Bush Defends Iraq War Against Lies Charge

President Bush used yesterday’s Veterans Day speech to defend the war, especially against the increasingly-held view that he lied to Congress and the public to in making the case for the war.

Bush Spars With Critics Of the War (WaPo, A1)

President Bush and leading congressional Democrats lobbed angry charges at each other Friday in an increasingly personal battle over the origins of the Iraq war. “It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” Bush said as he used a Veterans Day address here to lash out at critics. “These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.” Democrats retaliated with a barrage of statements accusing the president of skewing the facts, just as they maintain he did in the run-up to the invasion of March 2003.

Although the two sides have long skirmished over the war, the sharp tenor Friday resembled an election-year campaign more than a policy disagreement. In a rare move, Bush in his speech took a direct swipe at last year’s opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), while the White House issued an unusual campaign-style memo attacking Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman followed with a speech blistering 10 Democrats for “political doublespeak.”

From their campaign-style war rooms, the Democrats and allied liberal interest groups churned out “fact sheets” dissecting Bush’s comments and comparing them with past statements and investigation findings in an effort to undercut his arguments. Kerry accused Bush of “playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day.”

The blogosphere is all abuzz about the speech, too.

Don Surber proclaims the speech, ” Bush’s Gettysburg.”

Michelle Malkin wonders why Bush didn’t make the speech fourscore and seven days ago:

What took him so long? He could have made this speech while Sheehan was gaining traction outside his Crawford, Tx. ranch this summer with her “Bush lied!” brigades. He could have made this speech while the anti-war movement and the media were busy politicizing the “2000 dead” milestone in the most macabre and dishonest way. He could have made this speech as Harry Reid was jumping up and down like Rumpelstiltskin behind the Senate chamber’s locked doors.

Glenn Reynolds, too, thought it “About time” and issued this provocative statement:

The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way — and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.

And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.

[…]

[I]t’s not “dissent” that’s unpatriotic, something I’ve been at pains to note in the past. It’s putting one’s own political positions first, even if doing so encourages our enemies, as this sort of talk is sure to do. And that’s what I think is going on with the sudden surge of “Bush Lied” stuff from Congressional democrats.

Of course, outrage over questioning of patriotism is kind of one-sided. You can say that Bush and Cheney started the war with a bunch of lies to enrich their buddies at Halliburton, and that their supporters are all a bunch of chickenhawks on the White House payroll. But that’s different because — because Bush is anti-evolution, and doesn’t support gay marriage! Or something.

Kevin Drum finds this quite insulting and retorts,

[T]here’s been steadily growing evidence that the Bush administration suppressed official dissents about the WMD evidence before the war, and the fact that we now know this seems like a pretty good reason for even the most patriotic among us to suspect that Bush did, in fact, mislead the American public.

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus offer this “Analysis” piece on the front page of today’s WaPo:

Asterisks Dot White House’s Iraq Argument

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements. But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

[…]

Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President’s Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community’s views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

This is pretty thin rebuttal. [Update (0954): Cori Dauber agrees; Joe Gandleman dissents.]

  • Congress saw the intelligence but they didn’t get every document and they got some of them right before the vote.
  • Congress got the consensus view of the intelligence community but not the dissenting views of the minority.
  • Congressmen read the executive summary of a report but not the details.

These are “asterisks” worthy of front page emphasis?

Yes, the PDB is the timeliest, juicest information. But did they conflict with the NIE? No.

Remember, George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence who had been appointed by Bill Clinton and retained by the Bush, infamously described the evidence for Saddam’s WMD “a slam dunk.” Yes, there were dissenters but they were in a distinct minority.

After every debacle, we are able to find documents “proving” that those in charge “should have known” that the course of action taken was wrong. Why, if only we had listened to Kathleen Rowley, we’d have avoided 9-11. If only we’d heeded the warnings on Pearl Harbor, we could have been ready. But leaders make judgment calls based on the information they have and the environment they’re in.

Saddam Hussein was already considered Public Enemy #1 when Bush took office, the 9-11 attacks made us much more fearful of WMD in the hands of rogue actors, and the DPRK had just announced that they had nuclear weapons and there wasn’t a damned thing we could do about it.

Update (0931): In compiling the “Related” list below, I’ve noticed a curious evolution in my own arguments on this subject.

