January 25, 2008

About those "lies"

The MSM has been recently apoplectic about a supposed "nonpartisan" study concluding that George Bush and others in his administration routinely and continually "lied" about Iraq leading up to the '03 invasion:

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

At least the AP refers to them as "false statements." There is, however, a difference between a "false statement" and a "lie." (But it sure isn't difficult to decipher what the AP's intent was, now, is it?) "Lie" denotes a willful intent to deceive. Is that what the president and his officials actually did? Many others in the MSM had little difficulty utilizing the term "lie." There was CNN's Jack Cafferty, the New York Times (comparing to Bush's actions to Watergate), and, of course Keith Olbermann who presented a graphic with the words "935 Lies."

It's no surprise that those infected with the dread disease known as "BDS" (Bush Derangement Syndrome) see no difference between the two terms. For, if they did, their affliction would be meaningless. For example, the study concluded that President Bush "led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..." Of course, we NOW know that the intelligence at the time -- the vast majority of which stated that Iraq had WMDs -- proved incorrect. But since virtually everyone was convinced that Saddam had WMDs at the time -- including Bush and co. -- does that make the president's statements "lies"? If so, what about these notable folks:

  • "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

  • "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

  • "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

  • "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

  • "[W]e urge you, 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."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

  • "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

  • "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

  • "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

  • "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

  • "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

  • "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

  • "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

  • "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

  • "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

  • "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

  • "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

  • "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

  • "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

  • "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

I wonder if this George Soros-funded research group will do another study noting how many times Bill Clinton et. al. "lied" about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. No, of course they won't.

Although I was against any invasion of Iraq from the onset, it's just political hatred (BDS) to claim Bush and co. knowingly "lied" about Iraq to get done what they wanted to do. But the usual maxi-brow suspects will eat it all up.

(I always wondered why these supposed "liars" never just planted the WMDs so they could have been "proven" right.)

Posted by Hube at January 25, 2008 05:57 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Interesting choice of words by the AP...non-profit instead of non-partisan.

Was even the AP acknowledging the 2 groups are hardly non-partisan?

Posted by: AJ Lynch at January 25, 2008 06:12 PM

Doh! You're right, AJ. But other outlets used "non-partisan," and you're right that no -- AP did NOT indicate the leanings of these groups.

Posted by: Hube at January 25, 2008 06:15 PM

So if you discount the WMD lies, how many are there really? Oh, and the consensus in the Intel community is that Saddam sure as hell wanted Iran to think he still had enough WMDs stashed away to forestall an invasion.

Posted by: G Rex at January 28, 2008 12:06 PM