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

Skip to comments.

Bush, Saddam, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction: WHO IS REALLY LYING?
Jan 25, 2004 | TruthShallSetYouFree

Posted on 01/24/2004 7:57:48 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree

“Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction.” It is the mantra of most of the democrat candidates, all of their professional spinmeisters, and the constant harangue of the liberal media. To determine if Bush did, in fact lie, we must accomplish two goals. First, we must determine what is meant by the word ‘lie.’ Then, we must consider the facts of the situation and see if President Bush did actually lie, as the word is generally understood.

So then, what is a lie? Is it merely an untruth? Is it just a false statement? No, it is more complicated than that. A witness in court must swear to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” This three-part element, when violated in any of its components, is what a lie really is. It may be a lie of commission or omission, covert or overt.

When Bill Clinton said that he “never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” he was committing an overt lie. The statement itself is patently false. It is so false that even Clinton, the master of the genre, could make only a feeble effort to redefine what “sex” is to try to extricate himself from his own falsehood. His democrat cohorts, however, committed a lie of omission in their defense of him. The party line became, “Sure he lied, but he only lied about sex. Any man would lie about a private act whose discovery would be hurtful to his family.”

What they omitted was that Mr. Clinton was the defendant in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones) and was queried about Ms. Lewinsky because the law says that prior bad acts can be brought up in court in such cases, due to the “he-said, she-said” nature of the charges. So, if your secretary sues you because you told her that if she didn’t have sex with you, she would get fired, it would be permissible to bring up facts related to the last ten secretaries that had been dismissed. If one or more of them corroborates the plaintiff’s story, it would certainly lend credence to the charges. So, to say that Mr. Clinton’s lie was only about sex is as disingenuous as would be the case if Michael Jackson were found to be lying only about sex. Having sex with an underling, in the first case, or a thirteen year-old boy, in the second, is different from having a consensual affair with your next-door neighbor.

It is evident that, for something to be the truth, it must be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Here is another example. A woman hears her husband leaving the house early one Saturday morning. He returns at ten o’clock after being gone for several hours. He has had a history of philandering, so the wife is suspicious.

“Where the Hell were you?” she inquires.
“I got the car washed,” is the reply.
He points out the window to their gleaming sedan. But was he telling the truth, as it is commonly understood?

Here’s what actually happened: he left the house at seven, got to the car wash when it opened, left there at seven thirty, and drove to his girlfriend’s house a few miles away. He spent a few hours there committing adultery, and was back home at ten. His statement, that he “got the car washed,” while perfectly true and perfectly obvious from the car’s exterior, is, in fact, part of a lie. The lie is clearly one of omission. The critical question, from the wife’s viewpoint, was an implied, “Have you been seeing that bimbo again?” But, since it was not specifically asked, the question went unanswered. Had the wife countered with, “It took you all morning to get your car washed?” the man would still not be caught in an overt lie. He could have replied with “It takes over an hour to get the car washed on Saturday morning at eight o’clock.” While the statement is true, it is irrelevant because he wasn’t at the car wash at eight o’clock. He was there at seven when the lines are short. His answer implied that he was there at eight, but he didn’t actually say that he was. Bill Clinton would be proud.

Now to the question of George Bush and the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the issue of who really is lying. The democrats are all using the same basic talking points. They allege:

1. George Bush said that Saddam had WMD’s.
2. He took the country into war because of it.
3. Despite nearly a year of searching, no WMD’s have been found, and therefore,
4. George Bush is a liar,
5. And should be replaced by a democrat, the party renowned for its honesty.

There are some shades and gradations of the above, depending upon whether it’s Howard Dean or John Kerry doing the talking, but the basic premise is the one I have outlined. Let’s check it for veracity.

The very first statement is a lie of omission, and is actually the key to the democrats’ game plan to discredit the President. On the face of it, the statement “George Bush said that Saddam had WMD’s” appears to be perfectly true. And it is, as far as it goes. But, as we have learned, sometimes statements don’t go far enough, and the veracity of the statement is quite dubious, based upon a key omission. What is it that is omitted here? We all heard the President make the statement many times. Here is the key element: because George Bush subsequently acted (attacked Iraq) based upon this statement, the democrats are trying to make it seem like the statement really is:

“George Bush (and George Bush alone) said that Saddam had WMD’s.”

That is clearly what they are implying. But, before the war started, everyone in the world said that Saddam had WMD’s. Bush said it, but so did Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry, to say nothing of Koffi Annan and Dominique de Villepin. Even Saddam Hussein said that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weekly Standard Link.

Of course, it wouldn’t be much of an indictment of the President if the first premise was: “George Bush and the entire world said that Saddam had WMD’s,” or even, more accurately, “The entire world said that Saddam had WMD’s,” which clearly would include George W. Bush among its minions. No, the liars on the left find it convenient to assign a belief which is held by all, and attribute it to one (and only one) person. This disingenuous act is exacerbated by their turning the truth further on its head by calling Bush the liar.