In the beginning (they’re in reverse chronological order, with older post titles in ALL CAPS), I was writing things like, “[G]iven that we based virtually our entire case before the UN on Saddam’s threat as a WMD possessor, the fact that we haven’t found any is a collosal embarrasment that can’t be glossed over.” Within weeks, though, the debate shifted to one of whether “Bush LiedTM.” While the latter had far more payoff for the Democrats if proven (or, they could simply persuade a majority of the public of its truth) the former was a more interesting discussion.

Rather than discussing relevant matters of public policy, though, we seem to be in the mode of ginning up major scandals and defending against them.

Related:

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Herb says:

    It’s about time Bush answered the Democrats and put their “Lies” in front of the public. The Dems don’t give a damn if their rehtoric hurts our troops, or motivates the terrorists, or hurts or gets another innocent person killed in an attack as long as it fullfills their extremist agenda. The sole purpose of the Dems has been to devide this country since the 2000 elections when they put forth their biggest “Lie” that Gore won. Same for the 2004 election. The failure of the Democratic party to win over Congress and the Presidentcy is ample proof that their agenda is not acceptable to America. The only places they maintained their standing was in the extremist Northeast and the ultra liberal West Coast and these places are where most of their “Liberal Lies” are coming from. The Dems have yet to realize that their anti Bush lies make them “Liars” themselves and Bush stated that in his speach, but the Dems didn’t seem to grasp the message and recognize reality.

    Now, we can look for the same old sour Dems to cry, whine, rant, rave and carry on like the sore losers they ampply demonstrate to us on a daily basis. It is indeed a pity that there will still be those that will carry on with their “Bush Lied” campaigh in spite of the fact that not one single one of tham has produced evidense to support their claim.

    Oh well, after all, they are Democrats. What more could one expect.

  2. ken says:

    It is typical but contemtable for Bush to politicize Veterans Day.

    As to the facts James, it is incontroversial that Bush lied about WMD in order to build support for his war on Iraq.

    1) There were no WMD.

    2) Inspectors were on the ground proving every shred of ‘evidence’ Bush relied upon to make his claim false.

    3) Since there were no WMD and inspectors were proving ‘evidence’ false, Bush had no authority to claim otherwise.

    4) Bush continued to claim Iraq had WMD and in fact launched a war because of that claim.

    Therefore Bush lied.

  3. Paddy O'Shea says:

    Of course, the real reason Bush felt compelled to make his revealing “I Am Not A Liar” speech yesterday is because most of the country now thinks he is a liar. And coming as it does hot on the heels of his now infamous “We Do Not Torture” speech, shows a president that has grown increasingly sensitive about his rapidly corroding reputation.

    Poll: Most Think Bush Not Honest

    Two crucial pillars of President Bush’s public support – perceptions of his honesty and faith in his ability to fight terrorism – have slipped to their lowest point in the AP-Ipsos poll.

    Almost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards.

    Overall, 37 percent approve of the job Bush is doing as president.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll

    There is one other aspect that deserves examination. Presidents who take us to war and then do not win cannot seriously expect the American people to show them anything approaching respect. Bush has shown himself to be a War President who hasn’t won, and Americans hate losers.

  4. Kenny says:

    i don’t understand how Bush (or anyone in the intelligence community) could’ve figured out that Saddam had no WMD, when Saddam himself thought he had WMD

  5. Washington Post Says Bush Speech Not Quite Accurate

    The Washington Post has a piece that raises a point that has become all-too familiar these days: it contends President George W. Bush’s speech con…

  6. ken says:

    In reading the WP article I am reminded of the sort of deceptions that the old Soviet Union used to engage in. Human beings are the same everywhere I guess.

    It does dissapoint me however that republicans have so readily embraced the tactics of one of our enemies. What’s next for them, torture? Oh, yeah…nevermind.

  7. Quick Links, Reader Tips

    Ed Morrissey on the riots that, despite the waning media interest, continue; The peak of the rioting passed as the wannabes and the bandwagoners have gone back to their own lives. The core of this uprising has not left at…

  8. Who cares what Kevin Drum says? He’s become a weirdo troll, nothing more.

  9. Kate says:

    Add to the debunking of the “Bush Lied” meme, the words of leading historical revisionist: Hans Blix

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/

  10. Herb says:

    Cry, whine, rant, rave and carry on like the bunch of sore losers they are, surly hit the mark. Now everyone, we have heard from the Champion of Liars, Ken. It is truly a shame that he motivates and emboldens the terrorists by his regtoric. His tearing down of our troops with his misguided words is providing aid to our enemy by doing everything possible to devide our country and comfort our terrorist enemy.

