The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

[Liminal]

What do you suppose it means when the Vice President suggests that Iraq may have already acquired nuclear weapons?

It suggests that the war was not justified by the President saying they do have them, which is what you claimed.

W sucked. I am not arguing he doesn't. He was one of the worst Presidents in our history. I was against invading Iraq and I am against being in the middle east at all. What I am arguing is that you'd be a lot more effective as an ally against Republicans on this if you cared about the truth.

Oh I see, so then the Vice President didn't really represent the views of the Bush Administration, nor was he attempting to manipulate public opinion. Is that right?

Non sequitur

Looks like denial, personal remarks, and superficial semantics is all you've got to offer. Substance isn't really your thing is it.

Personal remarks? Your first post to me was about your supreme intelligence and how lucky I was to have you respond at all.

I differ though in your contention that "substance" means chasing you down your endless rat holes and shifting standards. You said W justified the war that Saddam had nuclear weapons. A point you have yet to back up or admit you were wrong. Got anything but a playground insult or yet another shifting standard?

Does lying usually work for you? It isn't working now.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama lied and people died!!

really?

I don't think so

Yes! I know the far left drones can not admit that their religious deity would ever lie to them..

Obama lied and people died!

you people are all nuts

here quick put this over your head.....it might fool him.....he will just think you are the Uknown Comic.....

 

[Kosh]

Obama lied and people died!!

really?

I don't think so

Yes! I know the far left drones can not admit that their religious deity would ever lie to them..

Obama lied and people died!

you people are all nuts

here quick put this over your head.....it might fool him.....he will just think you are the Uknown Comic.....

There is my personal stalker...

How are you today?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama lied and people died!!

really?

I don't think so

Yes! I know the far left drones can not admit that their religious deity would ever lie to them..

Obama lied and people died!

you people are all nuts

here quick put this over your head.....it might fool him.....he will just think you are the Uknown Comic.....

There is my personal stalker...

How are you today?

 

[Kosh]

really?

I don't think so

Yes! I know the far left drones can not admit that their religious deity would ever lie to them..

Obama lied and people died!

you people are all nuts

here quick put this over your head.....it might fool him.....he will just think you are the Uknown Comic.....

There is my personal stalker...

How are you today?

Good little stalker!

 

[kaz]

What do you suppose it means when the Vice President suggests that Iraq may have already acquired nuclear weapons?

It suggests that the war was not justified by the President saying they do have them, which is what you claimed.

W sucked. I am not arguing he doesn't. He was one of the worst Presidents in our history. I was against invading Iraq and I am against being in the middle east at all. What I am arguing is that you'd be a lot more effective as an ally against Republicans on this if you cared about the truth.

Oh I see, so then the Vice President didn't really represent the views of the Bush Administration, nor was he attempting to manipulate public opinion. Is that right?

Non-sequitur. Also, how many times has the Obama administration told Biden to STFU?

You said the justification for the war was that Hussein had nuclear weapons. Cheney saying maybe we had them says that wasn't THE justification for the war.

 

[Contumacious]

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’


.

The WSJ’s Latest Fractured Fairy Tale

Charles Burris



For LRC readers of an older generation, one of their favorite cherished childhood memories is The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. One of the best loved segments was Fractured Fairy Tales, classic fairy tales retold in comedic fashion narrated by Edward Everett Horton. The jovial editors of The Wall Street Journal have picked up where the moose and squirrel left off. Their latest Fractured Fairy Tale comes from one Laurence H. Silberman. In an egregious example of fanciful revisionist history entitled “The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied,’” Silberman hilariously attempts to resurrect and restore the George W. Bush administration’s fractured legacy concerning the veracity of intelligence regarding WMD prior to the preemptive invasion of Iraq. It will leave you rolling in the aisles in hysterics. So who is this jokester Silberman? He is a senior federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan for his crucial part in the 1980 October Surprise which sabotaged the Jimmy Carter re-election campaign by secretly meeting with Iranian officials to covertly delay the release of the American hostages held by Iran until the day Reagan was sworn into office.



.Yet more evidence that federal judges can not be trusted.


.

