Opinion Talk

By Logical Dude

June 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Of course he lied. These “substantiated by intelligence information” had serious refutations in the intelligence community. The fake letter regarding Iraq seeking uranium from Africa is one example. Yes, there was evidence of the letter. But there was overwhelming evidence that the letter was fake. Guess which side the president took? These are the items that should be looked at. The overlooking of evidence contrary to what the administration wanted to hear. When there are 4 pieces of information, and only 1 piece is used, when the other 3 say something different, is how the administration wove its way through the situation.

So, when we say “Bush Lied” it’s because he knowingly mislead the nation.

By Copyleft

June 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Yes. He said Saddam was inextricably linked to Al-Qaeda, and he said “We know where the WMDs are.”

Both were false and he knew, at the time, that those statements were false.

And saying that “the intelligence agencies said the same thing” is a valid excuse only if you conveniently forget that the intelligence agencies were ORDERED to skew the data and reports in the first place! Some complied; some complained. But BushCo didn’t care either way; they wanted their war.

It’s a little late for Mr. Hiatt to come to this administration’s defense. They’re already proven guilty.

By Matthew

June 9, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

The allegations of Bush lying are broadly overstated. He emphasized the intelligence which best supported the administration’s decision to go to war.

Presidents don’t often disclose every downside when trying to gain the support of the citizenry, nor should they.

By Dave

June 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He used them on his own people. This is a fact that can’t be denied. He was ordered to destroy the weopons and he could not and would not prove it. How many resolutions were passed? How many times did he shoot at our planes? Bush was the only one with the balls to do anything about it. The only problem was he gave Saddam plenty of time to get rid of the evidence so he could make him look bad. You can’t say someone lied when you can’t prove that he knew what he was saying was wrong. That is the definition of a lie, isn’t it? If you made the same claims about anyone else then you would be sued. By the way, wouldn’t you call enough serin gas to kill a half a million people mass destruction?

By Morton Lowe

June 9, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

George W Bush should have waited for the CIA report from Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson. He wanted to go to this war before the report was received. He also wanted to go after a man and distroy him and in the process he distroyed a country. He should listen to the UN and we would not be in this mess. We also created a lot of enemies. Because of this we have wrecked our economy and manny outher things. Thanks

By Lily Toad

June 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Valerie Plame had nothing to do with the reports. Her husband was hired to lie about phony weapons and when he refused to do so, the White House revealed that his wife was an undercover agent to punish him.

By hillbilly ragger

June 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Why are we being asked to respond to a hack piece from one of the Iraq war cheerleaders, the WaPo’s Fred Hiatt?

Are you effin’ kidding me?

By Larry

June 9, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

Dave, the weapons you mentioned existed 10 years before, but not at the time of, the 2003 invasion – and yes, this is all documented.

At the time they left due to the impending invasion, the weapons inspection teams had complete access to every building under Saddam’s control, including unprecedented access to Royal buildings. It’s all in the UN reports you obviously didn’t read.

One of the known problems was that records were destroyed in the 1991 war and no one knew current locations, or the content of, many warheads. Regardless, nothing – I repeat, NOTHING – was ever found that was manufactured after 1991, including the sarin you mentioned. (Actually, you said serin, which is a bird, but I guessed at what you meant). Iraq never could produce high quality sarin, but even in binary warheads where the precursor chemicals are unmixed, the maximum shelf life is about five years. The warheads discovered post invasion were more than twice that old and useless as weapons.

You should have also wondered why U.S. and British warplanes struck targets in North Iraq, where Saddam had virtually no supporters. I still have a copy of the Lord Butler report from the British government that states these were Al-Qaeda camps supported by Saddam’s lifelong enemy the Kurds – just in case you want to base your position on some facts.

By Road Scholar

June 10, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

Were the reports used the original reports, or were they the “improved” reports after editing by the Neocons?Did Bush still have the originals? Did they review all e-mails for/from Bush, Cheney, Rove etc.?

I think not!

By believeWho

June 10, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

Each responder is quoting the items that supports their view. The best way to get to the facts (if possible) is to look at all information (pro and con) and then make your decision. You may be surprise to see how bias many news report are.

By JSC

June 10, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

Boosh cherry picked the “intelligence” he wished to use.

I have absolutely no use for the UN and want them off American soil. However, that being said, Americans MUST hold Boosh and Cheney accountable for their actions (including a trial where ALL the “evidence” comes out) and if they are found guilty of high crimes then they MUST go to jail. If not, this country’s “justice system” is nothing more than a joke (which many of us already perceive anyway). And no, I am not a democrat. I am actually a TRUE conservative. Not a neo-con.

By AH

June 10, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

HA HA

So the best the Dems. can do is substantiate the President and the comments made to the run up to the war. Don’t worry folks I think that President Bush is big enough to forgive you all without needing an actual apology.

By jon

June 10, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

This is what the same Sen. Jay Rockefeller had to say in 2002: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.” And: “Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.” And: “We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability.”

So who lied?