    The only “evidense” that Ken has is reference to other misguided liars who also are in the “sore loser camp”

    Ken does not give one once of concern about those who are fighting our enemys because he obviously has more loyalty to the terrorists. And he, (Ken) has never served on hour in the service of our country and would more that likely flee to Canada if he were called to do so.

    LIke I ststed before, those who accuse Bush of lyieg are themselves bigger liars than he.

  11. odograph says:

    At any point in history, if you had asked the American people if they wanted to go to war with country X, there would have been some people who said yes. There’s a bell curve to everything.

    What really matters is the case that the two tails of the curve, the hawks and the doves, can make to the center. Convince the center, and you have a democratically elected war.

    What I see happening now, honestly, is that the arguments originally made to the center are vanishing in puffs of smoke.

    The hawkish replacement arguments may be good, but let’s be honest, they would not have made the case for war to the political center.

    Yes, we had concerns about Iraq.
    Yes, Saddam was a tyrant.

    Traditionally though, Americans do not go to war with every country that concerns them, or with every tyrant.

    My caution to hawks is that the arguments you make now may pull you into a hawk-to-hawk value network, but they increasingly divide you from the center.

  12. Ol' BC says:

    All those dead Kurds and Shiites said he had chemical weapons. I think that may qualify.

  13. odograph says:

    OK, those dead Kurds and Shiites were a tragedy, without question.

    So, how many of you called on Bill Clinton to invade when those things happened?

  14. ken says:

    My caution to hawks is that the arguments you make now may pull you into a hawk-to-hawk value network, but they increasingly divide you from the center.

    I see conservatives adapting the tactics and mindset of the old Soviet Union. What we see happening here is that as conservatives become increasingly detached from reality they become increasingly irrational, dishonest, and prone to violence.

    How else can we explain their excuses for lies, torture and tax cuts?

  15. odograph says:

    But I’m a conservative.

    (Actually, if the neocons and neocon apologists leave it might be nice to be a conservative again.)

    No foreign adventures!

    Cut spending, then taxes!

  16. KPC says:

    I find it quite humorous that there are still people who are gullible enough to believe the crap that bush spews. More than 2000 Americans have lost there life in Iraq while Osam (you remember him??) is still free and al-quida is still bombing where ever the hell it wants. Bush has mired the country in an un-winnable war while the real enemy is still free to do whatever it wants. Its not unpatriotic to question you’re government especially when they are a bunch of incompetent buffoons. I suppose those who support Bush will do so until al-quida strikes America again then Maybe they will start to open there eyes and question what there sons and daughters have been dying for

  17. spencer says:

    I could care less about the WMD argument.

    The key point is that Bush sent our troops into a war without providing them with what they needed to win the war.

    We are losing the war because Bush ignored the recommendations that we would need several hundred thousand troups to occupy Iraq.

    I know, you are going to tell me about all the school houses our troops painted.

    When an american official can make the trip from the Airport to the green zone without a military escort come talk me about winning the war. It never got that bad in Viet Nam.

    I do not oppose the idea of going to war in Iraq.
    I oppose the idea of losing the war in Iraq.

  18. anjinSan says:

    I am not sure that Democrats who voted for the war were every convinced that Iraq was actually a threat. My feeling is that in a post 9-11 world they calculated that making a major vote (against the war) that might appear to be weak on national security could easily be a career ender.

    So Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards & thier ilk cravenly voted for the war, while crossing their fingers and hoping all would go well.

    How are you sleeping guys?

  19. Bush Level Attacks at Iraq War Critics

    President Bush used Veterans Day to strike back at critics of the war in Iraq. He told an audience

  20. RJN says:

    No one has mentioned the Large Elephant in the middle of all this: Israel. This was all Neo-Con, all day. The Dems signed on because this was seen as being done for the protection of Israel. The WMD nonsense was merely a cover story.