The second statement, “He took the country into war because of it,” is also partly true, but false in what it omits. George Bush and, indeed, Colin Powell, made a very strong case for the war, and the existence of the WMD’s was only part of the reason. The democrats have attempted (rather successfully) to morph the argument into one whereby Bush made an assertion which ultimately he has been unable to prove. They (conveniently) omit just enough to keep their argument viable. Let’s examine what they have left out.

What is inarguable is that Saddam, at one point in time, did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is inarguable because there is clear evidence that he used them. He killed thousands of Kurds with poison gas, dealt the Marsh Arabs a similar fate, and was actively using chemical weapons throughout the long war with Iran. Nobody, not even Howard Dean or Scott Ritter can say, with a straight face, that Saddam never had WMD’s. The 1998 inventoried list, as cited above in The Weekly Standard, is not in dispute. The United Nations passed over a dozen resolutions, attempting to get Saddam to disarm. The final one, Resolution 1441, clearly, irrevocably, and for the final time, gave Saddam a last chance to come clean. Since the weapons clearly existed at one time, it was necessary for Saddam, as demanded by The United Nations, to hand over all proscribed munitions, and to explain and verify what had become of the rest. If weapons had been destroyed, he was to show evidence (video, trace element, even a bookkeeping entry) to prove it.

No evidence of such compliance has ever been offered. George Bush went to war because Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UN’s resolution. The onus was on Saddam to prove he had destroyed known stocks of illegal weapons. The onus is not, as implied by the democrats, on George Bush to find those weapons. It is almost as if George Bush had invaded some peace-loving nation, like Switzerland, accusing it of making illegal weapons. That is not the case at all. The prior existence of Saddam’s WMD’s was never in dispute

To give another analogy, consider the case of a mass-murderer who pulls out an automatic weapon and fires into a bunch of schoolchildren, killing nine of them. There are about a thousand witnesses, including a police officer, who gives chase. After a long run, he eventually starts gaining on the perpetrator, and yells, “Police! Put down your weapon! Put your hands up and surrender!” But, the alleged perpetrator keeps running. The policeman uses his own weapon to shoot the guy. Unfortunately, the police are unable to find the weapon. If you are a democrat, the only conclusion that you could draw is that the weapon never existed. Tell that to the nine dead schoolchildren. And tell the Kurds that Saddam never gassed their village.

The left is forced into a syllogism that is absurd on its face. They really are saying:

1. Saddam had WMD’s.
2. We can’t find the WMD’s, therefore
3. Saddam didn’t have WMD’s , and
4. George Bush is a liar for saying that he did.

Clearly, syllogisms don’t work that way. One must start with a premise, and, based upon that premise, come to a conclusion. However, (and this is critical),
the conclusion can never invalidate the original premise.
For instance, my premise might be: An apple is a fruit. It is clearly a true statement. From this, I can infer that if I am eating an apple, I am, in fact, eating a fruit. I cannot, however, by the rules of logic, infer that if I am eating a fruit, it must be an apple. I obviously could be eating an orange or a pear, and would still be eating a fruit. One could make many statements related to the original premise, but one could never say, “I am eating a fruit. It is a pear. Therefore, an apple is not a fruit.” One can never invalidate the original premise. It is an absurdity.

While Saddam’s possession of WMD’s is not quite the tautology of “An apple is a fruit, “ it is pretty close. If the democrats accept is as a fact, as they all did in 1998 when Clinton was president, they are left with the above non sequitur. Since he did have the weapons and we can’t find them, we cannot conclude that he never had them. (Unless we are democrats.) So then, what can rational people conclude? The choices are obvious. I will list them.

1. He hid them so well that we haven’t discovered them.
2. He transferred them to another country or entity.
3. He destroyed them.

Of course, there might be some combination of these three. If Saddam hid or transferred the weapons, the President was clearly correct in launching the invasion. That he had years to hide them does not make us at fault for not yet finding them. If he transferred them to a terrorist state, or a terrorist group, the invasion gains even more justification. Finally, the left might lead you to believe that if he destroyed them, we were wrong to invade. That is not the case. He had to show proof that he destroyed them, or else, like a gunman running from the police, the only safe assumption that can be made is that he still has the weapon or weapons. That’s why the police say, “Come out slowly with your hands up!” It is not enough to disarm. If you act as if you are still armed (for a criminal—keeping your hand in your pocket, pointing like a gun), the only way that you can be treated is as if you are, in fact, still armed. If the weapon is found, of course, these issues are moot. In Saddam’s case, the weapons have yet to be found in any real amounts. This does not mean that he never had them, nor does it indicate that Saddam complied in any way with UN Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously, with even France and Germany approving it. Yes, there is a big lie involving George Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clearly, he’s not the one telling it.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bushlied; saddam; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: TruthShallSetYouFree
We can't be bothered with FACTS.
41 posted on 01/24/2004 12:07:08 PM PST by Rome2000 (Ban "Jihad", not smoking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes
Thank you very much.
42 posted on 01/24/2004 12:40:32 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I am thrilled that FOX News had the highest ratings for the State of the Union Speech. It will only have real meaning, however, when Fox News has more viewers than all the other stations combined. Then, we could truly say that the truth is winning out.

