Posted on 11/09/2005 8:11:51 AM PST by KJC1
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
I disagree, the administration believed, as did most members of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, that Saddam was building a system of WMDs and that he posed and increasing threat to the US, his own people, and the rest of the civilized world. That was not a lie.
Sorry about the double post, I got a wierd message about an error when I hit the post button. So, I went back and posted it again.
'There was and still is compelling evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing the purchase of yellowcake Uranium in both Niger and the Congo. The Presidents statement was both "technically" and "essentially" correct.'
Why, then, did the administration say later the claim didn't have the level of proof required for a state of the union address?
Regarding Ari Fleisher: it happened 5/7/03. You can google it if you'd like. Also, the administration never, as far as I know, specifically said Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, but rather refused to use that language, prefering instead synonymous phrases like "urgent threat." We have moved into the realm of a distinction without a moral difference. Anyway, Ari never retracted the comment.
Regarding the aluminum tubes: Condi Rice told CNN that the tubes were "only suited" for centrifuge. That's not true. And yes, there was vigorous disagreement in the intelligence community, with dissent from the State Department (ugh) and DOE. Either way, the phrase "only suited" was false. That was 9/8/02.
Again, just in case anyone picks up this line of debate late, I am NOT saying these facts made the war wrong. They didn't. They just reflect the fact that administrations of all parties fib where they deem fit. That's just the way it is.
"I disagree, the administration believed, as did most members of the Senate, both Democrat and Republican, that Saddam was building a system of WMDs and that he posed and increasing threat to the US, his own people, and the rest of the civilized world. That was not a lie."
I didn't say it was. Did you read my post?
Republican suck at fighting a lie told so often it becomes truth. Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and others do their part and appartently, the administration feels like that is enough. It isn't.
The Fleisher comment I gave you was 5/7/03, which I just realized was after the invasion, and thus less relevant. Here are some uses of the phrase "imminent threat" from before the invasion:
Scott McClellan, 2/10/03, saying "This is about imminent threat."
Dan Bartlett, 1/26/03, saying "Of course he is" when asked if Saddam was an imminent threat.
To have Dan Bartlett, Scott McClellan, and Ari Fleisher -- all professional communicators -- make that same "mistake" suggests it was an idea the administration was dancing around and trying to imply for a long time.
Absolutely. That's much of why I supported the war. Good citation.
Could you please post the context and source for this? If I recall correctly, this was McClellan talking about Turkey invading Iraq, not us invading Iraq.
Here's the context. It's about whether NATO should join the invasion. It's a bit unclear whether he's saying Iraq is an imminent threat to the US, to Turkey, or to the world in general, but that's sort of the point. Look, I'm in communications; I get what they're doing, and if I worked at the White House, I may have told them to do the exact same thing. They want to imply it as much as possible while remaining slightly ambiguous so as not to have to defend that assertion. We can split hairs and call this truth if we want, but then we're the Democrats. Let's just take the high ground by saying this: yes, the administration exaggerated and fibbed, but not on the core issues, and war was justifiable anyway.
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
No thanks.
That is YOUR *opinion*, and that is ALL it is, and I reject it.
It would be nice if you rejected it with an actual refutation, but I that is difficult to do, so I understand your reticence.
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
[White House spokesman] MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
. . .
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
I agree no amount of rebuttal will change the minds of those consumed with lies. The Lord has filled their minds with rocks so they may destroy themselves.
Truth is eternal, lies are temporary.
From my viewpoint, you are stating that the admin fibbed and exaggerated and then not adequately substantiating that claim. Instead, you pull quotes out of context (McClellan Turkey quote) to try to establish your opinion.
"From my viewpoint, you are stating that the admin fibbed and exaggerated and then not adequately substantiating that claim. Instead, you pull quotes out of context (McClellan Turkey quote) to try to establish your opinion."
I made a number of claims, the McClellan Turkey quotation being just one. I then put it in context, by the way. But that doesn't change the Bartlett quote, for example, or any of the other things. I guess I could write a dissertation on it (my earlier posts were already pretty long), but FR, while enjoyable, isn't quite THAT important to me.
Which leads me to say: "Bush lied" is the Wiley E. Coyote of memes.
Bush has "fought back" is you want to call it that. He has made several speeches justifying the war. What you must understand it no matter what he says, the leftist media will continue to repeat the lie. The lie has worked, they know it, and nothing he says will make them abandon it.
Well, if you decide to write that dissertation after all, ping me to it. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.