Skip to comments.Did Bush Lie? Ask Google
Posted on 11/14/2005 6:33:21 AM PST by EarthStomper
President Bush came out swinging on Veterans Day in a speech accusing his Democratic war critics of re-writing history. Some war critics have mounted a campaign against him by boiling the entire pre-war history and post-invasion violence down to a two-word phrase: "Bush Lied". They say he lied us into war by distorting intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to convince Americans to fight an unnecessary war. The "Bush Lied" accusation is, if true, an indictment of the entire war itself, and one could reasonably argue we should cut our losses and get out of it.
The president could have destroyed the entire "Bush Lied" attack a long time ago. And he could have done it in a way that showed what a wired, technologically savvy president he is; and in a way that would have simplified his side of the debate down to three words and a number:
Google "Clinton Iraq 1998"
Google is not just a search engine; it's also something of a wayback machine. It can take us back to the last time prior to 2003 that the United States waged a campaign against Saddam Hussein.
If you go to Google and run a search using "Clinton Iraq 1998," you will find at the time of this writing 3,010,000 hits. Time stands still for no net surfer, so your mileage may vary slightly. But you won't need all those three million hits anyway. You can just click on the very first one, which will take you to a CNN story dated December 16, 1998 about President Clinton warning Iraq that its failure to comply with UN weapons inspections left him no choice but to attack. And attack he did, launching Operation Desert Fox, which destroyed Iraq's intelligence headquarters and a few other points of concern. President Clinton's reasons for the operation:
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
For the "Bush Lied" mantra to have any logical or factual force, one must believe that Desert Fox not only destroyed every single WMD Saddam had, but also cowed him sufficiently that he never built a single WMD or lab in the five years that remained of his rule. And that knowing all of this, Bush took us to war anyway. No serious person believes that.
The third hit that our Google search on "Clinton Iraq 1998" finds is a link to a story about something called the Iraq Liberation Act. What's that? Well, it's a document approved by Congress and signed by the president on October 31, 1998. It set forth as American policy the support of groups opposed to Saddam Hussein and encouraged regime change. It even set aside a few million dollars for the Iraqi National Congress, the group many war critics have accused of duping the Bush administration into believing in WMD that never existed. But if the Bush administration was duped, so was the Clinton administration, since the Iraq Liberation Act has President Clinton's signature on it.
Seven links into our three million hit cache we find a story with the following quote:
"Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President '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.'"
The letter quoted goes on to detail the many ways Iraq has violated its post-Gulf War obligations to the UN (those violations being among the causes for war in 2003) and the Coalition that liberated Kuwait after the 1990 Iraqi invasion. It was written by Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. Today Sen. Levin is among those Democrats who publicly accuse President Bush of lying about WMD in order to get the U.S. into war with Iraq.
If you follow more of the three million links that Googling "Clinton Iraq 1998" find, you'll read Madeline Albright sounding as hawkish on Saddam as Donald Rumsfeld. Albright was Clinton's Secretary of State in 1998. Former Vice President Al Gore's transformation from reasonable hawk to a sort of howling anti-war Gorewolf is particularly disturbing. The Google search string will help you document that transformation. Thanks goodness he invented the internet to make this all possible.
The intire vocabulary of the Rat Party is "Bush Lied".
I think my mother,a dyed in the wool democrat, is coming around on the bush lied thing. She didnt know that all the democrats, including clinton, made the same case as bush. She knows that i also did support clinton in 92 and 96 so she trusts my word as not one of a clinton basher. I hope this is the beginning of a bush counter offensive
Try typing "great president" at google and see what the first entry is.
I did, and was surprised...
The intire vocabulary of the Rat Party is "Bush Lied".
When in reality they are the kings of liars. Up one side and down another.
I hate to say it but the Democrats have sold that lie to most of the idiots that look no farther than the end of there nose.
"If you tell it enough people will believe it"
Did youhappen to notice where the entry is from?
