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

Skip to comments.

Of 'Lies' and WMD
The Wall Street Journal ^ | July 12, 2004 | Masthead Editorial

Posted on 07/11/2004 9:44:43 PM PDT by neverdem

The Senate vindicates President Bush and exposes Joe Wilson as a partisan fraud.

"The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

So reads Conclusion 83 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda. So it appears that some of the claims about WMD used by the Bush Administration and others to argue for war in Iraq were mistaken because they were based on erroneous information provided by the CIA.

A few apologies would seem to be in order. Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a President. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.

Or to put it more directly, if President Bush was "lying" about WMD, then so was Mr. Rockefeller when he relied on CIA evidence to claim in October 2002 that Saddam Hussein's weapons "pose a very real threat to America." Also lying at the time were John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and so on. Yet Mr. Rockefeller is still suggesting on the talk shows, based on nothing but inference and innuendo, that there was undue political Bush "pressure" on CIA analysts.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: intelreport; iraq; josephwilson; wilson; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 07/11/2004 9:44:43 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Unfortunatley, the administration and re-election campaign have done a poor PR job in the last 12 months, and these unsubstantiated charges have now become 'fact' in many people's minds. When lies are not answered, they become truth. I hope to see the usual rope-a-dope from the campaign in the next few months to hang the left, and cruise to victory. This election shouldn't even be remotely close, if not for the poor PR handling.


2 posted on 07/11/2004 9:49:11 PM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I'm so sick of this leftist war against our actions that they supported...FRAUDS...! ALL OF THEM!


3 posted on 07/11/2004 9:50:03 PM PDT by Republic Rocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a President. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.

Better late then never, but the damage has been done.

4 posted on 07/11/2004 9:56:36 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump!


5 posted on 07/11/2004 9:57:57 PM PDT by The Mayor ( The cross of Christ reveals man’s sin at its worst and God’s love at its best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So it appears that some of the claims about WMD used by the Bush Administration and others to argue for war in Iraq were mistaken because they were based on erroneous information provided by the CIA.

So talk to the man in charge of the CIA when all this info was being collected.
It's not unusual for a newly elected president to use the intelligence information given to him by his predecessors.
Why ask Bush about it? He wasn't there. He was governing in Texas.

6 posted on 07/11/2004 10:01:29 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

It's not poor PR handling. It's a partisan media. And it's just part of the terrain. Bush will still win.


7 posted on 07/11/2004 10:08:12 PM PDT by thoughtomator (End the imperialist moo slime colonization of the West!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
Rope a Dope.

The Bush Team has the advantage of the Truth.

I think it's smart to let the dims wallow in their lies.

The truth is emerging and it's gonna be bad news for the left.

Good smart Rope a Dope.

Since the left will never consider falling on it's sword, why not have it hung by it's own pitard?

8 posted on 07/11/2004 10:11:23 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Eagles Up !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Rope a Dope.

My husband is very unbiased, so unbiased sometimes I wanna smack him , but he says Bush is wayyyyy ahead of the democrats. He says Bush is very, very good at what he does, and he's years ahead of them strategically. He says they'll never be able to compete with him, and there's no doubt he's already working on 2008 by now.

9 posted on 07/11/2004 10:17:38 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Republic Rocker
When you think about it, the left must act as if Saddam was innocent for their own survival.

To support Bush's actions would mean that they are admitting that they failed thoroughly and allowed Saddam to remain in power with his WMDs and Bush came along and corrected the Democrats' cowardice.

The Democratic Party cannot survive with such a failure being the perception so they are in a desperate battle to change the perception from "failure fixed" to "there was no failure to fix". It is a daunting task the liberals have because they are at war with recorded history.

The only way the Democrats can win is if they somehow shame the Republicans into not exposing their lies and treachery. All Bush needs to is run ads showing nothing but recorded history and force the 'rats into a contest against obvious recorded history.
10 posted on 07/11/2004 10:19:01 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Strateregy, Strateregy, Strateregy.

Works for me!

FREgards...

11 posted on 07/11/2004 10:31:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Eagles Up !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

This is not the public but rather the Senate. I think the last polls I have seen that ask still found a large fraction if not a majority of the public thinks Saddam had WMD.

