Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie

RUSH: The Republican presidential candidates are being hit with, "Well, knowing what you know now, would you go back into Iraq?" And they've mostly accepted the premise that Iraq was a big boondoggle, a huge mistake, Bush lied, we shouldn't have done it, and they're answering on that basis.

Well, on Fox News Sunday, which I didn't see, during the group panel discussion, Chris Wallace speaking with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Wallace said, "The politics of Iraq have gotten a lot of attention the last couple of weeks with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, bunch of others, and these questions of was it a mistake to go in 2003, was it a mistake to get out in 2011, what impact this could all have on the Republican race, the Democrat race. Bob Woodward, I know you want to talk about it because you've written a lot and you've reported extensively on this. What do you say about it?"

WOODWARD: There's a kind of line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. Lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD, and he was the one who was skeptical. A mistake certainly can be argued and there's an abundance of evidence, but there was no lie in this, that I could find.

RUSH: See how easy that is? See? Bob Woodward, the sane member of Woodward and Bernstein, says there wasn't any lie. He looked into this. And, by the way, the Democrats, don't forget, all signed on to this. Twice the Democrats in the Senate signed onto this, the use of force agreement. And it took Bush, Woodward says 18 months, it took Bush almost a year of going all over this country making speeches, building the case, United Nations and all that. And at no time during any of that did anybody accuse Bush of lying at that point. Only after the fact when it became a political football, but there's Bob Woodward: Hey, Bush did not lie. That's not at all what happened here. Case closed, that's it.

RUSH: Now, back to Bob Woodward. One more sound bite, Fox News Sunday. After Woodward claimed (paraphrasing), "Hey, I looked into this. I wrote a book about this. There might have been mistakes made in the Iraq war, but Bush did not lie about anything." Chris Wallace said, "What about 2011 and Obama's decision to pull all the troops out? There had been the Status of Forces Agreement between Bush and the Iraqi government that provided for a follow-on force. The Pentagon was talking about somewhere between 10 and 20,000. A lot of people think Obama didn't really want to keep any troops there."

WOODWARD: Look, Obama does not like war, but as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let's keep, 10, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy, and we all know insurance companies make sense. When you're a superpower you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn't in this case. I don't think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor.

RUSH: All right, I have to tell you, folks, do you realize how tough it probably was for Bob Woodward to admit both of these things? That, A, Bush didn't lie. And then in the second sound bite essentially saying that the loss of Iraq is Obama's fault? Now, that has to be a tough thing for Bob Woodward to say, because Obama's his guy. No doubt voted for him, invested a lot of hope in him. But it's clear. Obama lost Iraq by refusing to keep a follow-on force and he went out and claimed victory for it, but he wanted no part of any remaining force.

He'd been promising his insane base he was gonna close Gitmo, get us out of Iraq, get us out of Afghanistan, and make sure the United States took it in the shorts everywhere possible, as we deserved. And so he calls it an insurance policy. We all know insurance policies make sense.

RUSH: Bill in Macon, Georgia, you're next. Glad you waited. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Hey, Rush, two quick points. One, we did not go to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction. We went to war over the lack of weapons inspectors being able to do their jobs. And number two, contrary to a caller last week you had, even if George Bush had decided to, quote, unquote, not invade Iraq, the next day he still had the problems with what do I do with the sanctions, what do I do with the no fly zones. So when I hear Chris Wallace ask that simple question about "If you'd have known now what you'd have known then," it's like they're ignoring 12, 13 years of history.

RUSH: Well, obviously, because the purpose of the question is to "gotcha." I mean, the question's a setup. I mean, knowing what you know now, would you have encouraged and helped Obama pass Obamacare? Knowing what you know now, we could do this with any politician for anything at any time they served. This is time for the Republicans running for the presidency and important in this is to not accept the premise of the question, which that Iraq was a mistake. And the answer you gave would be a great way of doing it.

