Journal capoccia's Journal: Has Bush Been Dodging? 6
Bush seems to be trying his best to save face in the very embarassing situation that has developed around the alledged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This is not a justification for lying, but I do not believe the administration is guilty of anything quite that sinister. It seems more like a hefty dose of incompetence.
Dale Lature writes in "Bush dodges the REAL question:"
Interesting how Bush gives his defense to STILL NO WMDs. He keeps coming back to the "Saddam is BAD" defense. Well, we all know that. He then uses the pre-emptive strike defense, which will not fly with most people except the most hard-core military. He completely refuses to answer how the JUSTIFICATIONS he gave are totally bankrupt. He lied. They used deception to rush us into something, riding the coat tails of 9-11.
And still, the religious right holds up Bush as a "moral example." It sickens me.
As Jonah Goldberg says in his editorial, "Straightforwardness would defuse WMD issue:"
As I've tried to demonstrate in this space before, the idea that the president lied to the American people hinges on--at least--one almost impossible fact: that George W. Bush knew for a certainty that the intelligence agencies of America, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, as well as the United Nations and countless independent experts were all wrong.
It seems more likely to have played out as the Minneapolis Star Tribune describes in "WMD/Bad intelligence, but more:"
...The Clinton administration was getting the same intelligence, yet it, reasonably, did not head off to the United Nations to warn that Iraq needed to be invaded yesterday. It wanted to take out Osama bin Laden; Saddam was a secondary concern.
That suggests someone in the Bush administration made an early decision to put the most dangerous possible spin on what Iraq intelligence was available. Information that was tentative became certain; equipment that might have numerous uses became certified WMD material; rumors became fact.
There has been quite a bit of misleading going on, but it is not at all clear that the Bush administration knew that there weren't any WMDs and told the public otherwise. There are more reasonable theories that some CIA informants lied, and the Bush administration (and many other governments) wrongly believed the bad reports.
Also interesting is the Al Bawaba report, "Iraqi party insists intelligence on WMD was accurate."
It Doesn't Matter WHY He Lied (Score:1)
I used to have a relatively decent level of respect for Bush. However, when he started foaming at the mouth over Iraq, I started to say "Wait a minute... where's your proof of these allegations?" Nobody (sane) liked Saddam, but the fact remains that the admnistration has - many, many times - come out and suggested that he could put a nuke, chem, or bio in our backyards any day now. On occasion, members of the administration have even come out and blatantly said "Iraq has these weapons" without proving it
Re:It Doesn't Matter WHY He Lied (Score:2)
Re:It Doesn't Matter WHY He Lied (Score:2)
And yeah, the people defending Blair use a similar argument as you are here: He couldn't have been lying unless he definitely knew that what he was saying was not the truth.
But surely lying depends on belief rather than knowledge - the real question is: did Blair (or Bush, or whoever) believe that there were WMD in Iraq when they said there were? And I don't mean
Re:It Doesn't Matter WHY He Lied (Score:1)
But surely lying depends on belief rather than knowledge...
Yea, what s/he said! That was my point, albeit, not too clearly expressed.
I don't think holding to a strict definition of the term "lie" is acceptable for serious discussion on a matter this important. If you stoop to trying to define on technicalities and word munging, you get into the "what the definition of 'is' is" crap. This is an extremely important issue because of all the harm it has done / could do in the future. If the benefit was s
The simplicity dilemma (Score:2)
I don't think WMDs were the main reason for going into Iraq. The problem is the real reasons are too complex for sound bites. It had to do with placing a stable, open, pro-western, Israel-neutral regime bordering Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
WMDs presented a credible (at the time) threat that anyone could understand, and that most of the intelligence community believed was real - Saddam could use WMDs against Israel, causing the whole region to go up in flames in a war that could kill millions.