WSJ’s Latest Fractured Fairy Tale

Charles Burris



For LRC readers of an older generation, one of their favorite cherished childhood memories is The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. One of the best loved segments was Fractured Fairy Tales, classic fairy tales retold in comedic fashion narrated by Edward Everett Horton. The jovial editors of The Wall Street Journal have picked up where the moose and squirrel left off. Their latest Fractured Fairy Tale comes from one Laurence H. Silberman. In an egregious example of fanciful revisionist history entitled “The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied,’” Silberman hilariously attempts to resurrect and restore the George W. Bush administration’s fractured legacy concerning the veracity of intelligence regarding WMD prior to the preemptive invasion of Iraq. It will leave you rolling in the aisles in hysterics. So who is this jokester Silberman? He is a senior federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan for his crucial part in the 1980 October Surprise which sabotaged the Jimmy Carter re-election campaign by secretly meeting with Iranian officials to covertly delay the release of the American hostages held by Iran until the day Reagan was sworn into office.



.Yet more evidence that federal judges can not be trusted.


.

 

[kaz]

You said W justified the war that Saddam had nuclear weapons. A point you have yet to back up or admit you were wrong. Got anything but a playground insult or yet another shifting standard?

Does lying usually work for you? It isn't working now.

You don't know how to use the search function, do you?

We were specifically told there were nuclear weapons, so we had to invade immediately. Remember? Where are the nuclear weapons? They already knew for sure that Iran had a nuclear program, why not invade them?

We have identified the liar, and it is you...

 

[Liminal]

What do you suppose it means when the Vice President suggests that Iraq may have already acquired nuclear weapons?

It suggests that the war was not justified by the President saying they do have them, which is what you claimed.

W sucked. I am not arguing he doesn't. He was one of the worst Presidents in our history. I was against invading Iraq and I am against being in the middle east at all. What I am arguing is that you'd be a lot more effective as an ally against Republicans on this if you cared about the truth.

Oh I see, so then the Vice President didn't really represent the views of the Bush Administration, nor was he attempting to manipulate public opinion. Is that right?

Non-sequitur. Also, how many times has the Obama administration told Biden to STFU?

You said the justification for the war was that Hussein had nuclear weapons. Cheney saying maybe we had them says that wasn't THE justification for the war.

Childish logic, doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

[Liminal]

You said W justified the war that Saddam had nuclear weapons. A point you have yet to back up or admit you were wrong. Got anything but a playground insult or yet another shifting standard?

Does lying usually work for you? It isn't working now.

You don't know how to use the search function, do you?

We were specifically told there were nuclear weapons, so we had to invade immediately. Remember? Where are the nuclear weapons? They already knew for sure that Iran had a nuclear program, why not invade them?

We have identified the liar, and it is you...

You can lie all you want, it still isn't working.

 

[kaz]

You said W justified the war that Saddam had nuclear weapons. A point you have yet to back up or admit you were wrong. Got anything but a playground insult or yet another shifting standard?

Does lying usually work for you? It isn't working now.

You don't know how to use the search function, do you?

We were specifically told there were nuclear weapons, so we had to invade immediately. Remember? Where are the nuclear weapons? They already knew for sure that Iran had a nuclear program, why not invade them?

We have identified the liar, and it is you...

You can lie all you want, it still isn't working.

I showed you the quote, simpleton

 

[Liminal]

You said W justified the war that Saddam had nuclear weapons. A point you have yet to back up or admit you were wrong. Got anything but a playground insult or yet another shifting standard?

Does lying usually work for you? It isn't working now.

You don't know how to use the search function, do you?

We were specifically told there were nuclear weapons, so we had to invade immediately. Remember? Where are the nuclear weapons? They already knew for sure that Iran had a nuclear program, why not invade them?

We have identified the liar, and it is you...

You can lie all you want, it still isn't working.

I showed you the quote, simpleton

What quote is that? Little man.

 

[Liminal]

Looks like you can't bluff your way through every time.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes! I know the far left drones can not admit that their religious deity would ever lie to them..

Obama lied and people died!

you people are all nuts

here quick put this over your head.....it might fool him.....he will just think you are the Uknown Comic.....

There is my personal stalker...

How are you today?

Good little stalker!

 

[Liminal]

Where are the nuclear weapons?

Read the fucking OP scumbag.

Nobody is saying the Intelligence was accurate, you STEAMING PILE OF FUCKING SHIT.

We're saying that all Bush had to go on was faulty Intelligence.

That he didn't lie.

And if you had three working brain cells, you'd know that Saddam's own Generals were shocked when they asked him to release the WMDs to them near the end.....

Saddam admitted HE HAD NO WMDs AND HIS OWN GENERALS WERE SHOCKED!!

This isn't about whether or not there were WMDs/ There weren't. This thread is about lying scumbag, slime-sucking dimocraps continuing to lie about something.

Which..... ALL dimocraps do is lie. It's all you've got. You have to.

If Americans ever catch on to what you really are, they'll eliminate you from the Body Politic like the parasitic scum you are

Good thing you attended the cabinet meetings when those decisions were made, otherwise we'd never know the real truth.