The premise is that Bush lied, that he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, that the intelligence told him there was no WMD, but that Cheney convinced Bush to do it anyway. And that's the premise under which these questions are being asked. And some of these Republicans are so shell-shocked and afraid of the media, they're accepting the premise and then any answer they give is a trap. Whereas the correct answer would be not to accept the premise and turn it around and say, "Well, knowing what we know now, if we're gonna have a Democrat Party that would have done everything to sabotage the war and a forthcoming Democrat president would get us out of there prematurely, no, I might not have gone into Iraq if I'd have known Barack Obama was gonna be elected."

What an answer that would have been. "If I'd have known Barack Obama was gonna be president no way would I have gone into Iraq because I couldn't guarantee that our success would be maintained." Just as simple as that. Or use what you said. "What do you mean, knowing what we now know? Do you know why we went to Iraq?" Just put it back on the reporter. "Well, I'm the one asking the questions, not answering."

"No. He was not permitting weapons inspectors. There were 14 different UN resolutions he was in violation. That's why there was such a grand, huge coalition, the world united against the guy. He rolled the dice that what happened to him would never happen. He was all bluster. He was trying to look big in the eyes of the mullahs in Iran, and he wanted to be thought of as the big guy in the Middle East to take on the evil US. So he was lying about all this stuff. Of course, he did use mustard gas on his own people, the Kurds, so he had done it before."

But there's any number of ways of answering that question. And your way is an excellent one, too. Is to just get 'em off this notion of weapons of mass destruction.

Pre-war quotes from "lying" House and Senate democrats...

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:

Why?

Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?

Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all

“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record

John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." –
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" –
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman

Let me reply to each of your points:

1) The “no fly zone” was a violation of Iraq’s sovereign territory. The US has no more right to declare a no fly zone over the sovereign territory of another nation than other nations have to do the same in the USA. I would hope that if China declared a no fly zone over the portions of the USA we would be shooting down the military aircraft seeking to enforce the zone.
2) The UN is a paper tiger and is only used as an excuse for imperialism when it suits the power desiring to exercise military power. If the UN has legitimacy you should support every UN resolution including those on Palestine, the environment, “human rights”, regulation of firearms. Do you?
3. The US has assassinated and attempted the assassination of foreign leaders for the last 100 years. Our current president assassinates US citizens without due process of law.
4. The US Army slaughtered Native Americans by the tens of thousands. The US government, as late as the 1950’s, secretly conducted experiments on American servicemen and citizens exposing them to harmful radiation and disease without their knowledge. Many died. What is the difference? Also, on what authority did the United States become the protector of the Marsh Arabs? There was no treaty approved by the Senate.
5. What about Israel’s nuclear program? What about South Africa’s, North Korea’s, Libya’s, or even the US, Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, Indian, and French programs? What entitles some nations to have nuclear weapons and others to not be allowed nuclear capability?
6. How many other nations have biological weapons, including the US? Again, what entitles some to have those weapons while others are denied?
7. Same issue as #5 and #6.
8. What is the difference between Sadaam cooperating with terrorists and the US providing weapons to the Afghans in the 1980’s or supplying arms around the world to various nations and groups engaged in genocide? If

You mentioned we were under a state of war with Iraq, under a cease fire. As I recall the US invaded Iraq in 1990, without any threat to our homeland. In fact the US Armed Forces were a mercenary force, paid for by the Gulf States. The US was interfering in a war between Iraq and Kuwait. This was another selective engagement of US forces. Why did we intervene in that conflict and not the Iraq/Iran War a few years before in which both countries were using chemical weapons?

As to Sadaam killing 500,000 people — What justifies the invasion of Iraq when we sat by and allowed Stalin and Mao to kill millions, Castro to kill tens of thousands only 90 miles from our shore, Pol Pot to kill tens of thousands, not to mention the ongoing killing of hundreds of thousands in Africa? How many have been killed in North Korea while we sat by doing nothing? The US is not the world’s policeman.

The US has been intervening in the Middle East since the 1940’s with nothing to show for it except the hatred of the people in the region, the squandering of billions, if not trillions of dollars, and the wast of the blood of American soldiers.

What gives the US the right to intervene militarily in other nations (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) when those nations have not attacked our soil and pose no imminent threat. One day the shoe will be on the other foot. How will we feel when Chinese or Russian planes fly overhead and foreign troops occupy our cities?

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.