By Hoof Hearted

June 10, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

I do NOT think he lied. I DO think he was woefully misled. Did the US jump the gun early on Iraq?-possibly. But after 911, do we really have the leisure of wait and see??? I agree with believewho - look at all of the info if we have it all…

By ConservativeDem

June 10, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this

Well! Where did you get your information about all these aforementioned events. Surely they are not misinformation or bad intelligence on your part. Prove what you say is true from your own eyes and ears. Otherwise you are taking someone word for it. Are they lying? We know the media shapes the news and not just report it. Did you actually hear and see Bush lie or did some tell you he did. I say you are lying and very ignorant.

By yankee

June 10, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

Saddam was just moments away from invading the U.S. so we had to act. And look at how much it’s helped the world overall.

By CherokeeDave

June 10, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

When are you nano-minded libs gonna give it up. Clinton had three shots and didn’t have the kahuna’s to do what it takes to be a leader. “W” had to jump through multiple UN and US Congressional “approval hoops” before he went to war which gave Hussein the time he needed to bury, hide and clean up his evidence. You lunatics refuse to accept that AQ cells existed in every Middle Eastern country prior to the war, yes that means Iraq as well, let it go. We’ll see who’s closer to the truth when the classified data is made public; unless of course the files are “rosewood lost” should a Dem get in office next year. Another Point: Have we had a another 9/11 since 9/11. The AQ cells worldwide are NOW in total chaos because “W” did the right thing where Clinton was hiding behind his precious polls afraid to be any kind of a world leader making the tough decision. Final Question: Hey AJC, where do you pick these “lives in Atlanta” characters anyway, off your local liberal readership contact sheets or what?? McAdams needs to broaden his information resource library beyond the Bookman lefty chronicles and CBS.

By Chris

June 10, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Many of the Democrats who claim Bush lied (Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example) said the exact same things about Saddam and WMDs as Bush did. So if Bush lied, so did half of the Democratic party. Many we should impeach everyone who was in Congress in 2002?? Give me a break.

And as for the posters about the Wilsons…Valerie Wilson had nothing to do with weapons. She sent her husband on a trip where he did file a report..a report that the Senate Intelligence Committee said in 2002 REINFORCED Bush’s claim about uranium in Niger, NOT refuted it. And it was a State Dept employee who has always hated Bush who was the original leaker (and, for the record, she wasn’t undercover, nor did anyone—except Ms Wilson—claim such).

By RU Kiddinme

June 10, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

Pres Bush may not have lied, but embellishing the truth is just as bad. If his claims were substantiated on phony intelligece information, would it not come to reason that he appointed those advisors who translated the data and presented it to him? This administration has a profound propensity to only hear what it cares to hear and then greatly enlarge the facts to advance their position. That is just a longer verbal gymnastic for the term LIES! Sen. McCain has bought into this archaic diplomacy, and intends to leave abandoned the policies of peace. Yes, we must have a stong military, Yes, we must show goodwill to our allies, however, we must also exort diplomacy prior to the use of force. Going forward until we win is confusing to us all. Especially since the intelligence was skewed. What now is our objective? Anybody?

By Fred

June 10, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Bad intel or not, with Saddam in violation of numerous UN resolutions, shooting at out jets and the possibility that he might be restarting his nuke program, why would any reasonable person take a chance on allowing him to proceed? During the Clinton and early Bush years, even Democrats thought he was a threat. No we have a bunch of monday morning quarterbacks in a feeding frenzy and for what? Political payback and point scoring. Wake up America, the threat is still out there. Stop it now.

By zeke

June 10, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

NO BUSH DID NOT LIE!! He acted and used information given to him by our intelligence services that during the Clinton administration were decimated by Clinton and the liberal socialist in his bunch! The very woman who caused all the “seperation” of the various intelligence agencies was also the one so anxious to show blame during the “hearings” in congress! Why cannot people use their minds and think through these smokescreens put up by liberals?? Just remember this, BUSH WON IN EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS OF RECOUNT!! BUSH WILL BE MISSED, YOU WILL WANT HIM BACK! Especially if the anti American, anti capitalist, liberal, leftist , socialist, communist democrat is elected!

By R_U_KIDDING

June 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Every posting from every person here is 100% speculation. Do any of you have access to the information that the president was privy to? So all you Bush haters please make up what ever you want, but the truth is you are all bending reality to fit your liberal cause.

By Hmmmmm

June 10, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

Good Grief people. We finally get a REAL leader who has the backbone to do the RIGHT thing and rid this world of a MASS MURDERER. For the life of me, I will never understand how anybody can fault President Bush. I will guaranty that the people of Iraq are certainly glad that Bush was the man in office!

By Crafty

June 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Who cares? At least we killed a bunch of muslim terrorists. That’s all that really matters. Saddam is gone and now we have about 4 more dictators to get rid of. Lets go!

By susan

June 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

Wow, it is almost as if this op-ed columnist and I live on different planets!

George Bush and his public servants should be tried for treason and impeached.

This list is so long which details the harm they have done to this country, to this country’s people, not just the ones in New Orleans, to the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that it isn’t worth going into for someone who denies that there is even a huge huge problem.

Again, the President’s job is to uphold and enforce the laws of this land which are passed in the Congress and reviewed by the Courts as needed.

The abuse of power that Bush & etc. have exercised has earned them the right to live the next 8 years with Obama at the helm!

