The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

[BullKurtz]

I should have alerted you to the satire? Are you fucking kidding or what? Would you like me to wipe your ass for you too?

No thanks....although I hear Jake Starkey is in the market for a new pool boy....you can PM him to apply from what I hear.

 

[Liminal]

I should have alerted you to the satire? Are you fucking kidding or what? Would you like me to wipe your ass for you too?

No thanks....although I hear Jake Starkey is in the market for a new pool boy....you can PM him to apply from what I hear.

Is that what you heard? Seems like you hear all kinds of things. Must be your inside source at work again.

 

[BullKurtz]

Is that what you heard? Seems like you hear all kinds of things. Must be your inside source at work again.

Listen NOOB...I don't give a shit where you been or where you're going....around here you either got it or you don't and you don't.

 

[Interpol]

The OP is fighting a losing battle.

We all know Bush and his neo-con cabal LIED us into Iraq.

But if the revisionists want to have us believe they didn't lie, that makes Bush and his team the most INCOMPETENT failures in American history.

They're either liars or the stupidest people ever or both. Take your pick.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Blindboo is making Ball-less Kurtz his bitch. And making Ball-less like it!

Tell the mods Shaky Jake is making homosexual advances again.

I am not the one making them, but you are indeed the one enjoying them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is that what you heard? Seems like you hear all kinds of things. Must be your inside source at work again.

Listen NOOB...I don't give a shit where you been or where you're going....around here you either got it or you don't and you don't.

Ball-less, around here you are the joke, the one who does not get it or have it. Tis what is.

 

[Liminal]

Is that what you heard? Seems like you hear all kinds of things. Must be your inside source at work again.

Listen NOOB...I don't give a shit where you been or where you're going....around here you either got it or you don't and you don't.

Got what? Whatever it is, if you've got it, I don't want it. I hope it isn't contagious.

 

[Liminal]

Russian Spetsnaz trucked most of Saddam's NBC program across the Syrian border in Lebanon. Bush could have made that public but then the left would have screeched: "then invade Lebanon, not Iraq" like that made any sense. Anybody who voted for either Clinturd or Obozo should be deported.....they have forfeited their right to be American citizens.

Sounds like an exciting plot for a movie that would go straight to Netflix.

 

[kaz]

You and Republicans are different shades of grey. We need a better strategy in the middle east. You two just bicker and point fingers while you follow the same course.

Judging from your statements I can only conclude that you believe nothing of any consequence happened in Iraq before 2008.

The tiny brain of a liberal, there are Republicans and Democrats. I'm not a Democrat, so I'm a Republican. Even when I say you are the same, duh, that's a Republican.

I said we need a better strategy. We should not have invaded Iraq, we should not be in the middle east. We should push energy independence at home so we're not dependent on foreign oil. Then we would not be pulled into the conflicts that we are.

All you offer is what the Republicans do, Democrats are just as militaristic, Obama did nothing different. Iraq as everything to you is just word parsing, re visioning history and finger pointing. It's all you have since you are no different.

I can't make heads or tails out of this word jumble.

See your nearest elementary school teacher, maybe they can help

Good idea, maybe they could help me interpret your child like thoughts.

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

 

[Liminal]

Judging from your statements I can only conclude that you believe nothing of any consequence happened in Iraq before 2008.

The tiny brain of a liberal, there are Republicans and Democrats. I'm not a Democrat, so I'm a Republican. Even when I say you are the same, duh, that's a Republican.

I said we need a better strategy. We should not have invaded Iraq, we should not be in the middle east. We should push energy independence at home so we're not dependent on foreign oil. Then we would not be pulled into the conflicts that we are.

All you offer is what the Republicans do, Democrats are just as militaristic, Obama did nothing different. Iraq as everything to you is just word parsing, re visioning history and finger pointing. It's all you have since you are no different.

I can't make heads or tails out of this word jumble.

See your nearest elementary school teacher, maybe they can help

Good idea, maybe they could help me interpret your child like thoughts.

