On October 10, 2002, John Edwards explained his vote to authorize the war in Iraq this way:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." On September 12, 2002, Edwards said this: "The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror." Most important, Senator Edwards is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Although he missed many Intelligence Committee meetings to campaign for president, he signed the report that the Intelligence Committee issued on July 7, 2004. That report confirmed numerous high-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. And it included this passage: From 1996 to 2003, the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interest, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports [redacted] from multiple sources indicate IIS "casing" operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting that throughout 2002, the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.
From p. 331 of the Senate report that Edwards approved: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."
What's more the Senate Intelligence report concluded that the CIA's assessments on Iraq-al Qaeda contacts were "reasonable."
Was John Edwards wrong? Did he lie? Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): " Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report): "Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315): "The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): " Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316): "Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment." Kerry campaign: "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war." Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 331): "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's [chemical, biological, nuclear] CBW efforts." More Kerry Quotes: Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. johnkerry.com speeches (Thanks Scot!) Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor (Thanks Aaron) Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch) Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch) Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source " 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 | Source "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 | Source "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 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "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 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, 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 Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Leading Democrats have been nearly as virulent as Republicans in their support of this war. Hillary Clinton's position--send in more troops--falls to the right of the Rumsfeld/Cheney line. Nevertheless, overwhelming evidence, from Colin Powell, from the report cited here, points to a deliberate policy of trumping up evidence known to be thin or downright false to justify a war that had at best lukewarm support from the public--support that has since collapsed. Its curious that a regime that claims to be promoting democracy with the barrel of a gun uses such brazenly undemocratic means--ie, deliberately misguiding the public--to achieve its ends.
Oh yeah, I should add to evidence of a concerted campaign to mislead the public the adminstration's strange relationship with Judith Miller of the NY Times--another toothless institution (like the Democratic Party) that's so laughably demonized by Fox News, etc. She spent about a year using the likes of Chalabi (currently iraq's oil chief) as the source for front-page stories trumping up various nefarious and specious plots and "programs" being cooked up in Iraq. Turns out she had been granted special clearence by the Vice President's office. Odd, indeed.
Then why Tom, can't you, others like you and the media be honest and up front when you throw around liar accusations? If Bush lied, then they all lied. Be an equal opportunty critcizer, or don't criticize at all.
I stand second to no one, not even reformed leftists, in my disrespect for Democrats. Yet even if they cravenly surrendered to Bush's engineering of the war, they didn't engineer the war. No quote from Kerry or anyone else can undo this statement from the NYT article: "The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons." Bottom line: Bush brazenly and repeatedly lied, and pressured subordinates like Colin Powell to do the same, to drum up support for an unpopular war. In a real democracy, that would be a problem.
Okay; but instead of debating whether or not Bush knowingly misled the public to garner support for an unpopular war, we're debating the merits of the war itself.
I'm aware of the source of the quote, and what it means. Please address my question: is war ever better than peace?
Yes, I agree that Bush manipulated facts in order to present the clearest possible case for war. I am eager for you to provide an example of any just war in which such was not the case as well. I would certainly hate for the Civil War to not have occured just because the peacenicks at the time caught Abe exagerating the threat. And I do believe that Bush did not "lie" about banned weapons; surely if he knew as a fact that there were no banned weapons (making him different than all the war opponents, who at the time believed this as well), he would have known that his invasion would hvae exposed the truth.
I certainly did not support the invasion because I thought that Iraq was a nuclear threat or because it was one of many despotic regimes that has big weapons. I suppored the war because Bush promised to erect a democracy, and I believed that a democracy in the heart of islam might convince people to choose prosperity over destruction.
History certainly seems to indicate that FDR manipulated intelligence and facts and was guilty of what could be construed as "lying" to get the U.S. into WWII, but I don't think a sane person would argue that that war wasn't worth fighting.
In fact, the anti-war Republicans hurled the same sort of venom and accusations at FDR back then as the Democrats and others are at Bush today.
13 comments:
On October 10, 2002, John Edwards explained his vote to authorize the war in Iraq this way:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
On September 12, 2002, Edwards said this:
"The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."
Most important, Senator Edwards is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Although he missed many Intelligence Committee meetings to campaign for president, he signed the report that the Intelligence Committee issued on July 7, 2004. That report confirmed numerous high-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. And it included this passage:
From 1996 to 2003, the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interest, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports [redacted] from multiple sources indicate IIS "casing" operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting that throughout 2002, the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.
From p. 331 of the Senate report that Edwards approved: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."
