'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, June 9, 2008 | Fred Hiatt

[edpc]

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

[taildragger]

Hi Heels,

Yes it was destructive, and a Dem will never be treated the same.

The problem is where Obamanation will take us will probably wake people up a bit as to how good it was and how good GWB was given all his policy faults.

[Thrownatbirth]

much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

WaPo staff cuts must have left a reporting gap on new intelligence gleaned from Saddam's pre-war documents. Or else nobody's looked at Weekly Standard or NRO in a while.

[Kaslin]

I don’t know why you are having a problem with Hillary having gone to Iraq. Are you forgetting we have troops there?

[LottieDah]

A woman in my area has a “Bush lied and people died” bumper sticker on her car. Her son went to West Point and was injured in Iraq. The disconnect is unbelieveable. How did Bush lie? He was relying on information that was provided to him. Who are the liars here?

[elpadre]

If there was a scale that measured “Bush Lied, People Died,” with Congress on one end and the President on the other, the indicator needle would certainly we way over on the Congress side of instrument.

Congress butchered our people in Vietnam and have done their darnest to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan, IMHO

[Peter Libra]

Well informed and well reason criticism should be the basis of any attacks on those in high office. Of course, everybody is not perfect and most of us will sometimes deviate from this. Frustration causes an amount of rash criticism.

I believe that scurrilous attacks on the President, take on a life of their own. The question as to what percentage of a mob mentality then exists is anyone's guess. Sufficient to say that, if the press had been as biased for President Bush, as against, there must be a different story. I would hazard he would be at 50/50 at least. This in popular opinion.

Yet, even if there was, it still would not differ from the actual performance of the office.

Time will be the judge.

[Hi Heels]

1. I don't like anything Hillary does.

2. When her home plate is clean, then she should venture out and save the world, dontcha think? NY needs a senator, not an ambassador to Iraq.

3. It's showboating.

4. Did I miss something and the troops requested her presence? Missing the view in pantsuits or something?

[neverdem]

What's with the aversion to checking for the the "editorial" sidebar? Was there a message that I missed or overlooked?

[thulldud]

Did I miss something and the troops requested her presence? Missing the view in pantsuits or something?

According to Her Heinous, the troops seemed to "enjoy meeting [Her]self."

I'm just sayin'....

[Kaslin]

I don’t know what you are talking about. If I recall that was Pelosi who recently went to Iraq playing ambassador

[Cacique]

btt

[Hi Heels]

Last try. Actually when Bush went to see the troops the first time on Thanksgiving, he slipped in ahead of Hillary who planned a trip right afterwards. She was mighty pissed. I'm sorry, I'm not sure of the year and figure you can do your own homework. She may not have even gone given the unfriendly publicity, but I believe she did.

Is there a reason for this hostility or am I reading too much into this: "I don’t know what you are talking about." Because frankly, I try to be pleasant to everyone and expect the same if the discussion is to continue. And if you're defending HRC? I don't know what YOU'RE talking about.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related thread:

The Senate's Intelligence

New York Sun ^ | June 9, 2008 | The Editors

[God luvs America]

any link, preferably video, to rockerfeller saying this???

TIA....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

It’s difficult to imagine they are so blatantly antiAmerican!

See this :

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left

And a review:

**********************************

By	Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

[SunkenCiv]

The Senate Intel Report: So Much For ‘Bush Lied’
New York Post | 07/10/04 | John Podhoretz
Posted on 07/10/2004 2:21:28 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168711/posts

If the Bush Admin. Lied About WMD, So Did These People
Right Wing News | 6/11/03 | John Hawkins
Posted on 06/11/2003 2:03:28 PM PDT by Political Numbers Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927208/posts

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People (Updated)
Right Wing News | June 19, 2003 | John Hawkins
Posted on 06/19/2003 6:11:23 AM PDT by conservativecorner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/931783/posts

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People — Version 3.0
right wing news dot com | Hawkins
Posted on 06/09/2005 10:53:22 PM PDT by doug from upland
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420101/posts

Did They Really Say That?
(Democratic lies about President Bush going to war unnecessarily)
Posted on 07/15/2004 7:22:08 PM PDT by Happy2BMe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172331/posts

Terry Larkin: If Bush ‘lied,’ then he’s in very good company (letter to the Editor)
star tribune | 6/11/2005 | Terry Larkin
Posted on 06/10/2005 6:21:00 PM PDT by bitt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420690/posts

Response To An Angry Bush-Basher
Jewish Press | 6/30/2004 | STUART W. MIRSKY
Posted on 06/30/2004 12:20:01 PM PDT by SJackson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163205/posts

[Lancey Howard]

I’m not sure about them allowing facts to get in the way of a good story—I found this a shockingly fair piece for the WaPo.

Agreed. I'm sure there are plenty of newsroom mice gnashing their teeth over their paper actually publishing this.

But what the article points up to me - - again - - is how little fight there is in George W. Bush. He has consistently refused to stand up and defend himself. The man just sits there like a punching bag, and that makes all of us who have supported him over the years look like wimps by extension. Thanks, Dubya. Thanks a lot.

[Darkwolf377]

That's been the single biggest disappointment of his presidency--the total failure to communicate effectively. With smart, effective folks communicating the WH positions and fighting every attack early on, the presidency would have been on a much different footing. Instead, there have been many, many cases (starting with Iraq) where Bush was right but just sat there taking it from all sides with barely a peep.

His father was the same way. I'm reminded of when he ran against Clinton and couldn't believe anyone would vote for him, because of his draft status, Bush's war heroism, etc.

Why so many Republicans try this get-along stuff, I don't know. They want to be perceived as NICE by the folks they meet at DC cocktail parties, where Republicans outside of DC don't give a damn--we'd rather not be invited to such things.

[edpc]

There must be video of it somewhere, as it was part of a Senate speech in October of 2002. Here are some additional comments he had at the time regarding the WOT and Iraq.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

[ETL]

See this:

Thanks, but I've been posting the same for months...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2028077/posts?page=16#16

"It’s difficult to imagine they are so blatantly antiAmerican!"

Where did you get the quote from? I never said this. Did you mean to respond to someone else?