saudis.

(2) 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. I point this out because Bush and Cheney have consistently, over the years, and insisted that Iraq is part of the "War on Terror."

(3) There were no ties between Saddam and 9/11. There were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush and Cheney have admitted this.

(4) As a result of our actions in Iraq, we have lost a lot of diplomatic leverage in the Middle East. The Iranians are now in a better position. If Bush is so dumb as to strike militarily at Iran, we will get severe blowback in the form of Iranian reprisals all across the Middle East, including Hormuz. Think oil is expensive now ? Try $300 per barrel if we attack Iran.

(5) We spend more in an average three week span in Iraq than we have in all 7 years we have been in Afghanistan. No wonder why the Taliban is making a comeback.

Maybe Bush got bad intelligence or whatever....but it's clear that he and Cheney made a colossal strategic blunder.

 

[elder999]

Bush never lied to us about Iraq
?

Yes he did.

 

[Cryozombie]

Maybe Bush got bad intelligence or whatever....but it's clear that he and Cheney made a colossal strategic blunder.

THIS is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. We all know Bush's word for it was "Streegic"

LOL.

 

[Twin Fist]

(1) Strategically, going into Iraq never made any sense.

(3) There were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush and Cheney have admitted this.

these two statements are factually incorrect, the rest is just opinion.

1: look at a friggin map. Who is the bad guy? Iran. Look on the east of Iran. Afganistan. Look on the west of Iran. Iraq.

What two middle eastern countries do we NOW how bases in that we didnt in 2000?

seeing the BIG picture yet? So, strategically, Iraq was brilliant. Iran is now boxed in, mountains to the north, and the ocean to the south, with US forces on both sides.

2: Saddam has been PROVEN to have aided AQ. There were AQ training camps in Iraq, thats PROVEN. Saddam met with Abu Nidal, thats PROVEN

you are simply wrong.