How do you like them apples now?
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.
The general notion that Saddam had WMDs wasn’t seriously questioned by US intelligence. There was some dispute over the particular instances that the administration used to make its case to the public that Saddam had WMDs, but the overall notion wasn’t in dispute. We knew Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons and an active biological weapons program as recently as the mid-1990s when he kicked out the UN inspectors. There was no evidence that he had since gotten rid of them, so the natural conclusion of the intelligence services, both ours and just about everyone else’s too, was that he still had them.
You obviously missed post #13 above.
Run along and do some homework before you make a fool of yourself again.
FRegards,
LH
Bookmarked.
You are being way too kind LH!
“Dense; I’d love too.”
Thanks for saving me to time to respond.
There’s a big difference between “lying” and not being 100% correct in your intelligence info.
bump
I personally know people who were on the ground during the Iraq invasion... including the very early stages. They were tasked to find WMD’s...
They did indeed find evidence of current WMD’s. The material in question was removed from Iraq and sent to the US... very quietly.
If you’ll also remember the 40 semi truck convoy to Syria just before the start of the war... where do you think Syria got a nuclear program going that the Israelis bombed a few years later? (2008? 2007?)
Lots going on behind the scenes that is best left quiet about to the public at large... they might have nightmares over it. And maybe demand that it be addressed... and we can only do so much.
BTW, I couldn't care less what the stupid libs were saying back then. It's what some of Bush's own intelligence advisers were telling him that mattered here.
That and the subsequent and phony "Bush Doctrine."
Sad tactic for those with nothing else to say.
Argumentum ad hominem doesn't refute anything unless you're in elementary school, which maybe you are for all I know.
To clarify, post #13 doesn’t refute what I said on post #38.
OH! You wanted an argument.
Here you go....
See my next post, you’ll love it.
[Running cloth between his ears...]
How can he still speak?
I see daylight between Shields’ ears ....
First, Bill Clinton and the entire Senate, that’s all 100 senators, signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. The state goal was to overthrow Saddam Insane and his entire regime and replace it with a democratic government.
That is a fact:
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
See here for a quick Wiki that makes it a short read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
Don’t forget to read the part where Clinton states categorically what Iraq admitted to.
Bottom line we knew as did the French, Germans, Italians, South African Nations, N. Korea(our intel on them) and many others what Saddam was attempting to acquire and what he already had
WHICH INCLUDED:
550 METRIC TONS of YELLOW CAKE. USED FOR MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
MORE THAN 500 SARIN AND MUSTARD GAS LACED BOMBS.
There is plenty more but lets look at some of the lefts vaunted leaders and what they had to say at various times:
Let’s start with Al Gore criticizing George Bush 41 for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Or how about this hit from 1998 Al Gore: No Doubt Saddam’s Weapons Are Grave Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related
Hey what about a guy that was once in Vietnam John Kerry saying he found WMD in Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk&feature=related
Hey even Nancy Pelosi claims Iraq had WMD and she seems pretty unequivocal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78&feature=related
Here is a greatest hits of Democrats who in no certain terms absolutely claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. They made these claims on more than one occasion and with specificity. The quotes are from Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards:
3 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related
Here is a 6 minute video of other Democrats on Iraq’s WMD and how it would be irresponsible to leave Saddam unchecked;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&feature=fvw
So who is the liar? Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, et al?
Surely they knew Saddam had WMD. Bill Clinton did after all launch missiles on Iraq in an attempt to destroy some of them.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 H.R. 4655 (PL 105-338) was passed October 5, 1998, in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority. On October 7, the companion bill, S. 2525, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, "establishing a program [to] support a transition to democracy in Iraq." [1]
Speaking on behalf of the bill in the Senate, Trent Lott said:
 |
|
|
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government. On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law. WILLIAM J. CLINTON The White House, October 31, 1998. |
||
I'm a tea-party conservative and I think he did.
Either one or the other is true. I really doubt that both are true. No one but a poser would feel the need to claim tea party status before claiming Bush lied. Only a leftist with blind hatred would ignore all the other leftists with years of saying the SAME thing turn around and claim Bush is the only one who lied.
"The WMD thing was an issue seriously questioned by some of his own intelligence people, but Bush chose to order invasion of Iraq."
Do you have any sources of these "intelligence people"?
If you read post 13 you will see that several Dems were also convinced that Iraq had WMD and should be invaded.
To indicate that President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq is technically correct (he was the CIC), but that decision was not made in a vacuum.
He consulted with his military commanders, had the approval of Congress and, as you see in post 13, the backing of several Dems including the ex-Pres.
To indicate that President Bush lied about WMD's and put our soldiers lives in danger as payback for his father is not only demeaning but flat out wrong.
The fact that you "feel" this to be fact tells more about your inability to think clearly than the lib talking points you spew.
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.