Let’s see if we can’t turn this state blue in November!

By Hmmmmm

June 10, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

Zeke, I couldn’t have said it any better! RUKidding puts it very well. As a southerner who grew up democrat, I am very ASHAMED and EMBARRASSED of what this party has become! I can only hope that the people of this country WAKE UP . Obama is a SOCIALIST in every sense of the word.

By R_U_KIDDING

June 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Susan, you must have a good connection, because you are smoking some strong stuff. Is bush a dictator, let me answer that for you, NO. He had to get the approval of congress before he can pee. So lets impeach congress and the senate along with Bush, I am all for that. All you Bush haters blame 1 person for the deeds of congress and the senate. Did you all sleep through your poly-sci classes? I am all for correcting wrongs buy put the blame where it belongs, the senate, congress and then the president in that order.

By Hmmmmm

June 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Susan, Hopefully this state will NEVER again be blue! You probably need to move up to the northeast. We still have way to many smart rational thinking people in this state.

By luangtom

June 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Let’s step back one administraton. We were told by then President Clinton that he would have the troops home from where? Kosovo, by Christmas. It is now twelve years later and they are still there. So, please, let’s get on with life and quit pointing fingers at who or who did not lie to the public. They ALL did. ALL. Democrats, Republicans and Media. Matters not Iraq, Kosovo or Vietnam. They ALL lied and we are gullible enough to take it all in and then react with dismay when someone points it out to us….tsk, tsk, America.

By Phil

June 10, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

When it concerns going to War, failing to tell the American Public of the significant dissenting intelligence opinions of various issues, and making absolute statements of fact, which the intelligence agencies (IA) did not, is lying, and is criminal. Bush and his gang repeatedly stated there was no doubt of WMD-“we know where they are …” The IAs never told Bush that; used works like “strongly suspected. They never told the American people that the only evidence on the alleged mobile weapons labs came from one source-“curveball.” The U.S. government never spoke with this source. British intelligence told us the source was a drunk and highly unreliable. Yet, Powell’s speech relied heavily on this one source. The declassified Intelligence Report that was given to the press (American people) just before the invasion deleted all reservations about the intelligence, and changed the wording to delete phrases such as “we believe” and changed to “there are” WMD. Have readers forgotten the aluminum tube lies; that Iraq had aluminum tubes of the type for nuclear fuel production. Bush and co. left out the fact that the best experts on the issue, from the Energy Dept, didn’t believe the tubes were for nuclear purposes. Forget the lies about the alleged “imminent threat” from Iraq. They didn’t use this phrase, but they used language of the same effect. Even though IA’s told Bush Iraq would not use WMD or give them to terrorists unless we attached them. The IA’s information did not assess that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program; yet this was stated as a fact by the Bush team. I could go on for hours. The reason so many Bush supporters parrot the company line—they got bad intelligence-is because they don’t want to read the torturious details. Read one of the many books on the run-up to war. Why did Bush refuse to aid the U.N. inspectors if he had such good info on WMD. The answer is obvious. He didn’t have good info, and he would be exposed as a liar.

By GaLiberal

June 10, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Hiatt concludes: ‘…the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

The problem with this conclusion is it overlooks (glosses over is more accurate) that many intelligence officers were sounding the alarm well prior to the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Much of Bush’s so-called intelligence came from a single source; a source that wanted Saddam ousted so he told a story they wanted to hear. Little if any of his story was verified by independent sources. The Niger yellowcake incident is a perfect example. A cornerstone of proof Saddam was trying to get WMDs, when checked by US intelligence there was no foundation to support the claim. The Brits even disowned it as speculative and unverified. The UN inspection team (on which there were several Americans) came up empty, too. Yet, that didn’t stop Bush and his cronies. Quite simply, Bush didn’t do his due diligence to verify the accuracy of the information. It got in the way of the pre-determined outcome. Another was linking Saddam to bin Laden. The only ‘contact’ Saddam had was to tell bin Laden he wasn’t welcome. Saddam didn’t need some radical stirring up the Iraqis and bringing him just more attention. Yet, Bush and his cronies blew this up into certain proof Saddam was sponsoring bin Laden.

Is it a ‘lie’ to use information you know hasn’t been checked? When you are President and making a case for pre-emptive invasion and occupation another country, hell yes. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al. wanted to invade Iraq and selectively used intelligence to support this goal. To me, that’s worse than lying; it’s outright abuse of power and betraying the people’s trust. And that’s impeachable.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Haitt’s twisted logic is living proof.

By AH

June 10, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Lets stop say that it is every bodies fault. There is blame enough to go around. That is BS. There is no blame, there is no need to point fingers.

You need to deal with things the way they are and stop apologizing for the way things play out.

By t

June 10, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Chaney and Wolfowitz oversaw a special team at the Pentagon that tailored the “intelligence” that the President actied on to fit their war agenda. Had the President taken a broad consensus of intelligence from the professional men and women in the CIA, FBI and military intelligence, a completly differet picture would have emerged, a picture which would likely NOT have led to an invasion of Iraq. Instead the President acted ONLY on the fabricated “intelligence” fed to him by his inner circle.

By gttim

June 10, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Bush lied, Cheney lied. Colin Powell lied. Rice lied. All should be tried. Powell has admitted what he said before the UN was not true.

By Tyrone

June 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Erything is bush’s fault, and when obama is elected im gon need new person to blame for all my prollems

no what im sayin????

By JP

June 10, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Read the ‘concludes’ part at the end of the story. The REAL point of the story is that our intelligence is ‘unintelligent’ and that no matter who is next in the White House, they will be making decisions based on what our intelligence organizations provide.

Were the Democrats who supported the war reading the President’s notes and basing their decisions on those? Or were they reading reports directly from the CIA? My guess is the CIA docs.

Shoddy intel will make either Obama or McCain a ‘bad President.’ Perhaps their (and our) fate is already sealed.

By hotlanta

June 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t Cynthia McKinney right all along about this war and folks had a fit. Off with her head they screamed. Hiliary would be a great President. She lied about sniper fire and Bush lied about the war. Looks like the same DNA to me.

By hotlanta

June 10, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t Cynthia McKinney right all along about this war and folks had a fit. Off with her head they screamed. Hiliary would be a great President. She lied about sniper fire and Bush lied about the war. Looks like the same DNA to me.

By thogwummpy

June 10, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

He absolutely did NOT lie. To date (and I ask folks), not one person can identify such an alleged lie. Every time I challenge for that specific lie, there’s nothing…any claim, wilts upon critical examination.
Moreover, the stockpiles of chemical munitions PHOTOGRAPHED and documented by inspectors before they left in 1998, remain missing. Think not? Look something up! Even UNMOVIC Executive Director Demitri Perricos (sorry code pinkies, he’s a professional…and you AIN’T!) makes public statements that Saddam’s WMD remain an open question…and yet our pathologically partisan wired news media refuses to include that. By the way, the Neo-lib anti-war faction claims that Bush didn’t heed contradictory intelligence. Yet, notice how no one—-NO ONE—-has produced a shred of that alleged pre-war “evidence” that supposedly vindicated Saddam and proved him innocent. Why? It’s not there folks. Until the 1998 WMD surfaces, the Left gnashes it’s teeth with innaccuracy. But, historians notoriously include ALL the material that activist journalists omit from the table. Just because you guys are gatekeeping the content, doesn’t make you right in the long run…and bank on the story when every context and detail get infused back in the historical analysis. Bet your nestegg on it!

By Zeke

June 10, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

This is ridiculous. Of course he lied and anyone who is HONEST WITH THEMSELVES will know that he lied. Thats why its all falling apart, because as the old folks will tell you, a house that built on sand cannot stand . For all of those who are saying that Bush was misled - do you think that makes it better? That we have a gullible fool in office? Personally, I would rather that he be a liar than an idiot, but apparently he may be both.

By Joe in PA

June 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

“Point: Have we had a another 9/11 since 9/11.[sic]” I think you meant to use a question mark there not a period.

But this bit of spurious logic remains my favorite saw of the Bushies scrambling for any shred of “fact” to stop them from admitting they backed the wrong guy. How about this guys, after the original WTC attack was there another domestic attack under Clinton’s watch? Nope. So by the skewed neocon logic his tactics were equally effective (if not much more given the much small resources involved and the less effective original attack on his watch) as Dubya’s. So either you admit this point is spurious logic or give Clinton his due.

By RU Kiddinme

June 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Zeke, you pegged Dubya the best. As for the other dolts who think that this war was a “GOOD THING” you are obviously mentally bankrupt. I served in Kuwait. Have known many others who have served in Iraq. I beleive in my country. Duty, Honor, Country. However, that duty is the responsibility of all servicemen…to include the Commander In Chief. He sent our military to war over imagined intelligence. Flawed intelligence. Ghosts. Rummy and friends (Yep, Tricky Dick) got us in up to our eyeballs. Amazingly, THERE IS NO EXIT STRATEGY!! Has anyone thought that there was never intended to be one? War is NOT the answer. What are we doing, we invaded Iraq, killed Sadaam and his circle, yet the guerilla warfare continues? Then there is Afghanistan. That makes sense, although it amazes me that we cannot find a 6’6” Saudi in the mountains. Yet, you dolts continue to stand your party line that Bush was “The Man” for the job. Puh-leeeze. How’s our economy doing? Education? Gas? Etc. Now I know you blind idiots are going to attack, but it will only prove my point as to mindless, blind loyalty to a man that is inadequate to serve as the leader of this nation.

By JB

June 10, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

If John the crack dealer is on the corner selling crack and the police drive by and tell him we are coming to bust you everyday for 6 months are you really that surprised that by the time the cops come to bust him, he is clean?
Why are you surprised that after months of hearing the US was coming for him that he was able to export his weapons to other countries?

By marko

June 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

Hmmmmm seems to think all smart rational people think and act as he does. We all tend to divide people into opposing camps. WE have the smart rational people that agree with us, and the idiots that don’t. The only thing people share in common is the fact that we are all liars. We have all lied and we will all lie in the future. The fact is most lies are pretty harmless. The only really dangerous kind are the ones we chose to believe. That’s what scares me about Bush and his few remaining kool-aid drinkers they truly believe their own lies.