Fucking moron. READ THE ARTICLE. It was written by someone who made extensive examination of the topic, read the minutes of those meetings, talked to people who were there. That was his conclusion. There were no lies.

Bush didn't lie, his cabinet and advisers just exaggerated a little bit. So he didn't have to.

 

[Contumacious]

Where are the nuclear weapons?

Read the fucking OP scumbag.

Nobody is saying the Intelligence was accurate, you STEAMING PILE OF FUCKING SHIT.

We're saying that all Bush had to go on was faulty Intelligence.

That he didn't lie.

And if you had three working brain cells, you'd know that Saddam's own Generals were shocked when they asked him to release the WMDs to them near the end.....

Saddam admitted HE HAD NO WMDs AND HIS OWN GENERALS WERE SHOCKED!!

This isn't about whether or not there were WMDs/ There weren't. This thread is about lying scumbag, slime-sucking dimocraps continuing to lie about something.

Which..... ALL dimocraps do is lie. It's all you've got. You have to.

If Americans ever catch on to what you really are, they'll eliminate you from the Body Politic like the parasitic scum you are

Good thing you attended the cabinet meetings when those decisions were made, otherwise we'd never know the real truth.

Fucking moron. READ THE ARTICLE. It was written by someone who made extensive examination of the topic, read the minutes of those meetings, talked to people who were there. That was his conclusion. There were no lies.

Bush didn't lie, his cabinet and advisers just exaggerated a little bit. So he didn't have to.

The new Pentagon papers

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

Karen Kwiatkowski, Col, USAF, Ret

.

 

[sandythescot]

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

Thank you for posting this.

I get so sick and tired of the Left attacking a president who did what he thought best to defend American people – the very thing he swore to do when he took office. This story comes from someone who was THERE and reviewed the same information available to the president.


It's not a matter of whether or not Hussein had the weapons, it's that the left continues to support lies in trying to make them fact. It's dangerous.

We invaded Iraq based on false information. So who lied to who?

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.

We were told there was a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. That turned out to be false.

Conservatives are still trying to rewrite history on the Iraq War.

 

[danielpalos]

I make a motion we "blame the right" should this become politically expedient.

 

[hadit]

Where are the nuclear weapons?

Read the fucking OP scumbag.

Nobody is saying the Intelligence was accurate, you STEAMING PILE OF FUCKING SHIT.

We're saying that all Bush had to go on was faulty Intelligence.

That he didn't lie.

And if you had three working brain cells, you'd know that Saddam's own Generals were shocked when they asked him to release the WMDs to them near the end.....

Saddam admitted HE HAD NO WMDs AND HIS OWN GENERALS WERE SHOCKED!!

This isn't about whether or not there were WMDs/ There weren't. This thread is about lying scumbag, slime-sucking dimocraps continuing to lie about something.

Which..... ALL dimocraps do is lie. It's all you've got. You have to.

If Americans ever catch on to what you really are, they'll eliminate you from the Body Politic like the parasitic scum you are

Good thing you attended the cabinet meetings when those decisions were made, otherwise we'd never know the real truth.

Fucking moron. READ THE ARTICLE. It was written by someone who made extensive examination of the topic, read the minutes of those meetings, talked to people who were there. That was his conclusion. There were no lies.

Bush didn't lie, his cabinet and advisers just exaggerated a little bit. So he didn't have to.

The new Pentagon papers

A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

Karen Kwiatkowski, Col, USAF, Ret

.

What should be of real concern is the possibility, nay, likelyhood, that the president was lied to as well, and all this angst about him lying is making him a convenient scapegoat. Come on, some of you are perfectly willing to create elaborate, twisted conspiracy theories about Mossad agents wiring the twin towers for demolition in the dead of night, yet happily lapse into "Bush lied" as the reason for an entire war?

 

[DonaldFG]

Wake up fellow Americans. This is not our government, and has not been for a long, long time. The military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about has taken over control through their wealth and position of power.

With control of government through powerful lobbyists, and control of the mass media, we live in a world of lies propagated by their propaganda which is getting worse all the time. We, the people, are mislead that we are equally divided politically and in constant danger. But most of the danger is contrived to keep us confused and not focused on their manipulations. Both major Parties are involved in these lies.

The real danger to us is letting them continue to get away with their secret agendas without taking responsibility for any of it ourselves. Yes, if we don't expose their corruption it is our responsibility. We need to assume a degree of power over our own government and clean it up.

Vote for and support The National Initiative.
The National Citizens Initiative for Democracy