Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq ( In the L.A. Times no less! )

Los Angeles Times ^ | June 16, 2008 | James Kirchick

[kellynla]

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

[fso301]

I’m thinking this is intended to be supportive of Obama

I agree and add to that, a shot against Romney as McCains VP on the theory that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[mimaw]

When did the New Republic become a Conservative source? Who were the Republicans that signed off on the senate report?

[LibertyRocks]

Apologies, I was confusing it with another site...

[Clint Lippo]

If you mean by TNR The National Review then its a conserv. publication.The New Republic is liberal and left.

[Incorrigible]

Bump!

[rhombus]

I’m thinking this is intended to be supportive of Obama

I agree and add to that, a shot against Romney as McCains VP on the theory that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

That's pretty much the way I see this... this op-ed is more about painting George Romney (and thus his son) as a cowardly flip-flopper. This New Republic writer has the foresight to see that Bush is history so it's no big deal to admit that he might have got some things right. This is more about reviving anti-Romney mistrust among conservatives than cutting Bush any slack.

[Mere]

More than that. Saddam wanted to destablize the entire region and try to take over Saudi.

[browardchad]

this particular writer does work for a Conservative source

The New Republic is classified as liberal, or, on some issues (such as support for the initial invasion of Iraq), as "center left." It definitely can't be classified as conservative.

[kalee]

bttt

[LibertyRocks]

Yep, that was my mistake. I was confusing it with a different site - sorry about that!

[School of Rational Thought]

The writer is from the New Republic, not the LA Times, although printed.

The pieces’ content will be ignored due to the usual anti-rationalism, or truthism for you gen Xers.

[purpleraine]

I would add that Saddam harbored terrorists in Baghdad (was it Abu Nidal?) and he plotted to kill an ex-president on his trip to Kuwait.

I think the congress came up with 23 charges to grant the president war power.

[kellynla]

“The writer is from the New Republic, not the LA Times, although printed.”

I never said the writer was from the L.A. Times now did I...
let me know when you people complete your reading comprehension course...

Now can we get to the subject matter of the article which is that BUSH DID NOT LIE ABOUT THE WAR AS CLAIMED BY THE LEFT AND ADMITTED IN THIS ARTICLE BY A LEFTIE...FINALLY... SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT!

shezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[DocRock]

bookmark

[jackv]

bttt

[Skooz]

bump

[The Wizard]

excellent post.......excellent

[ETL]

Thanks. I got the quotes off the site I mentioned at the bottom, but had to do quite a bit of reorganizing to post it all here in html.

[The_Reader_David]

FReepers are amazed by the LA Times getting things right so often that it should cease to be a cause of amazement.

Truth be told, because of their penchant, both on the opinion page and in news reporting, for getting things right on a fairly regular basis, the LA Times has become my favorite old media outlet. (Yes, I know they are reliably in the tank for the CA demonRAT party, but they seem to have some of the last journalists who actually believe in objectivity working for them, and an editorial page editor that thinks something more than a token ‘conservative’ columnist is needed for balance.)

[The_Reader_David]

FReepers are amazed by the LA Times getting things right so often that it should cease to be a cause of amazement.

Truth be told, because of their penchant, both on the opinion page and in news reporting, for getting things right on a fairly regular basis, the LA Times has become my favorite old media outlet. (Yes, I know they are reliably in the tank for the CA demonRAT party, but they seem to have some of the last journalists who actually believe in objectivity working for them, and an editorial page editor that thinks something more than a token ‘conservative’ columnist is needed for balance.)