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

But now that you're all grown up you express yourself with the coherency of a thirteen year old. You're making progress.

 

[HUGGY]

Yes, it is dangerous. But for dimocraps it's a convenient lie. A lie that Republicans are tired of fighting.

But it's time you realized that's what it is -- Just another lie from the party of lies --

From today's WSJ. I'd post a link, but you'll just run into a subscription wall

The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’
Some journalists still peddle this canard as if it were fact. This is defamatory and could end up hurting the country.

President George W. Bush
By
LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN
Feb. 8, 2015 6:25 p.m. ET


In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.

The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.

Recall that the head of the intelligence community, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, famously told the president that the proposition that Iraq possessed WMD was “a slam dunk.” Our WMD commission carefully examined the interrelationships between the Bush administration and the intelligence community and found no indication that anyone in the administration sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. As our commission reported, presidential daily briefs from the CIA dating back to the Clinton administration were, if anything, more alarmist about Iraq’s WMD than the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

Saddam had manifested sharp hostility toward America, including firing at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone set up by the armistice agreement ending the first Iraq war. Saddam had also attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush —a car-bombing plot was foiled—during Mr. Bush’s visit to Kuwait in 1993. But President George W. Bush based his decision to go to war on information about Saddam’s WMD. Accordingly, when Secretary of State Colin Powell formally presented the U.S. case to the United Nations, Mr. Powell relied entirely on that aspect of the threat from Iraq.

Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons. But as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media.

Granted, there were those who disagreed with waging war against Saddam even if he did possess WMD. Some in Congress joined Brent Scowcroft, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former national security adviser, in publicly doubting the wisdom of invading Iraq. It is worth noting, however, that when Saddam was captured and interrogated, he told his interrogators that he had intended to seek revenge on Kuwait for its cooperation with the U.S. by invading again at a propitious time. This leads me to speculate that if the Bush administration had not gone to war in 2003 and Saddam had remained in power, the U.S. might have felt compelled to do so once Iraq again invaded Kuwait.

In any event, it is one thing to assert, then or now, that the Iraq war was ill-advised. It is quite another to make the horrendous charge that President Bush lied to or deceived the American people about the threat from Saddam.

I recently wrote to Ron Fournier protesting his accusation. His response, in an email, was to reiterate that “an objective reading of the events leads to only one conclusion: the administration . . . misinterpreted, distorted and in some cases lied about intelligence.” Although Mr. Fournier referred to “evidence” supporting his view, he did not cite any—and I do not believe there is any.

He did say correctly that “intelligence is never dispositive; it requires analysis and judgment, with the final call and responsibility resting with the president.” It is thus certainly possible to criticize President Bush for having believed what the CIA told him, although it seems to me that any president would have credited such confident assertions by the intelligence community. But to accuse the president of lying us into war must be seen as not only false, but as dangerously defamatory.

The charge is dangerous because it can take on the air of historical fact—with potentially dire consequences. I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany: that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been “stabbed in the back” by politicians.

Sometime in the future, perhaps long after most of us are gone, an American president may need to rely publicly on intelligence reports to support military action. It would be tragic if, at such a critical moment, the president’s credibility were undermined by memories of a false charge peddled by the likes of Ron Fournier.

Mr. Silberman, a senior federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Thumbs down A-Hole. Bush was warned about Bin Ladin and airliners being used as weapons. That is a matter of record. Bush LIED and said it never happened. Kinda shoots down the "bad intel" nonsense Sport. Now crawl back under your rock and pray to your sky fairy for a stupid willfully ignorant voting populace you POS.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes, it is dangerous. But for dimocraps it's a convenient lie. A lie that Republicans are tired of fighting.

But it's time you realized that's what it is -- Just another lie from the party of lies --

From today's WSJ. I'd post a link, but you'll just run into a subscription wall

The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

wonderful you posted an opinion piece that confirms your bias....thank you for wasting peoples time.

 

[kaz]

The tiny brain of a liberal, there are Republicans and Democrats. I'm not a Democrat, so I'm a Republican. Even when I say you are the same, duh, that's a Republican.

I said we need a better strategy. We should not have invaded Iraq, we should not be in the middle east. We should push energy independence at home so we're not dependent on foreign oil. Then we would not be pulled into the conflicts that we are.

All you offer is what the Republicans do, Democrats are just as militaristic, Obama did nothing different. Iraq as everything to you is just word parsing, re visioning history and finger pointing. It's all you have since you are no different.

I can't make heads or tails out of this word jumble.

See your nearest elementary school teacher, maybe they can help

Good idea, maybe they could help me interpret your child like thoughts.

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

But now that you're all grown up you express yourself with the coherency of a thirteen year old. You're making progress.

Seriously, your playground insults sound good to you?

BTW, I know you're a dim wit, so just so you know, playground doesn't just mean it's a kids argument, it's a class of arguments. Like how you keep taking what I say and responding as if I'd said it about myself. Then you follow that up by insulting the depth of my points, while you keep arguing playground.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, it is dangerous. But for dimocraps it's a convenient lie. A lie that Republicans are tired of fighting.

But it's time you realized that's what it is -- Just another lie from the party of lies --

From today's WSJ. I'd post a link, but you'll just run into a subscription wall

The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’
Some journalists still peddle this canard as if it were fact. This is defamatory and could end up hurting the country.

President George W. Bush
By
LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN
Feb. 8, 2015 6:25 p.m. ET


In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.

The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.

Recall that the head of the intelligence community, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, famously told the president that the proposition that Iraq possessed WMD was “a slam dunk.” Our WMD commission carefully examined the interrelationships between the Bush administration and the intelligence community and found no indication that anyone in the administration sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. As our commission reported, presidential daily briefs from the CIA dating back to the Clinton administration were, if anything, more alarmist about Iraq’s WMD than the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

Saddam had manifested sharp hostility toward America, including firing at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone set up by the armistice agreement ending the first Iraq war. Saddam had also attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush —a car-bombing plot was foiled—during Mr. Bush’s visit to Kuwait in 1993. But President George W. Bush based his decision to go to war on information about Saddam’s WMD. Accordingly, when Secretary of State Colin Powell formally presented the U.S. case to the United Nations, Mr. Powell relied entirely on that aspect of the threat from Iraq.

Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons. But as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media.

Granted, there were those who disagreed with waging war against Saddam even if he did possess WMD. Some in Congress joined Brent Scowcroft, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former national security adviser, in publicly doubting the wisdom of invading Iraq. It is worth noting, however, that when Saddam was captured and interrogated, he told his interrogators that he had intended to seek revenge on Kuwait for its cooperation with the U.S. by invading again at a propitious time. This leads me to speculate that if the Bush administration had not gone to war in 2003 and Saddam had remained in power, the U.S. might have felt compelled to do so once Iraq again invaded Kuwait.

In any event, it is one thing to assert, then or now, that the Iraq war was ill-advised. It is quite another to make the horrendous charge that President Bush lied to or deceived the American people about the threat from Saddam.

I recently wrote to Ron Fournier protesting his accusation. His response, in an email, was to reiterate that “an objective reading of the events leads to only one conclusion: the administration . . . misinterpreted, distorted and in some cases lied about intelligence.” Although Mr. Fournier referred to “evidence” supporting his view, he did not cite any—and I do not believe there is any.

He did say correctly that “intelligence is never dispositive; it requires analysis and judgment, with the final call and responsibility resting with the president.” It is thus certainly possible to criticize President Bush for having believed what the CIA told him, although it seems to me that any president would have credited such confident assertions by the intelligence community. But to accuse the president of lying us into war must be seen as not only false, but as dangerously defamatory.

The charge is dangerous because it can take on the air of historical fact—with potentially dire consequences. I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany: that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been “stabbed in the back” by politicians.