By John Coffey

June 10, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

If Bush lied, then so did the CIA and the intelligence services of England, France, Germany, Russia, and Italy — all of whom independently concluded that Iraq had WMD. Saddam had a vested interest in appearing to be a threat to hold off the wolves across the border in Iraq in a bid for regional superiority. He intentionally put out signals that suggested he had a certain military capability, and intelligence services around the world picked it up. Bush didn’t lie, Saddam did. (Although the issue of the actual contents of that convoy to Syria in March before our invasion has never been settled. Many of Saddam’s former officers have said the convoy contained Iraq’s WMD and moved them to Syria under the guise of earthquake aid). Read the stories and reports, not the headlines and summaries.

By John Coffey

June 10, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Ga Liberal, your facts are incorrect. Bin Laden personally inspected Iraq’s air force bases in the 90s for possible use by al Qaeda. Iraq for years provided shelter to wanted terrorists (including one who suddenly committed “suicide” on the eve of the war by shooting himself in the head twice and the mastermind of the Achille Lauro who was captured near Baghdad in 2003). Saddam also provided substantial payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There is no question he supported terrorists and had talks with al Qaeda. It’s in the same reports folks on here are selectively quoting.

By Jim Cole

June 10, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

If 9/11 took place on President Obama’s watch, what would he do? He could call his former spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright. We know how he feels. He could call his other advisor and friend, Father Plegler. We know how he feels. He could call his Countrywide friend, Mr. Johnson. Of course, we know that he will not trust any intelligence(cause that what he did before), consequently we are in deep dodo! He will negotiate with anybody, anywhere!

By Joe in PA

June 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

To John Coffey: You followed up one relatively thoughtful and correct post with one that is blatantly false and illogical.

“Bin Laden personally inspected Iraq’s air force bases in the 90s for possible use by al Qaeda.”

Bin Laden was an avowed and vocal enemy of Saddam as he is head of a devout Muslim organization that was rabidly opposed to the secular Baath party of Hussein and Iraq. IF Bin Laden visited any areas in Iraq it would’ve been in the north where Saddam had no power and was actually engaged against al-Qaeda like terrorists who may have coordinated with Bin Laden (although this is also a controversial statement not supported by any public evidence currently).

You were correct that Saddam was putting up a false projection of power, however you overlook the fact that much of the intelligence community believed this and they were completely ignored by Bush in favor of scant evidence to support his pre-formed decision to invade Iraq to create a wartime legacy.

By MUSTARD GAS = WMD

June 10, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

I’m not a Bush supporter - he’s NOT a true conservative, but get a life on “the lie”…

Of couse Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - what do you call the mustard gas they used on the Kurds? You know, one of the reasons Sadam was tried and convicted of.

And Iraq is MUCH BETTER without the madman.

By CJ

June 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Bush simply hasn’t told the whole truth! He’s an oil man from a family of oil men. They’re all in bed with the Saudi’s, and Bush simply wanted to gain control over the oil in Iraq (like his father before hime) to secure his own personal weath and future.

By John Coffey

June 10, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Joe in Pa, illogical? Perhaps, based on our view of the world through our Westernized prism. I agree with you about al Qaeda’s misgivings about Iraq’s secularism. False? I think not. That information came directly from Saddam’s top air force general and was included in the comprehensive report. Perhaps it was, for at least a while, a bit of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Also, I don’t think the intelligence community overlooked the data points that suggested their intelligence was wrong. I think they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it was too high a cost to risk al Qaeda possibly collaborating with or gaining safe haven in a country that had historically supported terrorism and that has/had WMD, that has shown a willingness to use them, and that was far more industrially developed than Afghanistan.

By Bruce Devder

June 10, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

By DJ

June 10, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

You know Bush Lied. He deliberately omitted any information that didn’t fit his administrations worldview. He consistently lied by omission and comission. It is laughable that anyone would dare try to argue the contrary. If America continues to be this gullible then they will continue to get the kind of poor leadership they deserve. Like John MCCain…who really believes in this Iraq misadventure…How sad and lost can people be…sigh!!!

By StewieGriifin

June 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Lets not forget Sadam’s memoirs he wrote in prison awaiting execution. He admitted that he made it appear he had WMD’s to deter other middle eastern coutries from attacking Iraq. And, once Bush threw down the gauntlet, he could not back down and admit he had nothing or he would look like a weak fool to the rest of the middle east. So, he admitted to keeping up the lies and suffering the consequences instead of tucking his tail and running. Sounds like Bush had to chose between erroring on the side of caution or run the risk of this mad man getting more sophisticated weapons (even if it was a lie by Sadam). He made the right choice.

By Susan

June 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

YES, he lied.

By tom ga hunter

June 10, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

How many of you have served or more importantly your childeren served in the ARMY??.. There are a lot of Saxby Chambliss comments here..