The voters in America don't want to work hard enough to
understand complex issues. That's why the democrat soundbites are so effective. To the average Joe Sixpack Putz, the dems' lying resonates.
"Bush said there were WMD's. We can't find the WMD's. Therefore, Bush lied." Simple and easy.

If logic and understanding of the issues were truly taking place, there would be very few democrats in office anywhere in our country.

43 posted on 01/24/2004 12:47:19 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Right now it's difficult for the republicans because we are only getting dem news 24/7, or 24/6 as LIEberman says.

It seems as tho the whole country is dem. We won't get equal time but we will be speaking up and they won't be able to silence us completely as they are doing now.

44 posted on 01/24/2004 1:39:48 PM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
After I wrote this article and posted it here, I also emailed it to several people who don't ordinarily visit this site. They are not all conservatives, either. One person commented that Bush, in addition to overhyping the WMD's, also talked about an "imminent threat." I did some research, and answered him as follows:

The media and the democrat party have used, as a point of attack, the reference that George Bush made to an "imminent threat." Guess what? They are lying. Again.

Here is the actual quote:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Here is a reference link.

Bush didn't say the threat was imminent. He said we couldn't afford to wait until the threat was imminent.

45 posted on 01/25/2004 11:03:30 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Nice piece!
46 posted on 01/25/2004 11:07:31 AM PST by petercooper (Dean is done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Bump for a later read. Wow Truthy, you've been busy!
47 posted on 01/26/2004 6:38:18 AM PST by secret garden (Go Predators! Go Spurs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
"Bush didn't say the threat was imminent. He said we couldn't afford to wait until the threat was imminent."

Good! BTTT
48 posted on 01/26/2004 7:46:30 AM PST by international american (support our troops...........................revoke Hillary's visa!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Wow. Just . . .wow.

Excellently said.
49 posted on 01/26/2004 11:29:19 AM PST by RikaStrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Well done! I expect the Dems to lie and twist the truth in order to try to regain power. What frosts me is that so many in the media spout the Dem lies as though they were fact. Even that pompous windbag, Bill O'Reilly, on his radio program this morning, was calling for the President to "tell the truth." The media has the facts just as you stated them, yet they choose to ignore them.
50 posted on 01/26/2004 11:39:04 AM PST by Wolfstar (George W. Bush — the 1st truly great world leader of the 21st Century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Thanks. I think the media has heard the big lies so many times, they have become lazy and don't even bother to do a thorough source check. Then, they end up repeating the lies and adding to the disinformation and misinformation. Sure, some of it (most of it) from the left, is deliberate. From others, O'Reilly included, it's just laziness.

Most Americans would swear that it was Humphrey Bogart's character, Rick, who uttered the words, "Play it again, Sam," in Casablanca. A minority might even believe it was Ilsa, played by Ingrid Bergman, who said it. In truth, it was neither. Those words were never uttered.

Here is the actual quote, taken from reel classics.com.

Neither he nor Ilsa ever said "Play it again, Sam" to Wilson. What she says, after entering the club with her Resistance-hero husband, whom she believed dead when she took up with Rick in Paris, is, "Play it once, Sam, for old time's sake. Play it, Sam. Play 'As Time Goes By.' " Rick, rushing over, says, "Sam, I thought I told you never to play it." Then he notices Ilsa. They exchange a long look. Later, when Rick is sitting at a table after hours (muttering, "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in the world, she walks into mine"), he masochistically asks Sam to play: "You know what I want to hear. You played it for her. You can play it for me. If she can stand it, I can. Play it!"

Of course, in Casablanca, what Bogey clearly intended was for Sam to play it again. He just never used that exact phrase. When the media quotes Bush as saying that he justified the war by claiming the threat from Iraq was imminent, they are actually implying something very different (close to antithetical) from what Bush actually said, which was that basically, we couldn't afford to wait until the threat became imminent. Big difference!

What Bush said was equivalent to: "Hey, there is a big thunderstorm coming in. We'd better get off the golf course right away so that we don't get hit by lightning."

What the dems believe, apparently, is that it's okay to stand out there on the fairway, metal club in hand, and, when the lightning strikes, then, and only then, is the threat imminent. I guess when the electricity starts coming toward him at 186,000 miles/second, a democrat would figure that he still had plenty of time to jump out of the way. Actually, I've seen Kerry, Clark, and the others change positions even faster than that, so maybe they're onto something.

51 posted on 01/26/2004 12:11:25 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Don't forget about those from the Far Right.
52 posted on 01/26/2004 12:18:06 PM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 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