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.
You and practically all others forget that we were already at war with Iraq and had been for 10 years or so.
W ended the war by invading and destroying Saddam. It was the best course and changed the direction of world history.
Those in power now never understood the magnitude of the course change and the feeble attempts at negotiation with the Israelis and Palestinians prove it.
We can agree to disagree, however it remains a fact that EVERY Intel Agency agreed the threat was real. A decision can only be made on the evidence in view at the time. As I said hindsight is always 20/20.
No, at the time just before the decision to invade, despite what the Libs and others were saying, there were reports coming through to Bush questioning the WMD's continued existence there. I don't think Bush cared. As I said, I think he had had own reasons for invading Iraq.
That isn't hindsight - I saw this going on in front of me at the time, and I saw how Bush was going to do it anyway, right, wrong, or indifferent. The proof of the pudding, which didn't surprise me, was they in fact could not find the WMD's.
ping
German Intellegence (BND) Report on IRAQ
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1189182.stm
February 2001, the German BND compiled a report and intelligence chief August Hanning
That isn't hindsight - I saw this going on in front of me at the time, and I saw how Bush was going to do it anyway, right, wrong, or indifferent. The proof of the pudding, which didn't surprise me, was they in fact could not find the WMD's.
What reports were coming thru to Bush? By whom were they penned? Do you mean Hans Blix, a virulent anti war zealot? Hell even he admitted Hussein was not cooperating with the supplying of documents to prove he destroyed what he claimed he had as WMD. If not Blix then who else? I find it amazing you would zero in on 1 or 2 people who took another view and ignore the hi profile people who agreed Hussein had the WMD and all the worlds intel agencies who backed them up
. You are long on opinion and short on facts, my friend and until you can supply me with names and links to real data supporting your claim, I'm really not interested in carrying this any further.
As far as I know, I don’t think there’s debate that Bush had intelligence info that questioned the continued existence of WMD’s. I think if you doubt that you could probably research it. After law school finals maybe I’ll do the same, but I think it’s a moot point. I don’t think that fact is seriously in question.
The real point here I think, as I've said, is not that the WMD thing wasn't being questioned, it's what W's motives were. That starts to be a somewhat subjective opinion based on how you interpret all the evidence you've got. I thought at the time Bush had already made up his mind and had his own reasons. When I look at his comments later, he seems to refer more to Saddam's slaughter of reportedly up to 300,000 Iraqi's. Probably one of his reasons, as I've said.
But, as I also said, you then do the kind of smart stuff Reagan would do: skillful and precise intelligence work with Iraqi patriots to depose him, not invade the country - that isn't what America does.
A lot of people like to think in terms of black or white, all good or all evil. Bush was a mixed bag IMO.
October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate:
The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which says in its dissenting opinion: “The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
Oct 1, 2002 NIE... We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs. ....
“… The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, US Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.”
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html
Your opinion is just that and it is as you said “subjective”, not based in fact.
The claim Intel was not definitive in one of your links is also meaningless since intel very seldom is definitive. It is a bunch of bits and pieces from which conclusions can be drawn and actions weighed. In is and was not the definitiveness of any of the Intel but the great preponderance of “pieces” of evidence by so many different Agencies around the globe which set that ship sailing to war.
Your opinion is just that and it is as you said “subjective”, not based in fact.
The claim Intel was not definitive in one of your links is also meaningless since intel very seldom is definitive. It is a bunch of bits and pieces from which conclusions can be drawn and actions weighed. In is and was not the definitiveness of any of the Intel but the great preponderance of “pieces” of evidence by so many different Agencies around the globe which set that ship sailing to war.
Your answers have been fairly weak IMO.
Kennedy's sharpest public criticism of Bush has been over Iraq, a war that he called "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas" to advance the president's political standing. He accused the administration of "bribing" foreign nations to send troops to Iraq. In a speech on the Senate floor, Kennedy accused the administration of telling "lie after lie after lie after lie." Last month, Kennedy called Iraq "one of the worst blunders in the history of U.S. foreign policy."
Bush accused Kennedy of "uncivil" behavior, and Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, called Kennedy to complain. "You don't have to get this kind of intense," Card said, according to Kennedy.
"I said, 'Well you don't have to get us involved in war.' "
Former senator Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican and a close Kennedy friend, says his former colleague risks marginalizing himself with his invective.
"He's been saying some vicious and nasty stuff," Simpson says. "I'm appalled. These quotes are just plain nasty and, frankly, out of character for Ted."
----------------------------------------------------------
BTW. Mark Shields is a f'n liar. You can tell him I said so.
I find it amusing that you find yourself in an argument about a topic that isn’t even the subject of the posted article. Whether Bush lied or not is not what Mark Shields was talking about.
That is amusing. What do think he’s talking about?
He is talking about whether or not Democratic leaders accused Bush of lying; just like the title says. When reading, comprehension is actually more important than speed. You should try it.
Very good. It’s about Bush being accused of lying. I said I’m a conservative that thinks he mislead the public and the discussion took off from there. Read the thread smart guy.
The evidence in your favor were the actual inspections by those who were there and looked. My recollection is that in spite ‘of everyone believing the mushroom cloud was about to appear’, those on the ground who were looking did not find the mushroom cloud potential. People choose the believe what they wanted to believe and that includes leaders of both parties.
As to fakeroo. It was not a cakewalk nor were we greeted with flowers nor has oil paid for it all.
No! The article was about what Mark Shields said.
“Was Shields out of the country during the 2004 presidential campaign? Did he somehow miss many of the Democratic presidential candidates at that time making the “Bush lied” assertion including Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry?”
Point taken, even though the article spends a lot of type on the issue of Bush’s supposed misleading people regarding getting into Iraq. I simply commented on that portion. Most of the discussion was the reaction to my comment.
LOL, I have stated and it has been posted here in this thread all the Democrats who have been privy to and had agreed publicly that the evidence clearly showed Hussein was a threat and had to be removed. The left even petitioned Clinton in writing to attack Iraq and remove Hussein. The ignoring of every UN sanction is legend at this time and is clear evidense of his being uncooperative.
Meanwhile you have posted 2 quotes from unnamed sources claiming the evidence is not conclusive although they go on to say that doesn’t mean Iraq is not pursuing Nukes. As for the chemical’s weapons, there was NO ONE who disagreed he had and was producing them.
Actually my evidence is complete and unarguable while yours is mostly your own opinion.
Someone here said of you, “Always convinced, seldom right” and they were dead on.
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.