By Jonathan Albrecht

June 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

“Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them on his own people.” Technically all true. Only the fact that he had the weapons and used then almost two decades prior to our invasion of his defenseless country. Not an immanent threat. Please explain the Office of Strategic Plans set up by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush to lead a propaganda effort to convince the American people that the invasion was justified. An office that paid Chalabi hundreds of thousands of dollars per month to bring deserters from Iraq to this country. Each and every one lied about Iraq. Bush carried on a campaign of deception in which he still is engaged and that is lying.

By Michael

June 10, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t the infamous Downing Street memo confirm that Bush declared his intention—in May, I believe, of 2001—to go to war with Iraq? Given that widely attested statement of intent, and given the specific content of his arguments for war after 9/11, it seems clear that he lied deliberately and with malice aforethought.

By speakeasy

June 10, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

This is a pretty easy discussion.

There is no black and white, there is only (a lot of) grey. Did Bush have inaccurate intelligence? - Yes! Did we get manipulated by other countries with their agendas and false data? (Like the Israelis - most likely). Did Bush push his own agenda and spin the media? (Sure - just like every other President - in fact Tricky Bill brought it to an art form). Did he believe what he was doing was/is right, and did he act on it? - Yes, like any lader should. Did Congress support him? -Yes, and most especially some of the more strident ones that are against the war now. They changed sides simply for political reasons, NOT moral reasons. Did Saddam bring most of this upon himself by invading Kuwait, then using WMD on his own citizens, and refusing to cooperate with the U.N.? - Absolutely! Did Bush and his advisors do a miserable job of advance and contingency planning for this military “engagement”? - again, and unfortunately, absolutely….

there is enough blame to go around, from Saddam, to the U.N. security council, to Intelligence, to the military command, to senate and congress and the oval office….more than enough.

The question now should be - how can we fix this mess without making things worse than they were before?

I hear a deafening silence from ALL politicians on that question.

By speakeasy

June 10, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

This is a pretty easy discussion.

There is no black and white, there is only (a lot of) grey. Did Bush have inaccurate intelligence? - Yes! Did we get manipulated by other countries with their agendas and false data? (Like the Israelis - most likely). Did Bush push his own agenda and spin the media? (Sure - just like every other President - in fact Tricky Bill brought it to an art form). Did he believe what he was doing was/is right, and did he act on it? - Yes, like any lader should. Did Congress support him? -Yes, and most especially some of the more strident ones that are against the war now. They changed sides simply for political reasons, NOT moral reasons. Did Saddam bring most of this upon himself by invading Kuwait, then using WMD on his own citizens, and refusing to cooperate with the U.N.? - Absolutely! Did Bush and his advisors do a miserable job of advance and contingency planning for this military “engagement”? - again, and unfortunately, absolutely….

there is enough blame to go around, from Saddam, to the U.N. security council, to Intelligence, to the military command, to senate and congress and the oval office….more than enough.

The question now should be - how can we fix this mess without making things worse than they were before?

I hear a deafening silence from ALL politicians on that question.

By ChrisB

June 10, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

This is the worst administration since Jimmy Carter. This Iraq war was going to happen no matter what. You cant put buddies and friends in key positions. You need people with insight and vision running these key positions. This man can say that he prevented another attack and he lowered taxes, which has its place. This Iraq war tanked his administration. All you have to do is look at history and you knew what was going to happen.

By Joyce

June 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Get ready to build a bomb shelter if all you dreamers elect the Demo candidate….

By RJ

June 10, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Fools Why waste time just ask who they voted for and you will know if he lied!!! Also ChrisB if you were around in the Carter years you recall very well ie: 17% interst rates oil embargo American being held in Iran ect ect WHAT A NIMROD!

By Walt

June 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

“Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them on his own people.”

This always makes me tired. Saddam did not consider the Kurds to be “his own people.”

You are supposed to be smarter than regurgitating such trip would indicate.

The -best- thing you can say for Bush’s War is he went shoting craps with the lives of our soldiers.

That is what hoping Sunni and Shia would live peaceably was. It was a gammble of the type you simply don’t make in statecraft.

Bush belongs in prison just for that, and here are his cell mates: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Addington, Wurmser, Hadley, Card, Feith, Franks and Libby, just to get things started.

Walt

By woodie

June 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

How about the very real scenario where the Intelligence agencies were asked to file reports consistent with the White House agenda? Who was in charge? The grunts filing reports or the people asking for those reports? Bush is at the top of the lying chain. Nice try though.

By Hmmmmm

June 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Marko

I will stand by my statement about smart rational Americans. We WILL NOT vote a SOCIALIST into office! I never called anyone an idiot, I only submit that if you vote for a SOCIALIST to lead our country, your rational thought process may be suspect. Americans have the RIGHT to vote for the LEADER of their choice. IMHO, if you vote for OBAMA, you vote for everything that this country DOES NOT stand for. If you call yourself a democrat and vote for OBAMA, then you need to change your affiliation to the Communist party. Don’t insult the millions of democrats that are true Americans and still believe that this is the GREATEST country in the WORLD! Your cynical view point about how everyone lies only perpetuates this world culture that its “OK” to lie if it doesn’t hurt anyone. LIES are ALL dangerous no matter how insignificant you or someone else may feel about it!

By AH

June 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

I really feel for any of you Bush haters who are under 30, ‘cause you will live to see history vindicate George W.