Sometime in the future, perhaps long after most of us are gone, an American president may need to rely publicly on intelligence reports to support military action. It would be tragic if, at such a critical moment, the president’s credibility were undermined by memories of a false charge peddled by the likes of Ron Fournier.

Mr. Silberman, a senior federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Thank you...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

wonderful you posted an opinion piece that confirms your bias....

So, you posted an opinion that demonstrates your BIAS... to lament the advancement of biased opinions?

ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother... Now THAT is Precious!

 

[Liminal]

I can't make heads or tails out of this word jumble.

See your nearest elementary school teacher, maybe they can help

Good idea, maybe they could help me interpret your child like thoughts.

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

But now that you're all grown up you express yourself with the coherency of a thirteen year old. You're making progress.

Seriously, your playground insults sound good to you?

BTW, I know you're a dim wit, so just so you know, playground doesn't just mean it's a kids argument, it's a class of arguments. Like how you keep taking what I say and responding as if I'd said it about myself. Then you follow that up by insulting the depth of my points, while you keep arguing playground.

Seriously, do you take yourself seriously? Based on what I've read so far, you shouldn't.

 

[kaz]

See your nearest elementary school teacher, maybe they can help

Good idea, maybe they could help me interpret your child like thoughts.

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

But now that you're all grown up you express yourself with the coherency of a thirteen year old. You're making progress.

Seriously, your playground insults sound good to you?

BTW, I know you're a dim wit, so just so you know, playground doesn't just mean it's a kids argument, it's a class of arguments. Like how you keep taking what I say and responding as if I'd said it about myself. Then you follow that up by insulting the depth of my points, while you keep arguing playground.

Seriously, Do you take yourself seriously? Based on what I've read so far, you shouldn't.

LOL, from the intellectual powerhouse who keeps going back to playground insults? Twice in a row, what I argued to someone else you came back with that I said it about myself. Basic playground. Without you here, somewhere a playground is missing it's bully...

 

[Liminal]

Good idea, maybe they could help me interpret your child like thoughts.

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

But now that you're all grown up you express yourself with the coherency of a thirteen year old. You're making progress.

Seriously, your playground insults sound good to you?

BTW, I know you're a dim wit, so just so you know, playground doesn't just mean it's a kids argument, it's a class of arguments. Like how you keep taking what I say and responding as if I'd said it about myself. Then you follow that up by insulting the depth of my points, while you keep arguing playground.

Seriously, Do you take yourself seriously? Based on what I've read so far, you shouldn't.

LOL, from the intellectual powerhouse who keeps going back to playground insults? Twice in a row, what I argued to someone else you came back with that I said it about myself. Basic playground. Without you here, somewhere a playground is missing it's bully...

You aren't a very good liar. Not much of a preemptive strategy. You should go back and read your own posts and count the number of childish insults.

 

[kaz]

Yet another liberal goes to playground insults, wow, I'm hurt. Well, maybe I would have been when I was 12...

But now that you're all grown up you express yourself with the coherency of a thirteen year old. You're making progress.

Seriously, your playground insults sound good to you?

BTW, I know you're a dim wit, so just so you know, playground doesn't just mean it's a kids argument, it's a class of arguments. Like how you keep taking what I say and responding as if I'd said it about myself. Then you follow that up by insulting the depth of my points, while you keep arguing playground.

Seriously, Do you take yourself seriously? Based on what I've read so far, you shouldn't.

LOL, from the intellectual powerhouse who keeps going back to playground insults? Twice in a row, what I argued to someone else you came back with that I said it about myself. Basic playground. Without you here, somewhere a playground is missing it's bully...

Your typical content

 

[Liminal]

Not my job to school every moron who wanders in

What? I should go dig out my sources for some leftist asshole who'll ask for the same thing the next day? Not a chance, BooBoo

Dig out your sources? How hard can that be? You should have easy access every time you use the bathroom.