Bush lied, people died (tm)

[Jason McCullough]

Here (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003):

Explained Rice, "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rumsfeld added, "Imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand--it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Many of the intelligence analysts who had participated in the aluminum-tubes debate were appalled. One described the feeling to TNR: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn't do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

One year earlier, Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive."

[Robert Sharp]

Oddly enough, I think a lot of Americans would say "Who cares?" to this. In fact, most already do (sadly). This story has been out for a while now, and nobody seems to notice it. Personally, I don't think it matters in the bigger sense. Saddam was guilty of many things, and not many people doubt that he would like to get his hands on nuclear weapons. But it is always disconcerting to find out, or even suspect, that your govt. is lying to you. I've felt all along that this was personal for Bush, i.e. that he would find a way to justify the war no matter what info he had. While I think getting Hussein out of power is a good thing, I am not real happy with the way we did it and the way we ignored so many other countries while doing it. I fear that we are setting ourselves up and reinforcing the perception that people have that America is an arrogant and hypocritical nation. We expect everyone else to obey international law, but we can forsake it at our convenience. That's a disturbing trend and one that will haunt us if we don't stop.

[Jim F.]

It's just so frustrating to read these types of articles. Especially when I read this, and the next article I read is entitled "Is Bush unbeatable in 2004?". With the current numbers, the answer appears to be yes. Why is that? Because, as Robert said, people don't seem to care that their own government lied to them and the international community to create an excuse to invade another nation.

All Bush needs to say is "woot, we kicked ass!", and people smile, nod, and name their children George.

The people who are paying for this are the Iraqi citizens and the American soldiers. We're losing soldiers almost daily in Iraq to snipers, scirmishes, and accidents. And the Iraqis are still starving in their darkened homes hoping that a looter doesn't decide to come steal their appliances.

But we kicked ass, so I guess that means it was a complete success.

[Jason McCullough]

Personally, I don't think it matters in the bigger sense. Saddam was guilty of many things, and not many people doubt that he would like to get his hands on nuclear weapons.

Oh, if everything turns out all right, sure. Note, however, that you could have said the same thing about the Gulf of Tonkin if we ended up winning Vietnam - it's mistaking hindsight for prediction. Invasions based on orcestrated lies tend to turn out badly; just because the gun didn't go off this time doesn't mean Russian Roulette is a safe game to play.

[Dirt]

Are these lies really better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

[Met_K]

Gray Davis got re-elected. Keep that in mind next year, folks. The democrats are just as bad on some levels.

[Jason McCullough]

Are these lies really better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

I'm pretty sure Clinton lying about his sex life didn't roll the dice on getting lots and lots of US troops killed. Or run the risk of getting us into another Vietnam.

[Pace]

People accepting the government's lies and corruption is not a new concept. In fact, I recently procured a DivX copy of Bill Hicks' "Revelations" HBO special, and, oddly enough, almost every bit he did was disturbingly topical. Of course, this was something like 1992 or 1993 (just before he died).

The other fantastic bit I saw the other day was the Daily Show's "Bush vs Bush" debate. Really drove the point home nicely.

Check the .ram here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/dailyshow/

Definitely, the fact that people just overlook this kind of thing is depressing, but the fact is, it's ingrained in our society from birth. I'm not really much of an activist, but living in San Francisco has given me a new appreciation for the strength of conviction some people have (not to say that there aren't idiots in that camp, as well)... but when I mention to my sister, whos just about to turn 16 and is living in my home state of Texas, that it's amazing how powerful the public's voice can be when you are swept up in it, she replied with, "Damn democrats don't have anything better to do."

Uhhwhat? She's not into politics, she doesn't follow the news, and she doesn't really have much of a position on most issues, but she can regurgitate this line of all things? Why? Because it's easy. Because people want to believe that we as Americans are right and just despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

We're not right. Not all the time. Our government is turning us into thugs and bullies, Uncle Sam played by John Wayne. And we eat it up.

Go USA.

[Bullhajj]

Are these lies really better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Sure, but only if you have the moral sensibilities of a teenager.

[Anders Hallin]

I'm pretty sure Clinton lying about his sex life didn't roll the dice on getting lots and lots of US troops killed. Or run the risk of getting us into another Vietnam.
It might have destroyed a medicine factory, though.

[Jason McCullough]

Except there's no evidence at all Clinton lied about that. Bit different.

[Anders Hallin]

Except there's no evidence at all Clinton lied about that. Bit different.
Not about that, certainly, but it might be argued that Clinton launched the strike rashly to take the heat off. That was probably before he made a statement on the issue though, so it's not directly related to the lying part.