    Now, of course we are mired, but commited to stay, so it is safe to bash the Repubs without jeopardizing Israel. Those of us Repubs who argued against invading Iraq knew, exactly, it would come to this; Israel getting what it wants and the Dems picking up the political spoils.

  21. odograph says:

    To be honest I never really understood the Israel angle. I have a sense of unease about what the agendas were, but I don’t get it at all.

  22. Tom Poe says:

    When someone living in Iraq, someone who wants the U.S. occupation and occupiers to leave, what is their reaction to Bush’s claims to “stay the course” for years to come?

    I suspect any argument that tries to tie “comfort to the enemy” to those who support getting out, or to those who support staying in Iraq, quickly becomes a false argument that misses the point. I hope readers will begin to examine whether there is any solution to resolving in the minds of Iraq citizens that the U.S. is not an occupation force. So far, Bush supporters can’t seem to make a plausible argument of substance. Or, am I missing something?

  23. Herb says:

    All of you naysayers had best start watching the news. Kofi made a trip to Bagdad today and gave a speach. Now, do you think Kofi would be there speaking if the war was going as bad as a lot of you say. The only motivation that Kofi has is to seek glory for himself and the UN. If the war was going bad, Kofi would be within at least 5000 miles from there.

    Another thing about you guys out there is that you don’t realize that by speaking the anti war, anti Bush rehtoric you espouse, IT HURTS OUR TROOPS and it hurts America. If you were the good Americans tou think you are, you would Keep your big mouths shut.

    Since 9/11, I have always thought that the primary reason for 9/11 is that OBL thought that America was a devided country and nothing would happen to him if his organization struck the Towers. Well, we were devided, Devided by a angry, hateful bunch of Democrats that lost the election. Unfortunately, the Democrats have yet to think past their noses and recognize that they, the Democrats, were the cause of 9/11 that killed 3000 innocent Americans. But yet today, we see tha same old thing, the Democrats continuing to spread their anger and hate amoung the American people while inspiring and motivating the terrorists to continue their taking of life around the world. It’s only a matter of time until they strike here again and when the Democrats have spread enough of their deviding hate and anger around enough, the terrorists will strike. And, god forbid, if the Democrats ever get into power, the terrorists will strike immediately knowing that a Democrat leader will do nothing, just like Clinton did nothing.

  24. RJN says:

    Most of the Neo-Cons who engineered the invasion of Iraq were-are Jewish. That is not a coincidence.

    Iraq is in a unique, and very strategic, geographic position. It has borders with Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. These are all Muslim countries and have varying degrees of hostility towards Israel. One just has to look at a map to be amazed at the strategic value to Israel of a, joined at the hip, alliance with the U.S. when the U.S. has free reign in Iraq.

    Of major importance is our present ability to place anti-missile and anti-aircraft assets so close to Iran. These are of such great value to Israel for sensing, and interdicting a missile or aircraft attack on Israel. They also serve as protection for Israel’s attacks – defensive, perhaps – on Iran.

    In Iraq, we sit in Syria’s back yard; we are right there. We have, at hand, as much power as we need to remove any Syrian Government if we choose to.

    We, the U.S., in Iraq, is huge mojo for Israel. There is little doubt that they are the only beneficiary of this. Iraq may not benefit at all. It probably will splinter into the factions that were in place when Hussein gained power in the ’70’s.

  25. odograph says:

    OBL would not have stumped for Bush, with his election eve message, if he didn’t like him.

  26. Herb says:

    Jeez Odo:

    Thats so far out in left field. Just answer one question, hy are you so gullable as to beleive the hate, anger and lies spread by the Democrats?

    Do you remember the 2000 election and who planned the strategy for Gore in his court quest and who it was that told Gore to contest the election? I will tell you, It was Richard Daley, son of the last of the big city political bosses Richard Daley. Richard Daley (1st) was so crooked and corrupt taht it made the Mafia look like a bunch of pikers. In fact, It was Daley that stole the election that JFK won and it was proven in a court of law. Why don’t you recognize corruption, hate and anger when you see it?

    Do you think that OBL and his group do not watch TV and see what’s going on here in the USA. They see the division created by the Dems and those that who espouse their anger and hate and they are not so dumb as to not take every advantage of the divisivness coming from the Dems. Don’t you see where calling Bush a Liar is aiding and providing comfort to our enemy, Don’t you see where you motovate the terrorists in Iraq to Kill more of out troops.