It is very difficult to objectively talk about a President particularly in a polarized environment like today. In about 40 years we will see that W is a top 15 president. Not sure exactly where in the top 15 he will end up but it will be up there.

I hope that the shock of finding out that Bush was a good president doesn’t cause you to much pain.

By Copyleft

June 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Stewie: I’ve got to hand it to you. This the first time I’ve heard Bush’s decision to stampede into an unujustified and unnecessary invasion, based on rigged and faulty intelligence, wasting thousands of U.S. lives (and TENS of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives) and BILLIONS of dollars…

“Erring on the side of caution.”

That’s a mighty flexible language we’ve got, ain’t it?

By Copyleft

June 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Hmmm: The Socialist Party candidate is Brian Moore of Florida. Confusing the Democratic Party candidate, Barack Obama, with either a socialist or a communist is laughable. It reveals your ignorance.

“LIES are ALL dangerous.”

They certainly are—like the lie that Obama is a covert Muslim operative, an America-hating commie, a black-nationalist agitator, etc. etc.

By Iserved too

June 10, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

RU Kiddinme, you said, “I served in Kuwait. Have known many others who have served in Iraq. I beleive in my country. Duty, Honor, Country. However, that duty is the responsibility of all servicemen…to include the Commander In Chief. He sent our military to war over imagined intelligence. Flawed intelligence. Ghosts. Rummy and friends (Yep, Tricky Dick) got us in up to our eyeballs.”

As others have, I won’t comment on the quality of the grammar in yours, or any other, blog except to say, learn to spell!

Well, I served too, in Viet Nam, while you were still in diapers.

Yes there was flawed intelligence. It was flawed because your beloved Bill Clinton, the same “I never had sex with that woman.” Bill Clinton, cut our intelligence capability back so deeply that there was no possibility the intelligence could have been good. And, I can hardly wait for “Hussein** Obama to occupy the White House and have to depend on our emasculated intelligence network to make decisions about international matters, that he has absolutely no experience with. Bend over, put you head between your legs, and kiss your okole goodbye.

By Copyleft

June 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

AH, you’ll need to live a VERY long time to see Bush “vindicated by history.” I hope you do last that long, but I think the sun is due to burn out in about 5 million years.

In about 40 years, we’ll know what we already know today: Bush presided over an attack on America, and launched an unnecessary invasion against an unrelated target in return. Historians will agree that Bush was the worst president of the 20th century (and God willing, the worst ever; I’d hate to think someone even WORSE will be elected someday!).

I hope that realization doesn’t cause you too much pain, AH.

By Hmmmmm

June 10, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the information Copyleft…. I feel very enlightened. I will stand by my research on this man. If you had done ANY research on the man, then you would come to the same conclusion.

By woodie

June 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

The Republican’s on here are going to have a really hard time convincing American’s that Bill Clinton’s blow job was a worst mistake than Iraq. The Republican’s have taken this country down the wrong path for too long. Sky high deficit spending. Gas gouging prices. Resession. Destruction of the middle class. Wealthy class engourgement. War and death. I don’t know who in their right mind would put another Republican in office. There is nothing democratic or American about the Republican agenda. It’s fascism at best. Especially the part where Bush sits on the hill ignoring 70% of the people in this country.

By greg

June 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

nice quotes Bruce Devder….MOST democrats had no clue that thier IDOLS had/have the same stances on Hussein and WMD’s…..

They have NO response when the same words come from a democrats mouth

By whatever

June 10, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

woodie

Please get your facts straight! Bill Clinton committed the ultimate LIE, to a GRAND JURY! We would have been disbarred! He was impeached! He and his wife are DEVOID of any morality! President Bush brought back some INTEGRITY and HONOR to the highest office in the LAND! Right or wrong, this President makes decisions based on the RIGHT thing to do, not how POPULAR they may be! President Clinton is an embarrassment, and HE will go down as the WORST President this country has ever elected to office!

By jim

June 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

don’t confuse the libs with quotes from their own party members…how convienient they choose to overlook these.

By woodie

June 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

And what fascist group decided to impeach Bill Clinton for an illicit blow job and ignore Bush/Rumsfeld’s enormous costly and deadly blunder which threw us into recession and has most the Muslim world thirsty for our blood. Enjoy your $4 gas prices and your broken Social Security. Enjoy the fact that 50 million American’s are walking the streets without Health Insurance. The Republicans have shown such an atrocious record I actually feel sorry for McCain having to live down the legacy. You’ve got your work ahead of you. Let’s put Bill Clinton’s mistakes in perspective. If your best contribution in the past 16 years is impeaching a sitting president for a personal indescretion, then you guys just aren’t trying. Why not get on a the positive side of some argument for a change. I’d actually like that although I think it’s a bit late.

By Gary

June 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

The question is not “if” or “why” Bush lied, the question is what should we do to him for lying.

By Dreamon

June 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Speakeasy, you seem to be one of the few who speak the truth in this blog. The same liberal Reps and Senators who are crowing the “Bush Lied” mantra are the EXACT SAME ones who reviewed the EXACT SAME intelligence data (however flawed for your eloquently stated reasons) in their closed intelligence briefings and voted FOR the war. Just remember since 9/11, there have been NO attacks on US soil—Bush will be vindicated if for only that fact.

By Crafty

June 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Link to this

Dreamon, The only thing liberals are good at is whining. Nothing else. Liberalism has NEVER accomplished anything. It’s only created more problems. Can any lib commenting tell me ONE great thing liberalism has accomplished?

By Crafty

June 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this

Liberals will do nothing to Bush. Why? Because liberals are scared little twits who talk big yet have not backbone to do anything. So all you crybabies can moan about how Bush lied but you worthless scumbags will reap what you sow once Obama Hussein gains the White House.

Here’s to 8 great years of peace at home and dead muslim terrorists abroad.

By sunshine and thunder

June 10, 2008 6:38 PM | Link to this

So who else was lying?

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

By Mobama

June 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Link to this

The leftists don’t need no stinkin facts, they have been shouting “bush lied” for years without a shred of fact to support it. (Jay Bookman, are you listening). Now they want to yak about civility in politics. You called the president a chimp and a Nazi. Reality challenged but loud and proud.

By Robopop

June 10, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

I agree with Gary. But the reason for impeaching Clinton was that he lied to the people and to the courts - under oath! That is the same thing that Bush is doing and has done. He has repeatedly lied to the public but, sadly, no one has tried to impeach him. The Republicans were clamoring for the head of Bill Clinton. Funny how they suddenly got quiet when it is one of their own…..

By TR

June 10, 2008 7:14 PM | Link to this

If Republican, then this topic is a non-issue, that is, as long as, the bombs aren’t falling on your house and destroying everything you work so hard for.

Bush lied like hell!

I remember the run up to war very well! The fear mongering allegations made by the Republican Party was nothing more than a Carl Rove strategy “playing tough Republican’s” in order to take control of the Senate and House. Use 9/11 to invade a defenseless country. Further, the Democrats that voted to give Bush authorization for war did so because they were vulnerable of losing seats in the up coming election for being seen as too weak. People from all around the World and in this Country protested (like never before) because we could see through this LAME President’s mind!!!

BUSH should be hanged by neck until dead!

By sunshine and thunder

June 10, 2008 7:22 PM | Link to this

Ain’t it funny how the Dems were so tough and ready to disarm Saddam and, once the going got tough, they ran up under their rocks like a colony of snakes?

No it’s not funny. It’s a sad commentary on the party and their finger-in-the-wind governing. There is no leadership among such people.

By Dreamon

June 10, 2008 8:00 PM | Link to this

To sunshine and thunder, thank you for being diligent enough to inform the denying leftist how their most hallowed leaders shared the same opinions that most world leaders at the time felt about Iraq. There is NO EVIDENCE Bush “lied”. He was presented with incomplete evidence by the intelligence service—the same intelligence service that languished under B. Clinton with slashed funds despite numerous and ominous warning signs (the first World Trade Center Bombing, the Cole attack, the embassy bombings of N Africa). Even if Bush supposedly lied, considering what an imbecile that the left consider of Bush, what does that say of the analytical acumen of the nearly entire Democrat party who voted FOR the war? Only when the times got tough did they start to bail. By the way, unreported in the drive-by media, the near complete eradication of Al-Queda in Iraq currently. And don’t give be this BS about al-Queda not being there prior to the war, Zarqawi was given sanctuary and supplies by Saddam long before the invasion. Bush WILL be vindicated!

By whatever

June 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Link to this

Woodie and Robopop….

You two are PERFECT examples of how incompetent people get elected.

Good Grief, guys/girls please get your FACTS right!

By Deidre

June 10, 2008 8:18 PM | Link to this

I for one supported (and still support) Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Saddam’s behavior leading up to the invasion (repeatedly denying weapons inspections, etc.) were suspect & just cause to take necessary action.

I personally hate that Bush’s term is almost over because I am fearful that a certain would-be terrorist appeaser candidate (by the name of Barack Obama) will be elected. If voters would overlook the feel good story of having our 1st black President (certainly long overdue) & listen to the proposed changes that he has planned, it is truly frightening.

I hope that John McCain prevails (and not because he is white, no racist agenda here) because I want another President who will do whatever is necessary to protect America & it’s allies. And if that means also invading Iran, then so be it.

By Cactus

June 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we just pull all military back into the US, stop all aid to other countries, dismiss the UN (why not do that any way), with draw our UN support, pull all ambassodors, and just live in our own country. Then if soneone attacts us blow the living hell out of them.

By raptor

June 10, 2008 8:27 PM | Link to this

TR, you are a complete “dung” head, my 2 year old knows more than you.

By Bluebonnet

June 10, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this

Maybe we should give obama a chance, so when he starts walking on water, will he know where the rocks are?

By Jimi

June 10, 2008 8:49 PM | Link to this

AH said: “In about 40 years we will see that W is a top 15 president.”

(Note to self) Find out what hallucinogenic drugs AH is on and get a prescription that will last me until Jan. 20, 2009.

By TR

June 10, 2008 9:12 PM | Link to this

raptor, is a big coward. Without a doubt, your 2 year old baby raptor will grow up to be like the big dumb raptor.

By