Monday, June 16, 2008

LATimes + TNR = Bush Never Lied to Us About Iraq

Earlier this month, I posted on Scott Malensek's series of posts that shreds the recent Senate Select Committee on Intell's final report for the partisan hack job that it is. Today, the Los Angeles Times publishes an astounding admission by The New Republic's assistant editor, James Kirchick. Read it, and rejoice.

Scott has done the most thorough job of any journalist out there when it comes to reading intell reports and contextualizing them. But Scott's not widely read, so it's important and much more impactful when mainstream news sources get this out there to the public. Please send the article, and even links to Scott's posts to all your Bush-hating and Bush-loving friends.

The myth that "Bush lied", needs to be corrected before the November elections. Not 100 years from now.

KEY Points Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II investigation report on pre-war Iraq Intel

Senators Remove Their Own Statements from Report on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence

Senators Caught Distorting and Misleading INtelligence Report

Why America Went to Iraq and What Comes Next

Democrats Admit: Saddam's Regime Harbored Al Queda

How President Clinton Marketed the Invasion of Iraq

The Partisan Rockefeller Intelligence Report (Curt's post)

Senate Intell Committee Releases Another Report to Show Bush LIED about Saddam

Apologies for not making my rounds to your blogs; I am typing from a library computer (allotted just one hour a day) and have limited access to conducting research and doing my regular reading habits. Hope to have my computer up and running soon. Thanks to all who keep visiting here.

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Lively "discussion" going on over at FA. Would love to participate in that and this one, but work and library comps are on IE6, and I can't seem to get my comments to publish. So sad...

But certainly fun reading.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

Thanks for this post, Wordsmith. This is indeed good news. I will check out the "Lively discussion" as well.

No need to apologize for not visiting. We all wind up with pc problems from time to time, it's simply unavoidable.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:56:00 AM  
Blogger The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Been ther done that with library computers!

Of course Word you know that THIS particular examination of the truth will NEVER make it into wide circulation in the MSM because it exposes the lie that libs have been telling since 2002!

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:43:00 AM  
Blogger Z said...

The LA Times now apparently (I heard it on Prager's radioshow)has a couple of good looking women on the cover, in wedding dresses, kissing. Don't give my town's preeminent paper too much credit for anything!
Nobody I know's had the Times delivered in YEARS and every one has called and told them why. I personally love to get calls trying to sell it to me "When you start being fair, call me back".

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Great Read Word,

Hope you are back up and running again soon.

Only those of us that actually care are going to agree Bush knew what he was doing.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:36:00 PM  
Blogger SkyePuppy said...

The liberals redefine everything. To them, "lied" = "said something that turned out later to be wrong." Of course, that definition only applies to Republicans. If a Democrat said something that later turned out to be wrong, the Democrat was "misled."

Definitions are as relative as ethics to the Left.

Friday, June 20, 2008 9:02:00 AM  
Blogger airforcewife said...

I have a suggestion. I think that someone might be able to make quite a bit of money selling business size cards that list the most prevalent mis-statements and the refutation below them.

Like: Saddam had no WMD.

Then below it the URL's to several sites that show discovery of the things we did find. Which, while much smaller than expected, wasn't precisely nothing.

Or how about: Saddam had no ties to terrorists.

Underneath it the whole Salman Pak thing and Abu Nidal.

I'd hand them out.

Friday, June 20, 2008 9:38:00 AM  
Blogger Z said... idea I've heard in ages.
I've just lost a fairly good acquaintance, and have posted about it, and even risk losing family over politics..not a good thing.
I'd hand people a card and walk away. Avoids confrontation, maybe they'll learn? On the off chance.......!!

Friday, June 20, 2008 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger Z said...

Airforce mom...I just sent your blog address to a friend whose Air Force husband left last month for his one year away...In Iraq. She's in Ohio with her two teens. I hope she'll benefit from it. thanks for that service!
And thanks for yours and your husband's service to our country..I think the families are as heroic, personally.

Friday, June 20, 2008 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Check this out, from Mark Eichenlaub.