    Why don’t you just try a little to be an American and take your anger out in the polling booth like every other true American does.

  27. Azael says:

    I’ve never understood the idea that questioning the administration – or even the whole “Bush lied, people died” characterization y’all on the right are so fond of – harms the troops. Are they really so sensitive and/or so clueless as to be totally ignorant of our constitutional principles? I really don’t think so. Why doesn’t the PoMo right simply stop coddling our troops and start treating them like the honorable soldiers of our democracy that they are. They should be expected to understand what they are fighting for and be expected to be adult about it. It seems quite shameful to have all the PoMo righties running around like frightened school marms, trying to keep them protected from the very democracy they are there to protect. Shameful.

  28. Elrod says:

    James,
    On your original point, you are understating how important the dissenting views were. Not that they turned out to be true, but that they were hardly marginal. For example, the major dissenter on the aluminum tube = nukes charge was the US Department of Energy. Considering the US Department of Energy knows more about nuclear technology than anybody else, their dissent should have raised a huge red flag. Or consider the problem that many of the major claims about Saddam possessing biological weapons came solely from Iraqi ex-pats who had been found to be proven liars in the past. Again, this information is hardly marginal, or stuck at the nether regions of a vast bureaucracy where only the clairvoyant could know. Now maybe the Senate would have voted for war in the end even with these caveats and doubts included in the NIE (both classified and de-classified versions). But the fact that Tenet and, by extension, the Bush Administration footnoted, marginalized and ultimately removed these objections from their reports to the Congress reveals a pattern of deliberate obfuscation. The American people are right to question the honesty of the Administration’s approach in selling the war to Congress. And the WaPo piece was a perfectly appropriate response to Bush’s silly sabre rattling.

  29. M1EK says:

    The most damning evidence is this story from 2003, in which Bob Graham (who DID have access to ‘the good stuff’) basically says that the administration misrepresented the intelligence to most of the Senate and to the public. And for Bob Graham to go that far out on a limb is pretty unusual.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

  30. Elrod says:

    On a similar note, M1EK, this analysis points out the extent to which the Administration’s case for war was based not just on faulty intelligence, but on willful misrepresentation of how faulty the intelligence was.

    http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005999.php#more

  31. Yesterday, the man they call the videoconferencing el Presidente delivered his long-awaited Veterans Day speech on the fight against terrorism at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania- see link to official Federal News Service transcript below:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/international/11bush-transcript.html

    This turned out to be a fascinating speech full of true-blue Trotskyite/Noecon clichés about the eventual collapse of the Islamic Al-Qaeda “system” from the burden of “its internal contradictions” and the firm presidential belief that its leaders will soon be “joining the dustbins of history”…beyond the irony of listening to a right-wing Republican leader using 19th century vintage Marxist metaphors, Dubya’s delivery was clearly below (his own already sub-par) personal average, and the rehearsed hurrahs sounded less enthusiastic than usual- maybe because Karl and Scooter were busy elsewhere and didn’t have enough time to prepare properly for this staged show of martial masculinity.

    Anyway, the following 2 points in Bush’s speech caught my attention as they perfectly capture the essence of “Neo-conservative” Pharisaic propaganda:

    1) “…the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments”

    This type of talk is particularly racist and offensive: 1.4 billion Muslims around the world will be glad to learn that the US government has officially segmented them into two broad categories: “Radical/Al-Qaeda types” and “Non-radical Muslims” [sic]

    2) “…our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life”

    That’s an outright lie, which has been propagandized on a massive scale since September 11th 2001 by Wolfowitz, Perl, Libby, Sharon, Cheney & Co.

    As veteran Middle-East experts such as former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer have said repeatedly, this canard about “Bin Laden’s alleged desire to shatter the American way of life” was (and still is) the ultimate justification of the invasion of Iraq…simply because it was “market-tested” extensively by the White House and proved to fly well with focus groups and folks in the heartland.
    See link below for more on Mike Scheuer’s sharp criticism of the Bush administration
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml

    Dubya’s mass repetition of the same failed arguments ad nauseam now threatens to unmask the dirty secrets of Neocon statecraft: in the future, he should keep his advanced Pharisaic talking points algorithm under wraps lest he reveal his intellectual edge to the enemies of freedom/democracy/Zion/McDonalds burgers/Philadelphia cheese/Alabama banana pudding/you name your favorite American dish and call the PR & Public Information Management department at the Israeli embassy in Houston so they can add it to the list of heartland gastronomic liberties that constitute the bedrock of culinary freedom on which this great nation was built!

