Which President's Lies Were/Are Bigger?

[XPav]

I summon the VWRC and the Communist Party, QT3 branch, to do battle!

[Rywill]

That's ridiculous. Anyone out there who votes for Clinton is an idiot.

[Jeremy Johnsen]

It isn't really fair, one has lies that are still ongoing, the other has finished lying for a living.

[Midnight Son]

But, it's all about the SIZE of the lies! It's like comparing a blowjob to fucking a whole country...

[Major Malphunktion]

But it wasn't about the blowjob ...it was WHO he lied to... :wink:

[quatoria]

That's ridiculous. Anyone out there who votes for Clinton is an idiot.

Especially since he's not running for anything! Oh, you mean in the poll.

[quatoria]

But it wasn't about the blowjob ...it was WHO he lied to... :wink:

You mean Congress, the Senate, the American Public, our Armed Services, the Press, and the entire International community? Oh, no, wait, sorry. Still thinking of Bush.

[bmulligan]

Democrats are expected to lie, so when they do, their lies don't seem that bad and nobody really cares.

Nobody expects republicans to lie, so when they do, the shit really hits the fan.



That's ridiculous. Anyone out there who votes for Clinton is an idiot.

I've been thinking that same thing for 10 years.
[/quote]

[Lizard_King]

That's ridiculous. Anyone out there who votes for Clinton is an idiot.

I've been thinking that same thing for 10 years.

Thank you for rescuing this thread from predictable blather.

[quatoria]

That's ridiculous. Anyone out there who votes for Clinton is an idiot.

I've been thinking that same thing for 10 years.

Thank you for rescuing this thread from predictable blather.

Rescuing from or diverting towards?

[Lizard_King]

Rescuing from or diverting towards?

Did I stutter, motherfucker? Huh? DID I? I didn't think so.

Thread: False dichotomy designed to bait both sides into unfocused rants.
bmulligan: Makes a funny, and succinctly, too.

EVERYBODY WINS!!!!

[triggercut]

Did I stutter, motherfucker? Huh? DID I?

Don't most people end up coming out of the closet shortly after they enter their "latent-homosexual-crush-on-Judd Nelson" phase?

We're here for you when you're ready!

[chet]

And here I thought the title said, Which one of the President's lies were bigger. So many to choose from.

bmulligan, except for those kiddies who your narrow mind excites, "Finally something I can understand", every time you post, you just strengthen the opposition. It is like David Duke in the South, eventually even the conservatives started telling him to to shut the fuck up.

Chet

[bmulligan]

That's a good one, associate David Duke with conservatives. Even though your point was the opposite, just mentioning it does the opposite of the intended statement. Did you go to democrat school, 'cause you know the drill perfectly!!

And my intent is not to turn the opposition. I know that can never be done, just as the opposite is also true. My purpose is to show all you commie-liberal-do gooder-social engineering-fucks that somebody is out there who's going to call you on your bullshit.

Just like ignoring Hitler wont make him go away, ignoring leftist drivel won't make it go away either. (Did I steal your MO ? Whoops! I forgot to tell you I took DNC 101 in college too.)

[awdougherty]

Lying about slurpy blow jobs from a marginally ugly fatty versus lying to go to war... I went with George Bush

[chet]

That's a good one, associate David Duke with conservatives. Even though your point was the opposite, just mentioning it does the opposite of the intended statement. Did you go to democrat school, 'cause you know the drill perfectly!!


Okay, I understand you are ignorant and all, but yes, David Duke is a conservative and ran against a democrat in the gubernatorial race for Louisiana as a Republican.

Conservatives didn't want the democrat (really no one did, but as the bumper sticker said, "I voted for the crook"), they publicly disowned Duke, but privately still backed him for a short period, but Duke just wouldn't shut up with the nonsense so most just withdrew from being on any side and let the crook, Edwards, win.

I guess from your response, you think David Duke ran as a liberal?

Sorry that I based my comparison on actual real events, next time I will base it on fairy tales and you will have a better chance of understanding.