I know I think it. Fortunately the Dims are too dim to figure out how they might run against Bush on the WMD issue and win.


12 posted on 07/11/2004 10:34:37 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Bush needs to is run ads showing nothing but recorded history and force the 'rats into a contest against obvious recorded history.

The last administrations speeches and film releases about Saddams WMD's. Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, the whole bunch spoke out supporting Bill and his "determination" to stop Saddams weapons of mass destruction!
Show one of each, and Bush is a shoe in.

13 posted on 07/11/2004 10:35:24 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; AKA Elena
"Above all, it's important to remember that the Senate report does not claim that the overall assessment of Iraq as a threat was mistaken. U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Saddam ample opportunity to come clean about his weapons, but he refused. The reports from David Kay and his WMD task force have since shown that Saddam violated 1441 in multiple ways."

Enough said.  

Dem statements in the following link say more.

What the Media won't tell you

14 posted on 07/11/2004 10:41:31 PM PDT by windchime (Where in the world is Joseph C. Wilson?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: windchime

Thanks for the link.


15 posted on 07/11/2004 10:58:28 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bfmc!!! (Bump For Morning Coffee)


16 posted on 07/11/2004 10:59:40 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (I approve this message: character and integrity matter. Bush/Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You're welcome!


17 posted on 07/11/2004 11:02:48 PM PDT by windchime (Where in the world is Joseph C. Wilson?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: windchime

I'm not sure I understand their point. Joe Wilson said the Niger documents were forgeries. The CIA according to all reports said they were uncomfortable with them. How does the senate report prove Joe Wilson to be a partisan fraud?

"The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda." But they also found no evidence from the CIA that they were "Allies" or had any strong connection, something the administration has claimed repeatedly and still has to put up or shut up about.

If we want to accuse the liberals of faulty logic, we can't use it ourselves. The article simply makes no sense, despite saying things we might want to hear.


18 posted on 07/11/2004 11:45:43 PM PDT by animatormike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: animatormike
Read up
19 posted on 07/12/2004 12:17:18 AM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: animatormike
You are wrong, or your words need clarifying, in various ways.

1. Joe Wilson may have "said" the "Niger documents" were forgeries, but he never actually saw them (until later perhaps), so he had no standing to do so.

2. Wilson was not sent to Niger to investigate whether the "Niger documents" were forgeries (again, he hadn't seen them at that point) but rather the general question of Saddam-Niger uranium attempts.

3. Nothing he did in Niger proved the "Niger documents" were forgeries (to the extent that we know that, we know it from other sources). Didn't stop him from going around talking as if he was a big expert on them, their missing signatures, etc.

4. On the other hand, what he did in Niger DID prove Bush's 16 words correct. One of Wilson's sources stated that an Iraqi (Baghdad Bob, turns out) made what he perceved as a uranium overture. This proves Bush's 16 words correct. This is (I believe) in the Senate report and is Exhibit A of Wilson's partisan fraudulence. (And the "Niger documents" being frauds has no bearing on this issue - one of the most irritating ways in which the Joe Wilsons of the world have misled the rest of us. The fact that someone somewhere forged a document does not prove that Saddam didn't seek uranium from Africa - if it did, then I could convert you into a high school dropout by writing up a forged high school diploma with your name on it.)

5. Although his actual investigation proved the opposite, Wilson came back from Niger, wrote an NYT article "What I didn't find in Africa", and generally spent the next year talking as if he'd DISPROVED Bush's 16 words. The "Baghdad Bob" story didn't come out till his book.

6. He actually lied publicly about his wife recommending him for the job; this is Exhibit B in the Senate report which helps prove him a partisan fraud. (It's also Exhibit A in proving his little "investigation" a fraud to being with. This whole damn thing never should have been an issue.)

7. Incidentally the administration has NOT "claimed repeatedly" that Iraq and al Qaeda were "Allies" (why do you put that in quotes?), that is a lie invented and promulgated by yourself for reasons known only to yourself. They have claimed there were connections, which is absolutely true. If you want to get into silly puerile parsings about what "kind" of connections, be my guest, but I really don't see the point.

20 posted on 07/12/2004 12:17:53 AM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next 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