    We won’t let Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein destroy our way of life with their poisonous Gallic Gaullist soufflés and other radioactive “yellow cakes” cum hummus sauce cooked in the dirty Baathist/terrorist/evil/Islamo-fascist kitchens of Damascus and Tickrit.

    Vive le Liberty!
    Vive el Presidente!

  32. odograph says:

    I’m not sure what your questions to me mean Herb. I was speakind specifically of OBL’s videotape released just before the second Bush election. I don’t think OBL is dumb, by saying “don’t vote for Bush” he knew he was getting Bush votes. And why not? Bush has been the best possible President for him. He’d removed a sectarian government that, whatever its obvious flaws, was not OBL-friendly. And he’s created an OBL playground in the middle of the middle east.

    In the harsh world of Realpolitik, Saddam was an anti OBL force.

    And if a peacemaker had been elected in 2004 it would have slowed a war that OBL desperately wanted.

  33. Herb says:

    I have never seen such hate and vennom as spewed by the Dr.(whatever name it is). He must live a very sad life to have such anger filling his everyday life. He surely is not American. Not even a democrat has that much hate within himself. (Well, maybe a few). I think the dr in in need of prescribing himself some medication, he surely need it. I am sure glad that he does not live next to me as I would wonder if he has all his facilties.

    However, there are facilities that care for such individuals that offer protection for them and others around them. Perhaps the Dr should check himself into such a facility or someone should do it for him. Maybe his family (if he has one) may provide some guidance for him to better take care of his mental health problems.

  34. ken says:

    Herb, why don’t you prove Bush did not lie by producing the Iraqi WMD?

    Bush said Iraq had WMD. Saddam denied he had any.

    It is a sad day Herb when the man you support has less credibility than Saddam Hussein.

  35. Herb says:

    Ken:

    Wake up and smell the coffee. I eaver made the charge thet “Bush Lied”, You did. Inasmuch as YOU made the charge, it’s your responsibility to “Prove It”, and to date you have not submitted one shread of evidense to prove YOUR CHARGE.

    Sure Bush said that Iraq had WMD, but so did Kerry, Gore, Durbin, Dean, Kennedy and the rest of the Democrats that all voted to take on Saddam. The excuse the Dems use “That Bush stretched the intelligence” just don’t get it. All the Dems making that charge had the duty and responsibility to make sure that the WMD intelligense was correct before voting on the War Resoloution. If they, as they are now saying, that the intel was faulty, then they failed in the performance of their jobs.

    Credibility, you should talk Ken, your credibility is as low as your Dem buddys that are born LIARS, just like you.

    By the way Ken, when are you going to stop sponging off of everyone in the US and do your duty to the country by joining up in the Armed Forces, or are you just to damned scared.

  36. odograph says:

    It was Bush’s case that the WMD threat was so dire that war was required. Clinton, if you may recall, only thought it needed a few bombing and/or cruise missle runs.

    (stand-off punishment with bombs or missles has definite advantages over boots-on-ground.)

  37. Herb says:

    Sure Odo, Clinton sent a few cruise missles after OBL, but what good did it do,,,NONE and it was Clinton and his hussy janet reno who passed up the chance to get OBL, and it was Clinton who got the aspirin factory. The point Odo is, Clinton sat on hed dead ass, played politics and let Monica take him on while doing absoloutly nothing about the terrorists movement.

    One can conclude with reasonable certainty that it was Clinton that made us get “Boots on the Ground” providing the Democrats with reason to continue with their ever increasing LIES.

  38. LJD says:

    Perhaps we would be doing better in the war effort if some of the folks who are convinced we are losing would open their ears. Rather than repeatedly spewing the left side anti-war talking points, why not study some current events?
    So, who here actually listened to the President’s Veteran’s Day adress, without rebutting it point by point in their weak little liberal mind?
    We all know the PR=resident is not known for public speaking. On this occasion I thought the speech was particularly to the point and well delivered. I was impressed, as were the troops present. What will it take for the left to be satisfied with our efforts in the GWOT, mass conversion of this country to Islam?