Chet

[Bob Cherub]

So you people think Bush knowingly lied or was he basing statements on intelligence reports that could be faulty?

The problem is if you think he knowingly lied, you have no proof. Obviously he never made statements without plenty of backing from intelligence reports. Heck, even the UN voted unanimously that force was required in Iraq. I guess they're liars too?

But with Clinton, you know he lied. He even did it under oath.

As my man bmul said, Clinton comes from a long line of lying Democrats. It's expected. You know, they are the "care about the environment party" that never does anything for the environment... or the "care for the working class" that never do anything to help them out of poverty, just support it with money so they never have to do anything for themselves.

p0wnd.

[Lizard_King]

I guess from your response, you think David Duke ran as a liberal?
Well, I'm trying to think of a major party that advocates discrimination by race as a means to a brighter tomorrow...It isn't really that big a logical leap from the party of slavery to the party of affirmative action, I guess. Man, this is fun!


Sorry that I based my comparison on actual real events, next time I will base it on fairy tales and you will have a better chance of understanding.

You based your comparison on cheap smear tactics and teh edgy bullshit. You took a bad thread and skullfucked it, and then tried to make all clever nice about it.

But I imagine you'll continue mixing the definitions of words to your heart's content. Eventually, language will be so meaningless thanks to your efforts that even your posts will make sense. Keep chasing that rainbow!

[Skies]

Their political stances don't matter. They are Politicans!! Ergo, they are all liars!

[XPav]

That's ridiculous. Anyone out there who votes for Clinton is an idiot.

9 and counting.

[chet]

Lizard king, so edgy with the potty mouth. first, liberal is not a party, it is a label. The two parties in question are democrats and republicans.

Second, as with most of your posts, without a point, i have no idea what you are trying to say, nor do i care.

[voltaic]

I am both shocked and awed that the vote is currently at 9 to 32. 9 people actually voting for Clinton? Dammit, someone get McCullough in here to blame the conservative media for this fiasco and/or disaster. :P

[Lizard_King]

Lizard king, so edgy with the potty mouth. first, liberal is not a party, it is a label. The two parties in question are democrats and republicans.
And for most people, the transitive property is not a difficult thing to master and apply. But you knew that before you even began to write yet another meaningless nonargument.


Second, as with most of your posts, without a point, i have no idea what you are trying to say, nor do i care.
Is that a haiku? A put-down? I can't tell.


I am both shocked and awed that the vote is currently at 9 to 32. 9 people actually voting for Clinton? Dammit, someone get McCullough in here to blame the conservative media for this fiasco and/or disaster.
Don't look at me. He told me he was a conservative when I voted for him. :(

[ydejin]

Their political stances don't matter. They are Politicans!! Ergo, they are all liars!

I agree with you Skies. That's pretty much the way it looks to me. Wish it wasn't so. :cry:

[Lizard_King]

Then again, Clinton did say "The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die".
http://www.mullings.com/clinton-recruit.htm

[Midnight Son]

A few examples of truthful leadership:

Education Reform
As part of the bipartisan education reform, Bush promised to spend more money on education.

Bush budget cut funding from his own "No Child Left Behind" law and provided the smallest education funding increase in seven years.

LIHEAP
Bush promised to "fully fund" LIHEAP (the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program).

Bush's budget cut LIHEAP by $300 million.

Yucca Mountain
Bush promised to listen to sound science and local officials before deciding to bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

Bush designated Yucca Mountain the site before all the science is in, flouting local officials.

Medicare
Bush pledged to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Bush's plan would cover only 6 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

[awdougherty]

So you people think Bush knowingly lied or was he basing statements on intelligence reports that could be faulty?

The problem is if you think he knowingly lied, you have no proof. Obviously he never made statements without plenty of backing from intelligence reports. Heck, even the UN voted unanimously that force was required in Iraq. I guess they're liars too?

But with Clinton, you know he lied. He even did it under oath.



So what? It's an opinion poll, I don't need to CSI my ass around the inner workings of the Bush presidency to form that opinion. I do know Clinton lied, but again, so what? What were the consequences of his lies?