What's more the Senate Intelligence report concluded that the CIA's assessments on Iraq-al Qaeda contacts were "reasonable."
Was John Edwards wrong? Did he lie?
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
CIA Analysis, January 2003: Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
" Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism."
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 315):
"The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks."
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
" Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"From 1996 to 2003, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel."
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 316):
"Throughout 2002, the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests. The CIA provided eight reports to support this assessment."
Kerry campaign:
"There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went to war."
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (p. 331):
"Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's [chemical, biological, nuclear] CBW efforts."
More Kerry Quotes:
Sep 6, 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times
Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech
Oct 9, 2002: "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."
Oct 9, 2002: The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. johnkerry.com speeches (Thanks Scot!)
Oct 9, 2002: "Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." Speech on senate floor (Thanks Aaron)
Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We’re not going to cut and run and not do the job.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch)
Sep 14, 2003: “I don’t think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,”) (watch)
Dec 15, 2003: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..."
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
" 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 | Source
"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 | Source
"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 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"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 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, 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 Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
I seem to see the honorable (not) Carl Levin quoted on this list. Hmmm, guess he and the rest of those quoted here must've been lying as well.
Nice try.
Leading Democrats have been nearly as virulent as Republicans in their support of this war. Hillary Clinton's position--send in more troops--falls to the right of the Rumsfeld/Cheney line.
Nevertheless, overwhelming evidence, from Colin Powell, from the report cited here, points to a deliberate policy of trumping up evidence known to be thin or downright false to justify a war that had at best lukewarm support from the public--support that has since collapsed.
Its curious that a regime that claims to be promoting democracy with the barrel of a gun uses such brazenly undemocratic means--ie, deliberately misguiding the public--to achieve its ends.
Oh yeah, I should add to evidence of a concerted campaign to mislead the public the adminstration's strange relationship with Judith Miller of the NY Times--another toothless institution (like the Democratic Party) that's so laughably demonized by Fox News, etc. She spent about a year using the likes of Chalabi (currently iraq's oil chief) as the source for front-page stories trumping up various nefarious and specious plots and "programs" being cooked up in Iraq. Turns out she had been granted special clearence by the Vice President's office. Odd, indeed.
Then why Tom, can't you, others like you and the media be honest and up front when you throw around liar accusations? If Bush lied, then they all lied. Be an equal opportunty critcizer, or don't criticize at all.
I stand second to no one, not even reformed leftists, in my disrespect for Democrats. Yet even if they cravenly surrendered to Bush's engineering of the war, they didn't engineer the war. No quote from Kerry or anyone else can undo this statement from the NYT article:
"The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons."
Bottom line: Bush brazenly and repeatedly lied, and pressured subordinates like Colin Powell to do the same, to drum up support for an unpopular war. In a real democracy, that would be a problem.
Tom: When has a democracy ever appeared other than "by the barrel of a gun"?
Tom: About your ironic phrase, "war is peace," do you agree that some of the greatest advances in human society have come only from war:
1) US Revolution.
2) US Civil War.
3) WWII.
Sometimes "war is the answer" and "peace" is more intolerable.
Precisely. I'm sure one could argue there was a modicum of "peace" in Iraq under Saddam's rule.
Okay; but instead of debating whether or not Bush knowingly misled the public to garner support for an unpopular war, we're debating the merits of the war itself.
The "War is peace" line comes from Orwell, a critic of official misinformation in service of so-called democracy.
I'm aware of the source of the quote, and what it means. Please address my question: is war ever better than peace?
Yes, I agree that Bush manipulated facts in order to present the clearest possible case for war. I am eager for you to provide an example of any just war in which such was not the case as well. I would certainly hate for the Civil War to not have occured just because the peacenicks at the time caught Abe exagerating the threat. And I do believe that Bush did not "lie" about banned weapons; surely if he knew as a fact that there were no banned weapons (making him different than all the war opponents, who at the time believed this as well), he would have known that his invasion would hvae exposed the truth.
I certainly did not support the invasion because I thought that Iraq was a nuclear threat or because it was one of many despotic regimes that has big weapons. I suppored the war because Bush promised to erect a democracy, and I believed that a democracy in the heart of islam might convince people to choose prosperity over destruction.
History certainly seems to indicate that FDR manipulated intelligence and facts and was guilty of what could be construed as "lying" to get the U.S. into WWII, but I don't think a sane person would argue that that war wasn't worth fighting.
In fact, the anti-war Republicans hurled the same sort of venom and accusations at FDR back then as the Democrats and others are at Bush today.
Post a Comment