The WH. I suspect that the WH knows how to manipulate google too.
Make it easy for your anti-war friends to feel like an idiot today. E-mail the following link to them:
The anti-war left relies on Google as much as anyone else to try to back their strange conspiracy theories and wreckless accusations with the most obscure information to be found on the Web.
This simple Google search is certainly within their capability, and the results are instantaneous and indisputable.
The link for the actual article is:
Bush, Saddam, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction:
WHO IS REALLY LYING?
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 didnt 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 plaintiffs story, it would certainly lend credence to the charges. So, to say that Mr. Clintons lie was only about sex is as disingenuous as if Michael Jackson were found to be lying only about sex. Having sex with an underling, in the first case, or a twelve 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 oclock 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?
Heres 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 girlfriends 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 cars exterior, is, in fact, part of a lie. The lie is clearly one of omission. The critical question, from the wifes 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 oclock. While the statement is true, it is irrelevant because he wasnt at the car wash at eight oclock. He was there at seven when the lines are short. His answer implied that he was there at eight, but he didnt 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 WMDs.
2. He took the country into war because of it.
3. Despite nearly a year of searching, no WMDs have been found, and therefore,
4. George Bush is a liar, which leads to
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 its Howard Dean or John Kerry doing the talking, but the basic premise is the one I have outlined. Lets 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 WMDs appears to be perfectly true. And it is, as far as it goes. But, as we have learned, sometimes statements dont 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 WMDs. That is clearly what they are implying. But, before the war started, everyone in the world said that Saddam had WMDs. 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 wouldnt be much of an indictment of the President if the first premise was: George Bush and the entire world said that Saddam had WMDs, or even, more accurately, The entire world said that Saddam had WMDs, 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 WMDs was only part of the reason. The democrats have attempted (rather successfully) to frame their argument that Bush made an assertion which ultimately he has been unable to prove. They (conveniently) omit just enough to keep their argument strong. Lets 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 WMDs. 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 UNs 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 Saddams WMDs 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 perpetrators 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 WMDs.
2. We cant find the WMDs, therefore
3. Saddam didnt have WMDs , and
4. George Bush is a liar for saying that he did.
Clearly, syllogisms dont 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, An apple is a fruit. 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 Saddams possession of WMDs is not quite the tautology of An apple is a fruit, it is pretty close. If the democrats accept it 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 cant 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 havent 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. Thats 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 criminalkeeping 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 Saddams case, the weapons have yet to be found in any significant quantity. 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, hes not the one telling it.
the same thing happens if you search "failure" and click "i'm feeling lucky."
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time.
BUT.......you can never fool all of the people all of the time.
'..Dems have sold that lie..' 'If you tell it enough, people will believe it'..
Exactly. That's why it is CRUCIAL that our side get out the truth using facts. The media will sure not do it on their own. We must bombard the media, our Senators, Congresspeople with calls, emails, snail mail. The media will, most likely, largely ignore our mail, but, we have to TRY to get out the truth.
"Bush Lied" is the entire platorm for the DNC. Howard the Duck screwed from the Tim Russert Show after being offered to be on with Ken Mehlmen because he was going to be confronted with this.
I suspect the DNC knows how to manipulate google too.
It is an amazing adventure into logical Wonderland watching the left spin this story. The usual sequence on any of the "Talking Heads" shows goes like this:
Lib: Bush lied about the reasons for going to war.
Conservative: Congress, which had the same intelligence, voted to go to war. Clinton said Saddam had WMD's back in 1998. Kerry, Pelosi, Schumer, and virtually the entire democrat party all said Saddam had WMD's.
Lib: But Bush took us to war over it.
That's where the logic breaks down. The issue isn't what Bush did with the information--the issue is whether Bush provided false information (i.e., "lied.") The dems conveniently change the subject. Unbelievably, the Sheeple have let them get away with it.