[DennyA]

I do know Clinton lied, but again, so what? What were the consequences of his lies?
We had to look at Linda Tripp hundreds of times.

[awdougherty]

Touche... is it too late to change my vote?

[john black]

It is so sad and I am so ashamed that I supported Bush in his invasion of Iraq. I believed his lies about WMD. The pain the agony, the self loathing, Yuck, I have to go take a shower because I touched myself.

[Rywill]

I am both shocked and awed that the vote is currently at 9 to 32. 9 people actually voting for Clinton? Dammit, someone get McCullough in here to blame the conservative media for this fiasco and/or disaster. :P
I'm pretty shocked and awed myself. No president should lie, particularly under oath. But really. Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, and he lied to people who had no business butting into his personal life to begin with. Bush lied about the strength of the evidence he had to send the country to war. How can there be any comparison?

As for the "Oh, he had intel backing" stuff, whatever. He knew or should have known that stuff was bunk. An honest president would have said "Look, we're not sure the guy's getting nukes, but it seems like he probably is and he certainly has the power to show us he's not, and hasn't used that power. So we need to go in there." If the country won't go for it, the country won't go for it. But you don't lie to get the country to go for it.

[curst]

I couldn't agree more with Rywill.

Frankly, I'm not at all upset that we ousted Hussein - it's nearly impossible for me to imagine anything but good coming from that. But Bush has still been very deceitful - I'd say AS deceitful as Clinton was, and about far more seriously matters.

[Machfive]

I agreed with the action of the Iraqi war, but thought Bush went about justifying it in the ONLY way he could sell it to the people - Getting them hyped up about WMD that may or may not have even existed.

The thing is, "Hey, we want to topple a disgusting tyrant so that we can establish a base of democracy in the center of US-hostile theocracies and monarchies so that we can fight the rhetoric of the Arab street with a shining example of the good of the US right in their own back yard, and it's gonna cost a shitload of money," wouldn't have gone over too well with Joe Budweiser.

The war against Islamic extremism cannot be fought inside our borders and paid for with the price of innocent civilians. We need to be proactive in our measures to stomp out terrorism, and Iraq was the next logical place to start, from a tactical standpoint.

While there's plenty of improvement needed in the way they're handling things so far, they certainly aren't doing a mediocre job. Right now they're doing the best they can with what they have. I really hope Bush sticks to the whole thing, and while we're at it, can we lavish some more attention on Afganistan?

[Lizard_King]

Ends justifies the means can only be taken so far before it becomes ridiculous. And it still makes one no less deceitful whatever the real purpose was.

Right now all that keeps me from rejecting Bush altogether is that he is clearly the lesser of the many evils available today in American politics. If nothing else, mediocrity will keep him in check, and that I can count on.

[Dirt]

I've said this before and I shall again:

I'd rather have a President who's screwing an intern than a President who's screwing the American people.

[Machfive]

Ends justifies the means can only be taken so far before it becomes ridiculous. And it still makes one no less deceitful whatever the real purpose was.

Right now all that keeps me from rejecting Bush altogether is that he is clearly the lesser of the many evils available today in American politics. If nothing else, mediocrity will keep him in check, and that I can count on.

I don't like "Ends justifies the means" myself. Like I said, I don't excuse Bush for taking that approach, if that was indeed the reasoning behind it, but I understand it.

The only thing that keeps me voting for Bush is the lack of a viable candidate who's libertarian in nature. If there was a dem that was pro-guns, pro-drugs, anti-affirmative action, pro-choice, etc, then I wouldn't hesitate to vote for them in a second.

[DennyA]

I love the fact that the Republicans somehow manage to bill themselves as the "government non-interference party," despite the fact that their party platform is anti-choice, that the "Patriot Act" is the single most non-Libertarian piece of legislature passed since WW2, etc.

[awdougherty]

I agreed with the action of the Iraqi war, but thought Bush went about justifying it in the ONLY way he could sell it to the people - Getting them hyped up about WMD that may or may not have even existed.