[Incendiary Lemon]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6086013.htm

"A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll. And 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001."

[ydejin]

Gray Davis got re-elected. Keep that in mind next year, folks. The democrats are just as bad on some levels.

Yeah, but I think that was partly the Republican's fault. I would have voted for Riordan over Davis, but Simon was just a no-go. I'm sure many other Californians felt the same way, especially after the Simon business scandal news broke.

Of course the same thing is likely to happen at a national level. The Democrats really need to find someone good to have even a shot at beating W.

[Jason McCullough]

Except there's no evidence at all Clinton lied about that. Bit different.
Not about that, certainly, but it might be argued that Clinton launched the strike rashly to take the heat off. That was probably before he made a statement on the issue though, so it's not directly related to the lying part.

Uh, so you think wild speculation about clinton's motives is directly comparable to a direct, provable lie?

[Anders Hallin]

Not really, that's why I wrote "might".

[ydejin]

Here are some more quotes for you from an LA Times Article "Weapons of Mass Destruction Remain the Unseen Enemy" dated June 15th.

[T]eam leaders complained that most intelligence folders appeared to be based solely on analysis of satellite imagery. Again and again, the intelligence proved wildly off-base.

"The target folder for Uday's palace at Lake Habbaniyah was real clean," said U.S. Army Maj. Ronald Hann Jr., a highly decorated arms control expert who heads SST-6, referring to a complex for Hussein's older son. " 'There's the warehouse. There's the poison gas storage tanks.' Well, the warehouse was a carport. It still had two cars inside. And the tanks had propane for the kitchen."

A veteran U.S. intelligence official here said he is furious over the inaccurate intelligence reports that have sent weapons teams racing to a series of empty sites.

"I'm sitting here, and frustrated isn't the word anymore," said the official, who has a senior role in the hunt and spoke on condition of anonymity. "I feel almost duped."

I think there is still a pretty good chance that somewhere hidden under some rock there will be enough WMD material/information found that Bush will be able to point to it and say, "see there it is, I was right." If it does happen, 80% of the remaining Americans who give a rat's ass about whether or not we were lied to will be satisfied with it. I also think there's a decent chance that if we don't actually find anything something will be fabricated because while the domestic audience doesn't seem to care, our credibility takes a big hit internationally if no WMD is found (although that's a pretty big risk because if that does get found out, that will cause a scandal sufficient to bring down the Presidency).

Before the war I was on the fence on this, but I found Powell's UN speech pretty persuasive. When we went in, as I posted on Qt3 I thought there was a 60-70% chance that the WMD was there. (My big complaint before the war was I thought the way we handled the international community was appalling.) At this point though, I think it's clear that even if it is there, most of what the Bush administration was saying they were either shading heavily or making up completely. I like that quote above about the warehouse and poison gas storage tanks being a carport and a kitchen propane tank.

Personally I think the administration at this point owes a number of apologies. First they need to apologies to the UN inpectors who they insisted weren't doing their job, because at this point it seems quite clear that they were. Second they need to apologies to Army Chief of Staff Shinseki for publicly reprimanding him when he said that we would need several hundred thousand troops in post-Saddam Iraq. And frankly, third, I think they owe the American people an apology for taking us to war based on data which they knew really wasn't there.

[Met_K]

I wouldn't mind an apology that involves a large cliff, myself. Just for the President, though, all of his sheep lessers (Ashcroft, Rumsfield) should be, to quote Harris Yulin, "BURNED AT THE STAKE!"

[XPav]

Maybe we could punish Bush by making him answer unscripted questions at a press conference. (After checking for radio ear pieces).

[Mark Asher]

Are these lies really better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Not sure what you mean, but these lies are far worse. Who cares if Clinton had sex with someone besides Hilary and then lied about it? Well, I guess the Clinton-haters care.

But when our leaders lie to us to justify a war, that's just far, far worse. American soldiers have died and American citizens have to pay for this war. Maybe we were justified in ousting Saddam, but don't lie to us about the reasons. If you can't sell Americans on the idea of going to war with the truth, don't go.

Now the Bush White House has butchered the EPA's report on the state of the environment, leaving out the section on global warming. Seems that White House just can't find any scientific consensus to support the idea that burning fossil fuels like oil is contributing to the problem, or that there's even a problem. Amazing. Bush is just so brazen about protecting the financial interests of Big Oil.

Can we ever believe this administration again?

