If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)

Right Wing News ^ | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins

[grania]

Me: Saying "they lied too" just reduces GWB to the disgusting level of those he's being compared to.

You: Who in the Bush administration has said that?

------------------

The Bush administration didn't. This article is using that argument by listing the WMD claims of prominent Dems. That argument is counterproductive to maintaining the respect this administration has earned.

[Non-Sequitur]

So are we saying that George Bush is at least as honest as Bill Clinton?

[homeschool_dad]

If you read my post, I never siad that I didn't think Hussein wasn't a threat. I never said anything about him at all. My point is that President Bush and others in his Daministration made some pretty wild claims in front of a world-wide venue, and put our national credibility on the line, and now can't begin to come close to matching those wild claims with anything more than a couple of old half-tracks in the desert? They were SO certain that they listed categorically all of the prohibited weapons that he had.. They showed pictures of facilities and missiles. They also put our bothers and sisters over there (and my old AF unit). Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something. Especially when the ones who stand to lose the most are our troops who are over there right now.

[conservativecorner]

Desperate? ROFLMAO! Have you seen the latest poll numbers for GW? The american people know the truth, and I'm simply posting the dims in thier own words. You can also throw many many countries that were/are sure that Iraq had a large WMD program throughout the 12 years that the UN diddled while Saddam schemed.

[shiva]

In the Democrats own words, "Let's Move On".

[homeschool_dad]

Hey, I'm all for pre-emptive strikes, and I only wish my old faithful F111A wasn't in the bone yard. I'd love to have seen my old aardvark come in low and fast - but what is there to come in low and fast on? I think we WERE mislead, and it disappoints me.

[Captain Kirk]

Truth is not determined by polls. There was a time not so long ago when allegedly principled conservatives understood this and often criticized the "high poll rating" defense. No more.

[conservativecorner]

I believe GW to be as honest a president as this nation has ever had. I know that Bill Clinton was one of the most dishonest presidents this country has ever had. Any more questions?

[conservativecorner]

No way! As long as the dims make this an issue, we can use their own BS against them. I love to skewer them at every turn. Amy more question?

[eyespysomething]

This was in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930515/posts?page=21#21
We were told we were in imminent danger and that was why we had to go on the offense quickly.

Not quite...seems you have fallen for a Krugman line...I had a heck of a time finding the info again, but here is some info that was posted previously on FR about the "imminent threat":


I'm sure others have picked up on this, but in the off-hand chance they haven't, there's a major problem with Krugman's most recent column. He says:

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran- contra."
I did some checking and found the text of the President's most recent State of the Union address. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
Here, it's crystal clear that Bush is not making the claim that the threat was imminent. He's striking before the threat is imminent -- and that was the gamble Bush took. A strike against an imminent threat would not have generated the controversy the Iraq invasion generated.
At first I thought that Mr. French was making a mistake by limiting his search to this year’s State of the Union Address. So I did a Google search using the terms “Bush” “imminent” and “Iraq”. I did find news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address. But, as Mr. French pointed out, Bush didn’t say the Iraqi threat was imminent in the State of the Union. And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same held true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Looks like media spin, not anything Bush specifically said. And it looks like Krugman’s quote problem continues…


Source

20 posted on 06/17/2003 2:14 PM EDT by ravingnutter

[msdrby]

bump for later

[steve50]

Aren't we tired of that?

I guess not. Our outrage over disinformation seems dependent on source. Party over principle.

I wonder if we'll attack Britain for selling Iraq those WMD trailers in 87.

[conservativecorner]

The truth is that the UN and various nations were/are sure that there were active WMD programs in Iraq for 12 years between Gulf 1 and 2. The question was always what to do about it. For 12 years Saddam thumbed his nose at the world, and we thankfully elected a president that was determined to rid us and the world of this very real threat post 9/11.

[Matchett-PI]

"Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!"

Men view it as pro-defending and protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Men of integrity take their oaths seriously.

Men of integrity are interested in protecting the weak --- unlike Clinton who USES women and children for his personal agenda.

As Karl Marx, and other cynical commie opportunists know, the anti-war crowd could never succeed without their flaked and formed, emotionally immature, feminized male and air-head female useful idiots backing them.

[evad]

I see where you are coming from but I just don't see how any writer of an article or comparisons to a bunch of known liers reduces W in any way...and certainly not to a "disgusting level".

To me the only thing that can reduce W to the disgusting level of a Daschle, et al is if he or his administration makes claims that "they lied too".

[deport]

I think we WERE mislead, and it disappoints me.

---

Well disappointments are a fact of life. You take the best intelligence data you can get and make an assessment. I think the President and his administration did that. I don't think they deliberately lied about what they were given. The data may have been faulty but if so it's been that way for years it seems as previous administrations have believed the WMD issue.

Now you have a nice one..... It's a beautiful day to be alive.

[Matchett-PI]

"Using Democrats as credible sources! Pro-war freepers are becoming desperate!"

Men view it as pro-defending and protecting America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Men of integrity take their oaths seriously.

Men of integrity are interested in protecting the weak --- unlike Clinton who USES women and children for his personal agenda.

As Karl Marx, and other cynical commie opportunists know, the anti-war crowd could never succeed without their flaked and formed, emotionally immature, feminized male and air-head female useful idiots backing them.

[homeschool_dad]

Thanks! And that's something we CAN wholeheartedly agree on - it IS a beautiful day to be alive, and there is nowhere else I'd rather be than right here. Regardless of what's gone on, our President still has my support.

[VRWC_minion]

Since we haven't announced we found WMD in Iraq yet,

[evad]

Where I come from, if you make some wild a$$ claim, you'd better be able to back it up with something.

Well, give it time. They've been developing and hiding this stuff for 12+ years and it might take a while to find it.

I personally am willing to give a man of integrity like Bush a bit of a benefit of the doubt, even if he is a politician. I also don't think that a man like Powell would have been a part of any conspiracy to mislead the American people as is alleged by known liers like Kerry.

I hope that the proof that you are looking for comes soon. In the meantime, I feel better knowing that this particular clear and present danger has been removed.