Seems like if you need to lie to justify what it is you intend you oo, you should reconsider what you intend to do (at least as a publically elected leader).




The thing is, "Hey, we want to topple a disgusting tyrant so that we can establish a base of democracy in the center of US-hostile theocracies and monarchies so that we can fight the rhetoric of the Arab street with a shining example of the good of the US right in their own back yard, and it's gonna cost a shitload of money," wouldn't have gone over too well with Joe Budweiser.



You're right, this wouldn't have gone over well with Joe Budweiser because it feels like an incredibly stupid request. So calling it something else to sell to the people doesn't make it any less of a stupid request.



The war against Islamic extremism cannot be fought inside our borders and paid for with the price of innocent civilians. We need to be proactive in our measures to stomp out terrorism, and Iraq was the next logical place to start, from a tactical standpoint.


Here's where I think a big problem lies. We don't need to launch a war against Islamic extremists, we need to crack down on terrorism (and they are different, even if only by a hair at times). And I don't see why Iraq was the next logical place to start. We went into Afghanistan, that was a logical place to start. Investigating Saudi money funding terrorism, that's a logical place to start. Going into Iraq balls first with blinders on wasn't the next logical place to start. It's only the next logical place if the claims Bush made about WMD's and such were true.



While there's plenty of improvement needed in the way they're handling things so far, they certainly aren't doing a mediocre job. Right now they're doing the best they can with what they have. I really hope Bush sticks to the whole thing, and while we're at it, can we lavish some more attention on Afganistan?

I agree they are currently doing the best with what they have, but I think that's only because the decision to go into Iraq was extremely misguided (at least in the form it took). They could have done a lot better, in my opinion, had they started from a better position, something I feel was quite doable.

[Midnight Son]

You know what I'd like to see? A website that lists issues facing this country and the position the major and minor parties have on them. For example:


Abortion:

Democrats: Women have a right to choose.

Republicans: Every sperm is sacred.

Communist: Woman and child belong to the state.

Green: What are women? And babies?

Libertarian: Leave women alone.

So, is there such a site or should we make one?

[Jason McCullough]

League of women voters.

[JeffL]

A quote, just for fun:

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.
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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity."

Sounds might familiar, and of course the astute amongst us will recognize those words as being from a speech by Clinton.

Now unlike many here, I don't think Clinton was lying when he said all of this, and I don't believe Bush was lying. I believe that this is what the best intel in the world said. Nobody in the world outside of Sadaam was claiming that Iraq had no WMDs before the war. And I still don't discount the reports that much was moved out of the country immediately before the war. It seems far outside of the character of Sadaam to voluntarily destroy those weapons that he so carefully protected and against which he consistently foiled the inspectors. And the hypothesis that he voluntarily destroyed them and then cleverly set up a program to comvince us that he had them - sorry, that doesn't follow any sort of reasonable logic for me, it seems a supreme reach.

I know that this is probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm just going with what I believe is the most logical from the data I can find. FWIW

[Skies]

Here, here, Dirt.

[Jason McCullough]

When'd Clinton say that? 1998?

[chet]

DennyA, don't forget Bush also oversaw one of the largest welfare bills ever passed. The Farm subsidy bill lined the pockets of ADM and the other companies that won Bush the heartland votes.

Remember, Gore took the cities, Bush took the country.

Chet

[Midnight Son]

Remember, Gore took the cities, Bush took the country.

Chet

I thought I sensed a certain trailer-park mentality in Dubya's supporters.

[TimElhajj]

Yuck, I have to go take a shower because I touched myself.


Overshare. If you want to talk about that crap, do it in an appropriately titled thread so the rest of us can avoid it.

[ydejin]

Ends justifies the means can only be taken so far before it becomes ridiculous. And it still makes one no less deceitful whatever the real purpose was.

Right now all that keeps me from rejecting Bush altogether is that he is clearly the lesser of the many evils available today in American politics. If nothing else, mediocrity will keep him in check, and that I can count on.

A mediocre president with a weak personality is easily manipulated by others. I believe Bush has been manipulated in part by Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and company. I don't see mediocrity as a good check on Bush's behavior.