[ydejin]

Here's a quote from another Los Angeles Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-061903iraq_lat,1,4709672.story?coll=la-home-headlines). We lost another soldier to an ambush. Here's what Rumsfield had to say:

In Washington today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld addressed the recent string of attacks on U.S. soldiers, which has prompted hundreds of arrests across the country this week.

Rumsfeld said the guerrilla-style assaults have been organized by "small elements" of less than 20 people, with no central control.

I'm sure he wants us to interpret this as, look, there is no central control, this is a small problem which no one should worry about. The thing is though, if the country is awash with weapons and all it takes to kill American soldiers is 20 people with no central command this could go on forever.

I found the fact that a day or two ago we shot and killed two protestors for throwing rocks very disturbing. This is starting to look a little too like Israel and Palestian for my liking -- and I'm still not convinced Israel has a good exit strategy there. The thing is, while rocks can indeed injure or kill people, the chances of them doing so are not that high. Responding to rocks with overwhelming firepower seems like a strategy designed to breed more resentment, which in the long run will cost us more.

Granted I'm sure I might think differently about getting rocks thrown at me if I was there on the ground in Iraq. But I really do think we need to just suck it up. If some of our people get bones broken or worse from thrown rocks, so be it. Far better having angry people take it out on us with rocks instead of RPGs and AKs.

Here's a quote from the LA Times (same article):

In Baghdad today, mourners for Iraqi army officer Tareq Hussein Mohammed, 32, one of two killed when a U.S. soldier fired into a crowd Wednesday, demonstrated as they made their way through the streets of Baghdad.

Dozens of angry mourners fired assault rifles on their way to the mosque, in part out of respect for the dead and in part as a defiant gesture to the U.S., which banned the weapons, the Associated Press said.

Mohammed was killed when a U.S. soldier fired four shots into a crowd after 1,000 demonstrators descended on the former presidential palace that serves as a headquarters for the U.S.-led military and civil authorities that control Iraq.

The other thing is the group we shot at was composed of ex-Iraqi army people. It seems to me that this is the last group we want to piss-off. They've probably got at least some access to weapons, some training, and some form of leadership and discipline.

[Xaroc]

All we have done with this war is breed more terrorists. Iraq posed no threat to us. They had no WMDs and no ties to Al Queda. All of this bravado about making a statement in the region is just going to bring more attacks like 9/11 on us. Look at Palestine, Isreal makes statements all the time and what do they get for it? More suicide bombers.

-- Xaroc

[Dirt]

"Not sure what you mean, but these lies are far worse. Who cares if Clinton had sex with someone besides Hilary and then lied about it? Well, I guess the Clinton-haters care."

I've said it many times before, I will say it again:

I'd rather have a President who's screwing an intern in the Oval Office than a President that's screwing over the American people.

[Jim F.]

The sad thing is, I WANT to believe Bush and the government. I want them to find piles of WMDs sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or buried in the desert. I want our country to be vindicated in the eyes of the international community.

But unlike many folks, I can't blindly trust Bush and assume he hasn't been lying. The man hasn't exactly done much to inspire my trust so far, and every couple of weeks manages to do or say something else that makes me trust him less.

I am so hoping that the Democrats get their sheet together and find a canidate that I can support.

[Jack]

Are these lies really better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Sure, but only if you have the moral sensibilities of a teenager.

To the typical, sexually-repressed conservative, lying to kick the shit out of a third-world country is less reprehensible than lying about playing "Hide the Salami" with an intern. Sex is, after all, a dirty dirty thing and invading a country is nothing but downright patriotic.

[graller]

I'd rather have a President who's screwing an intern in the Oval Office than a President that's screwing over the American people.

Just found my new e-mail sig - don't worry I will give you full credit.

[Bullhajj]

Are these lies really better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Sure, but only if you have the moral sensibilities of a teenager.

To the typical, sexually-repressed conservative, lying to kick the shit out of a third-world country is less reprehensible than lying about playing "Hide the Salami" with an intern. Sex is, after all, a dirty dirty thing and invading a country is nothing but downright patriotic.

Good point!

[Robert Sharp]

Personally, I don't think it matters in the bigger sense. Saddam was guilty of many things, and not many people doubt that he would like to get his hands on nuclear weapons.

Oh, if everything turns out all right, sure. Note, however, that you could have said the same thing about the Gulf of Tonkin if we ended up winning Vietnam - it's mistaking hindsight for prediction. Invasions based on orcestrated lies tend to turn out badly; just because the gun didn't go off this time doesn't mean Russian Roulette is a safe game to play.

Agreed.

[XPav]

Calpundit's (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001487.html) got a good point today.

I have this vague notion that about two-thirds of what motivates hardcore conservatives is sex and communism.