  39. odograph says:

    Herb, there were no WMDs, there was no Al-Queda connection, remember?

    Even if you aren’t clear on whether this was a lie or simply a mistake, the “need” for boots on ground is disproven.

  40. odograph says:

    LJD, I honestly think that is “cherry picking” the current intelligence.

    Consider this:

    The confidential survey, leaked to the British media last weekend, suggests that fewer than 1 percent of Iraqis think the U.S. and U.K. military involvement in their country is helping to improve security. Sixty-seven percent feel less secure precisely because of the occupation. And — most worrying of all — around 65 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on occupation forces.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/245746_iraq25.html

  41. LJD says:

    Enough with the polls already. They do not produce facts, and really don’t portray public opinion without bias. Consider the likely motivation for producing the poll. It wouldn’t take much work to produce a poll “proving” that a majority of Iraqis think torturing terrorists is not only justified but required…

    So show me the proof. I hear a lot of talking points, a lot of hysterical accusations and poisoined rhetoric, but no FACTS. If Bush lied, I want the irrefutable proof. I will be the first in line in support of impeachment. The problem is, it doesn’t exist and you know it.

    I am also not satisfied on the Al Qaeda and WMD issue. Al Qaeda is undoubtedly there now. We probably don’t know everything there is to know about Saddam’s support, either direct or indirect, before the war. We know he paid to have Isreali’s killed, an act of terror in itself.

    Just because we have not turned up “stockpiles” of WMD to date, does not mean they NEVER existed. I’m not willing to bet my life on it. We have found some WMDs, and certainly banned weapons. We knew of his intent to get them, and his constant game-playing with inspectors. The amnesia on the left is almost laughable if not so despicable.

    So show me the proof. No public opinion polls. No LAT articles. No CNN references. No interpretations of what was said. No hidden meanings. I want to see Bush’s actual words, and the irrefutable proof that he knew they were false a the time of the statement. Put up or shut up.

  42. odograph says:

    There is a slender line between a poll and a vote, LJD. Think about it.

  43. LJD says:

    So here’s the intent of the headline, and most others from the MSM, in case you missed it:
    Iraq is a huge failure, it is the fault of the evil U.S. Did we mention, Iraq is a huge failure?

    I guess you missed the part of the article that said “If this poll is accurate,…” Sounds like they haven’t even reviewed the methodology, but it still makes for a great headline. Why do you continually eat up this B.S.?

    What do you think the response would be if the respondents were asked if they would feel safe under the Iraqi government? Under Saddam? Whether they would feel safe, or be happy regardless of who was in power?

    A poll from the liberal British Independent is not a relaible source of information. Still waiting for that proof I mentioned. I will reiterate: put up or shut up.

  44. odograph says:

    It is just sad when people throw away data, and then say put up or shut up afterward.

    … but where I was heading was this: We say we are bringing democracy to Iraq. Are you ready to let them vote, on whether we should get out?

  45. Herb says:

    Odo:

    You are taliking out of you rear end, Saddam used WMD on the Kurds, Do you remember that?

    Also, there were meetings between OBL people and the Iraqs, that is a proven fact. Do you remember that.

    No, I doubt that you remember a thing that goes against you own ideas that Bush lied. No, I doubt that you would remember anything that would be contrary to your present fixed ideas and would prove you wrong, You see Odo, You are one of those who just don’t give a damn about how you hurt others or put others in danger, You, Odo, are SELFISH, as well as self sentered with your thoughts. I know there is no way to change your made up closed mind, you already know and have all the answers.

    The problem you have Odo is, YOU ARE WRONG and as Bush stated it, IRRESPONSIBILE.

  46. odograph says:

    So, did you call for us to go after Idi Amin for the same reasons, Herb? Did you demand that we stay in Somalia? Did you call for a mission to create democracy in Hati? Or a half dozen other places?

    See, if you have a “principle” Herb, you’ll stand up for it every time, and go after every country (or dictator) who violates that principle.

    On the other hand, if you are only throwing out justifications for Iraq, and Iraq alone … that is an “excuse.”