[Dirt]

ydejin, you forgot Rove.

Bush is a lesser evil, but I don't believe that either Cheney nor Rove have what's best for the people in mind.

[TimElhajj]

I know that this is probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm just going with what I believe is the most logical from the data I can find. FWIW

Wow, that's just so far out of context it's insane. You just completely forget about leveraging American fears in a post 9/11 world? Or all the attempts to paint Saddam and Osama as in league with one another. You've got your head in the sand, Jeff.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, I was right; that speech is from 1998.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/17/980217d_voa.htm

[JeffL]

I know that this is probably an unpopular opinion on here, but I'm just going with what I believe is the most logical from the data I can find. FWIW

Wow, that's just so far out of context it's insane. You just completely forget about leveraging American fears in a post 9/11 world? Or all the attempts to paint Saddam and Osama as in league with one another. You've got your head in the sand, Jeff.

LOL! I knew that would get that type of response.

However - the fact is that we have been saying that Sadaam is a threat to the world, and that he has played games with the inspectors, and that his playing games could lead to disarmament by force, and that the failure to respond by force would make the U.N. look weak, for longer than the last couple of years - these aren't statements pulled out of the air by the latest administration. I know the hatred of Bush by many is so deep that any look that doesn't paint him as evil is unacceptable, but all of the comments that Bush just lied about the WMDs, that there was never any real evidence, is overly partisan IMO. Hell, if he was so deceitful as to lie about that I'd hope he'd go all the way and plant a few barrels here and there (that ought to result in some predictable replies. :wink: )

[Jason McCullough]

Jeff, it's entirely possible that something happened in Iraq in the five years between 1998 and 2003. Like, oh, I don't know, Saddam's weapon program collapsing, or maybe cruise missile strikes destroying or, it geez, just about anything. Maybe Ritter was right - he said we'd gotten rid of it after 1998.

The issue isn't that Bush lied - god only knows what he actually knew, or what the CIA knew. It's that he manipulated the evidence at every step to gin up a fake reason to get the US involved in a war - they didn't want an Iraq invasion to stop his "nuclear program," or his "terrorist links." They wanted one to deal with Saudi Arabia's unreliability, but god knows they couldn't be straight with us; they had to lie through their teeth. Cheney is *still* insisting that there's links between Iraq and Al Queda.

[Lizard_King]

I thought I sensed a certain trailer-park mentality in Dubya's supporters.

It is usually those who speak the most about their belief in egalitarianism that also have the greatest contempt for "ordinary" people.


A mediocre president with a weak personality is easily manipulated by others. I believe Bush has been manipulated in part by Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and company. I don't see mediocrity as a good check on Bush's behavior.

I meant the mediocrity in general of his administration. And I mean that in the least pejorative sense; most everything ends up averaging out. Of course, you all believe they are foolish and devious, all at once; I don't believe either characterization is all that accurate.

[Midnight Son]

I found "Ordinary People" to be a weepy chick flick.

[ydejin]

A mediocre president with a weak personality is easily manipulated by others. I believe Bush has been manipulated in part by Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and company. I don't see mediocrity as a good check on Bush's behavior.

I meant the mediocrity in general of his administration. And I mean that in the least pejorative sense; most everything ends up averaging out. Of course, you all believe they are foolish and devious, all at once; I don't believe either characterization is all that accurate.

It's quite possible to be both foolish (Merriam-Webster: lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion) and intelligent or devious. I would never call Rumsfield mediocre -- I think he's very intelligent. Not sure about Cheney. I also think Wolfowitz is quite intelligent. I think the problem is that they are blinded by their ideology. I think this is a common problem with ideologues on both sides. This leads them to act in a foolish manner, even though they are quite intellectually capable.

Political ideologies form nice clean views of the world that don't match reality (case in point communism--it forms an interesting framework from an intellectual perspective but it failed completely because it doesn't take human nature into account). Some people get so wraped up in beautiful intellectual frameworks they fail to take reality into account.

I see several things that went on within the administration. First, I think a large part of the administration went into office with a vendetta against Saddam. They are thinking emotionally when it comes to Saddam. This is always a mistake. For example, the immediate response of some parts of the administration post 9/11 was to go whack Saddam. That wasn't the correct response. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed -- unfortunately that didn't last long. Second, I think they got into their head that we could somehow transform the Middle East into a region of democracy by starting with Iraq. Intellectually it's a great idea. It may yet happen, we're only 4-5 months in. However, as we've discovered it's easier to talk about than to actually do. I think the administration focused too much on what a great idea this was, and didn't spend enough time on the nitty-gritty details. A case of focusing on ideology instead of on reality.

Rumsfield, Cheney, and Company also display an amazing amount of hubris. This has blinded them to any warnings. For example, when Army Chief of Staff Shinseki reported that Iraq would require on the order of several hundreds hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq, the administration said that number was "wildly off the mark." Similarly when former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay suggested that the cost of the Iraq invasion was likely to be $100-$200 billion, the administration said that estimate was "very, very high" and suggested we could do it all for between $50-$60 billion. I think Rumsfield, Cheney, and Company really did think they could occupy Iraq with 50,000 troops for only $50 billion. They were so confident in their own abilities and their own estimates that they refused to consider any other possible scenarios.

[Rywill]

I can excuse Bush for thinking that Iraq had an ongoing nuke program and other WMDs. Pretty much everyone thought that. It looks like the US overestimated how far along the program was--it was apparently totally dormant, waiting for the heat to blow over to it could be reactivated--but I think that guess was made on the best available data. I don't fault Bush for that. But I definitely fault him for presenting evidence as true that he knew or should have known was false (like the Niger buy), and for trying to tie Saddam to al Qaeda when in reality the links are tenuous at best (and much weaker than the links with other countries).

The right thing for Bush to do was to tell America that he thought Saddam had a very dangerous nuke program going, that we had given Saddam every chance and then some to come clean about it but Saddam refused, we can't afford to let him develop a nuke, so we had to invade to make sure any such program was put out of action; and while we're at it, we'll take out a monstrous strongman and hopefully set up an exemplar democracy in the Mideast. Maybe Americans wouldn't go for that; in that case, he has to decide whether to bow to popular will or make an unpopular but right decision and invade anyway. Either of those options I would have been fine with.

Instead, he decided to invade without the sticky issue of getting Americans behind the real reasons for the war, by presenting them with made-up reasons for war. Although I guess we'll never know for sure, I am convinced he did it knowingly. Maybe he thought the ends justified the means, but I couldn't disagree more. The man should be thrown out of office. To compare Clinton's lie to this one is just silly IMO.

[TimElhajj]

LOL! I knew that would get that type of response.


That's because in your heart of hearts you know I'm right. :)

[Daniel Morris]

The right thing for Bush to do was to tell America that he thought Saddam had a very dangerous nuke program going, that we had given Saddam every chance and then some to come clean about it but Saddam refused, we can't afford to let him develop a nuke, so we had to invade to make sure any such program was put out of action; and while we're at it, we'll take out a monstrous strongman and hopefully set up an exemplar democracy in the Mideast.

Am I missing something here? With the addition of some sarin and VX itemizations, the above is exactly the pitch Bush made to the nation, as well as to the Security Council.

[TimElhajj]

Am I missing something here?

Yes


With the addition of some sarin and VX itemizations, the above is exactly the pitch Bush made to the nation, as well as to the Security Council.

The pitch to the nation included desperate attempts to wrap Saddam, Osama, and 9/11 into a nice neat package.

[Rywill]

Am I missing something here? With the addition of some sarin and VX itemizations, the above is exactly the pitch Bush made to the nation, as well as to the Security Council.
No it isn't. That was part of it, but Bush and his cabinet presented evidence of an ongoing nuclear effort that they knew or should have known was false, and, as Tim said, they presented several other claims (e.g., ties to al Qaeda) as additional (sometimes more important) reasons for war that they knew or should have known were false.