I got my computer back, but have to take it back in on Monday (when they open again), as I cannot connect the external hard drives since they "fixed" my computer- basically removing the entire McAfee security system from my computer, which I was unable to uninstall myself.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:45:00 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

Since you commented on my post, I was hoping you had your computer problems fixed, Wordsmith.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 4:45:00 PM  
Blogger Karen said...

Like Gayle, I hoped you were back, too. Oh well. Good luck.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:26:00 PM  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

BUSH and McCAIN are BOTH sufficiently STUPID to NOT take advantage of the truth.

Stupid IS as stupid DOES.


A suggestion: get rid of the word verification. A PITA.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 7:54:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


I usually turn the word verification on after receiving an influx of spambots on posts. I forget it's still on over time, because when you're on your own blogspot, it doesn't prompt you to type in the letters in, since it already recognizes you.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 8:41:00 PM  
Blogger Toad734 said...

"The Regime is seeking a nuclear bomb"-George Bush

"We will in fact find weapons or evidence of weapons programs" - Donald Rumsfeld

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi Regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever dvised" - George Bush

"The intelligence is good intelligence, no doubt in my mind"- George Bush

"We believe that he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons" - Dick Cheney

"These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Colin Powell

"It's pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi Intelligence service" - Dick Cheney

"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda" - George Bush

"Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths and spent enormous sums and taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction" - George Bush

So those are all true?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

So those are all true?

I'm too lazy to run a Google for dates and context, but I can tell you the first one is true.

Here's more for you:

• 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-Qa’idamembers. - Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier ifhe is able to obtain fissile materials on the outside market, which is possible–difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10,2002.

• Saddam Hussein is an evil man, a dictator who oppresses his people and flouts the mandate of the international community. While this behavior is reprehensible, it is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemicaland nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States. Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, October 10,2002

• There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. Senator Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, October 9, 2002.

• We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal. Senator John Edwards, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility. Senator John Edwards, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

• According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year. Senator John Kerry, October 9,2002.

•Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biologicalwarfare agents, which could threaten Iraq’s neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, October 9,2002.

• I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons ofmassdestruction is so serious that despite the risks and we should not minimize the risks we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to dealwith that threat. There has been some debate over how “imminent” a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

• Is [Saddam Hussein] a greater threat than he was in 1991? He surely is. There’s different ways oflaunchingscuds and all kinds that go faster, farther. There is no question on that. .. And if [our allies] are not there for us, does that mean in this debate, precedent-based, historically-based, that we sort of sit and take it, or are we going to end up basically being unilateral anyway because we cannot have our children smallpoxed. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, September 25, 2002.

• When I vote 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 threat, and a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulfregion. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, October 9, 2002.

• I believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear….Thousands ofterroristoperatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists…we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenalto be used in aid of terror. Senator John Edwards, Congressional Record, September 12, 2002.

• When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction biological, chemical or nuclear and that he might just be mad enough to do it I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next 5 or even 3 years. Senator Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, October 10,2002

• If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use the weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons ofmass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots ofpeople. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world. Vice President AI Gore, Address to the Nation, December 16, 1998.

• Our strategic objective is to contain Saddam Hussein and curtail his ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind-weapons that he has unleashed with chilling alacrity against his own people. Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein would in short order be in a position to threaten and blackmail our regional allies, our troops, and, indeed, our nation. Senator Joe Biden, Congressional Record, February 12, 1998.

• Saddam Hussein, with one nuclear weapon, would be far more dangerous than the Soviet Union with 20,000. The difference is, they would not use [their weapons]. They were not suicidal. He would. Senator Carl Levin, Congressional Record, October 9, 1998

• With the peace of the region and, and in fact, much of the world at risk, we cannot allow Iraq to continue its maneuvers designed to protect such a dangerous buildup of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, December 16, 1998.

• It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, November 9, 1997

Were those all true?

The problem with your side is, for partisan political reasons, you cannot distinguish what the definition of a lie is.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Actually, looking further at your quotes, I can say that most of them are easily defensible and hardly "smoking guns".

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:35:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved