Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Shields: I've Never Heard a Democratic Leader Accuse Bush of Lying US Into War
Newsbusters ^ | November 20, 2010 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 11/21/2010 7:29:49 AM PST by Scanian

Syndicated columnist and PBS regular Mark Shields on Friday actually said on national television that he has never heard a Democratic leader or presidential candidate accuse former President George W. Bush of lying America into the Iraq War.

This was said in response to Charles Krauthammer telling his fellow "Inside Washington" panelists that this all too common media assertion is the "essential untruth of this decade" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: What’s happened to honest objective reporting?

EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: Well, I’m not sure there ever was honest objective reporting, but there is an interesting thing going on. You would think with the internet and cable and all these new outlets, more information should mean more truth. The more information, the freer, the more open it is should mean more truth. But I worry that the opposite has happened. That, there, it’s now more possible for untruth to adhere, to take hold. In the example that people were talking about this week was this thing that got out from first the Indian press, then to Drudge, then to the right wing radio guys and then Congress that Obama was spending $200 million a day on his foreign trip which was just nonsense. It was finally knocked down. But, you start to wonder, you hear, people get their information by the internet, by e-mails from their Uncle Joe. You know, if that’s where they are getting their information, is it possible that real untruth will take hold in a way that we didn’t think was possible in our system?

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: I think that this a, this is worrisome, and it’s left and right. It’s the people who think the Bush administration somehow was responsible for 9/11, or that a trip that clearly costs in total something like five or six million at the most, and it’s really 200 million. It’s not the same, I mean a day. They’re, they’re not the same in importance obviously, but, but, this really, the fact that there is no -- there doesn’t seem to be any factual agreement about anything allows us to sort of entertain the most odd and conspiratorial fantasies.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2004election; dean; gore; lies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 last
To: 101voodoo
Hussein was a threat and had to be removed.

Changing the argument from WMD's to Hussein.

quotes from unnamed sources

Sources and links were provided smart guy.

Your answers are sad and pathetic. Your argumentum ad hominem doesn't help.

101 posted on 11/25/2010 7:41:06 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Organizations were named with nothing definitive in what they had to say and being CERTAIN is what your argument is all about. That’s why it falls apart.


102 posted on 11/25/2010 8:18:15 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo
You need to do more research pal. One of these "unnamed" organizations is an intelligence branch of the US Air Force. The other is from the State Dept's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). Both are part of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimates (NIE).

I can't help you here. You're on your own if you just reject these sources out of hand. WMD's existence WERE questioned before Bush's Iraq invasion. There is no serious argument otherwise and your attempts to do so are superfluous.

The real issue is what were Bush's motivations. That's where the debate is.

I think we're done.

103 posted on 11/25/2010 9:27:26 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Sorry, I had turned on my “bullshit filter” and not been able to decipher your most recent post.

Have a good day Mr “Seldom right, always sure”


104 posted on 11/25/2010 9:37:38 AM PST by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo

BTW, you also need to reread my comments. Being CERTAIN was not my point. I tried earlier to tell you the issue was one of opinion supported by evidence. Looks like you didn’t get it.


105 posted on 11/25/2010 9:43:05 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo
Apparently you "BS-filter" out anything that refutes your assertions. Hmm sounds like you're closer to the "seldom right, always sure” label, or maybe "short on reason, long on personal attack". Like elementary school children - can't really reason with them.
106 posted on 11/25/2010 9:51:40 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
You only gave a partial answer yes some US Intel organizations questioned the final conclusions of the NIE that was used to “justify” the 2nd Iraq war. That's the nature of intelligence analysis, very much an art NOT a science. One group can look at the same data and conclude “A” another group can look at it an say “B”. The consensus opinion of US Intel was what was said in the NIE.
Now to claim that “Bush Lied and People Died” would require Bush to have willfully collected false data, willfully did analysis to false conclusions, and willfully wrote false reports. Since the majority of the data collected was collected prior to his being President, that must of been then Governor Bush's night job. (Also look at Clinton's and Gore's speeches 1992-2000 regarding Iraq from their rhetoric they certainly thought WMD was there!)The issue as to if the data that was collected by the Intel community from 1991 to the advent of the 2nd Iraq war was accurate and thus drove the conclusion to go war the 2nd time is a different discussion.
Also remember ALL the members of the UN Security Council agreed that Hussein (the Iraq Hussein not the one who sqauts in the White House!) had weapons of mass destruction. The only disagreement was what to do about it. These countries had Intel services that collected an analyzed data also. Some of these services are very very good. There are three conclusions one can draw regarding the missing WMD.
1) There weren't any! Hussein ran a disinformation campaign aimed at the Iranians and to buffer his regimes self image to appear to have them. He did such a good job he not only fooled the Iranians he fooled everyone else and did it to a degree that he had to be taken out. That's my current conclusion given what I know.
2) They existed but the amount was smaller then estimated and they were smuggled to Syria and maybe Iran.
3)An even smaller amount existed then was initially estimated and they are still there. Remember initial estimate was that it would roughly fill a large industrial warehouse hidden in a land mass roughly the size of California. And it has since withered away due normal deterioration, in some case used against us and in other cases simply destroyed or forgotten.
107 posted on 11/25/2010 12:38:25 PM PST by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Reily
The issue as to if the data that was collected by the Intel community from 1991 to the advent of the 2nd Iraq war was accurate and thus drove the conclusion to go war the 2nd time is a different discussion.

This is close to the issue I was addressing. I think Bush had his own reasons (good, bad, or indifferent - I think convoluted) for wanting to invade Iraq and the WMD thing had enough validity to provide him the opportunity. I didn't believe at the time, nor do I believe now, that the WMD's were why he wanted to invade Iraq. Subsequent events and statements by Bush himself did not surprise me and seemed to line up with what I thought.

The nuances and demands of good intelligence capabilities is another subject, though germane. IMO, 9/11 was able to be carried out because of Clinton's dismantling of our sharp intelligence capabilities established under Reagan.

108 posted on 11/26/2010 8:25:30 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Boy did you ever call that one correctly!


109 posted on 11/26/2010 6:40:10 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson