Proof that Bush lied!

[SlippyToad]

That's what I am seeking here... proof.

Um. His mouth was open.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Call it what you want. I see pepto harping on the definition of "lie" and demanding a level of proof that some yahoos on an internet message board would in no way be privy to. And he seems to think that unless WE can PROVE Bush lied, he was telling the truth. Which is, of course, BS. As were the stated reasons for going to war.

Earlier you said that Bush said "no doubt" and therefore it was a lie. It is only a lie if he told someone that he indeed had doubts before he said this. I'll bet he has doubts now. And really, this is nitpicking and would not stand up in an impeachment trial. Leaders often say they have no doubts, when you know they do in private. It is one of the qualities of leadership. I wonder what Colonel William Barret Travis said at the Alamo right before they all died? Do you think he had doubts?

I'm not saying anyone here has special information. Clinton lied and it was eventually revealed. Nixon lied and it was eventually revealed. This stuff comes out sooner or later. Someone close to Bush will talk if Bush indeed planned from the beginning to decieve the American public.

Until such a time, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I think Bush lied" or "I feel Bush lied". I won't accept the flat statement "Bush lied" without solid evidence.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Bush knew in late February that there was a good chance Saddam possessed no WMD. Not only that, he knew that a large amount of intelligence that he based the 'March to War' on was wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

An article posted on February 20, 2003

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases. U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An article posted on February 20, 2003

Read the full report. It states that they don't have the intelligence facilities that a large government agency like the CIA does and so have to rely on the findings in the few areas that they were allowed in. They go on to state in every document that they aren't sure what Saddam has. It is not an ironclad case. Certainly not enough for the President to hang his decision on. Don't forget that these reports come from the same agency (UN) who was involved in taking bribes to look the other way. Oil-for-food - the largest scandal in world history.

 

[clk]

Don't forget that these reports come from the same agency (UN) who was involved in taking bribes to look the other way. Oil-for-food - the largest scandal in world history.

Uh, wasn't this before the whole Oil for Food scandal was revealed? At the time, there was no reason to distrust the UN. Even if there was, are you honestly implying that the weapons inspectors were somehow being paid off by Saddam?
I actually expected you to say "the report is from CBS, it's biased!!!", but instead you gave an equally lame excuse about the UN and Oil for Food. Regardless, the facts remain:
FACT: Bush knew in late February that a large percentage of his intelligence on Iraq was wrong, and that there was a chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD.
FACT: In March, Bush administration repeatedly claimed that there was no doubt Iraq possessed WMD, even though they damn well knew there were some serious doubts.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-Bush in March 03

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
-Franks in March 03

Even if you give Bush the benefit of doubt, he was still being dishonest. At worst, he was lying. So which is it? Was he dishonest, or was he lying?

 

[clk]

Earlier you said that Bush said "no doubt" and therefore it was a lie. It is only a lie if he told someone that he indeed had doubts before he said this.

Are you kidding me?

I'll bet he has doubts now.

It's a little too late for that, don't you think?

Until such a time, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I think Bush lied" or "I feel Bush lied". I won't accept the flat statement "Bush lied" without solid evidence.

The 'solid evidence' was already provided to you in my post above. But you will continue to ignore it, because we all know that Bush is incapable of lying...

This wasn't some company picnic party. This is a war we are talking about. The President received information that cast doubt on the entire basis for his war, but he continued to claim that there was 'no doubt' Saddam had WMD. Do you think the American people would have agreed to the war if Bush said there were 'serious doubts' about Saddam possessing WMD? I don't think so. That's why Bush lied and continued to claim 'no doubt'.

 

[a_unique_person]

This CBS story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Hmmm, no horde of bloggers leaping out of the woodwork demanding the resignation of everyone associated with this story.

(CBS) In February, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a surprising admission.

He told The Washington Post that he doesn't know whether he would have recommended the invasion of Iraq if he had been told at the time that there were no stockpiles of banned weapons.

Powell said that when he made the case for war before the United Nations one year ago, he used evidence that reflected the best judgments of the intelligence agencies.

But long before the war started, there was plenty of doubt among intelligence analysts about Saddam's weapons.

One analyst, Greg Thielmann, told Correspondent Scott Pelley last October that key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Thielmann should know. He had been in charge of analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Powell's own intelligence bureau. “I had a couple of initial reactions. Then I had a more mature reaction,” says Thielmann, commenting on Powell's presentation to the United Nations last February.

“I think my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation."

Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25 years. His last job at the State Department was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat.

He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and saw virtually everything – whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department.

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann had planned to retire just four months before Powell’s big moment before the U.N. Security Council.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam:
“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.”

And Thielmann says that's what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.”

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us,” says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium -- fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure.

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before. Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

......

"There's plenty of blame to go around. The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show," says Thielmann.

"They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials."

This week, President Bush said an independent commission will investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq.

Independent commission. What a laugh. Of course it blamed the intelligence service, despite their protestations even before it sat at what was being done to their work. As they said on 'yes minister', never hold an enquiry unless you already know what it's conclusion will be.

Australia and Britain both have similar experiences. Intelligence officers reporting one thing, their reports being twisted into affirmations of the leaders' desires, and the invasion proceeding as it must.

In each case, of course, there were inquiries into the failure to have the correct intelligence before the war started, and surprise, surprise, in each case, it was the intelligence communities who were to blame.

 

[merphie]

I don't think so and have said I will respond in the appropriate thread. How does NK and Iran have any bearing on Bush lying about WMD in Iraq? Sorry, I do not respond to demands I post to your agenda. And I am so sorry that defending my views, that pointing out you are jumping to errant conclusions ABOUT MY VIEWS is seen as an attack on you. I reserve the right to point out such errors and reject defense of words is an attack. I believe in responding to posts, not to words not said and insist I be treated with the same courtesy.

You don't have to answer. It doesn't matter to me. It's hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who dodges questions.

I wasn't referring to comments you made about me having the wrong assumption. I guess I am not the only one who makes incorrect assumptions.

 

[merphie]

Pepto: Nobody is going to find some kind of smoking gun type of proof. It will not happen. There will always be a relatively innocent sounding 'alternate explanation' to feed the true believers.

The chief Republicans in DC may appear goofy, but they managed to stay elected - which shows they are not so stupid as to leave clear-cut evidence laying around for CBS or somebody to find. However, there is enough evidence to show that the Bush admin played the public like a bass on a Hula Popper with various variances from the truth.

Art Vandalay - The original question implied that without hard evidence that Bush actually intentionally perverted the truth, that Bush must be somehow off the hook for the 'errors' in his and his goombah's statements. I did not move any goalposts, I pointed out what an honest, non-apologetic question would entail. Get over it guys - your fearless leader is a sleazebag who is not dumb enough to get undeniably caught at being a sleazebag.

No one asked for opiniions of Bush lying. We want hard evidence. If you have some then post it. No one has proved any intent to deceive.

 

[DavidJames]

No one asked for opiniions of Bush lying. We want hard evidence. If you have some then post it.

LOL - when it came to the swifties you lapped up their 30 your old stories like an obedient pussycat. Now, when the claim is against Bush you want "hard evidence".

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

No one asked for opiniions of Bush lying. We want hard evidence. If you have some then post it. No one has proved any intent to deceive.

No that's factually incorrect, look at the topic and the particulars in the first post. That was exactly the request, later re-stated with different constraints.

The interpretation You have may correct , I know when I state something I know is untrue my intent is not to deceive no siree bob! it's to broadly demonstrate what I perceive to be a reality that ordinary people just don't seem to understand..Ya, That's it and You can ask my wife Morgan Fairchild she'll vouch for me , ya, vouch. ( American reference)

Evidence : told info untrue or faulty do not use , Presentation : %100 surety that the case was true.

Some of You need to stick to R and P or Homeopathy or ID, because it seems that you couldn't recognize a truth anti-thetical to your beliefs, regardless of evidence if it walked up and smacked You in the face.

 

[clk]

Earlier you said that Bush said "no doubt" and therefore it was a lie. It is only a lie if he told someone that he indeed had doubts before he said this. I'll bet he has doubts now. And really, this is nitpicking and would not stand up in an impeachment trial. Leaders often say they have no doubts, when you know they do in private. It is one of the qualities of leadership. I wonder what Colonel William Barret Travis said at the Alamo right before they all died? Do you think he had doubts?

By pepboy's standards, Bill Clinton wasn't really lying when he claimed: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", because Clinton privately believed that BJs did not constitute sexual relations.

 

[peptoabysmal]

LOL - when it came to the swifties you lapped up their 30 your old stories like an obedient pussycat. Now, when the claim is against Bush you want "hard evidence".

Don't go there unless you want to hear how Christmas in Cambodia was "burned into" John Kerry's memory.

Kerry's 'Christmas in Cambodia'

John Kerry is a proven liar.

 

[peptoabysmal]

By pepboy's standards, Bill Clinton wasn't really lying when he claimed: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky", because Clinton privately believed that BJs did not constitute sexual relations.

Wrong. I don't have to prove that Clinton lied, because Clinton admitted lying. (Not to mention the testimony of Monica and others)

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/

 

[peptoabysmal]

Uh, wasn't this before the whole Oil for Food scandal was revealed? At the time, there was no reason to distrust the UN. Even if there was, are you honestly implying that the weapons inspectors were somehow being paid off by Saddam?

Yes, I do believe that Blix's group was complicit in helping cover up Saddam's intentions. Blix was pretty quick to give a nod to any possible dual use component. Blix also missed the entire Iraq nuclear program, first in the 80's, then again in '91. Not exactly the stellar record some would have you believe. I think our government was becoming aware that something was rotten in Denmark...

However; this falls into the same category as the "Bush lied" dogma, conspiracy theory and drug the thread off course.

Where is the evidence which could impeach Bush for lying to the American public to start the Iraq war? Do you not believe this is an impeachable offense if it were true?

 

[peptoabysmal]

My apologies for not being able to monitor this thread more. I just wanted to go through and see if I could indeed find any solid evidence.

There is evidence to suggest possible wrongdoing on the part of President Bush and if you have a natural inclination to hate him, I can see how easy it is to believe that he did lie.

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense. -- A rock solid case to illustrate that Bush deliberately lied to get us involved in the Iraq war.

For myself, I believe that Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD. I don't think he was acting. Perhaps he believed this with the same blindness that people now accuse him of lying. However; this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

edited to add: My apologies for not keeping up with this thread, life gets busy sometimes =).

 

[clk]

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense.

A lie that costs over 1000 American lives, over 10000 Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars is NOT an impeachable offense, but a lie about a BJ that costs nothing IS an impeachable offense? You Republicans sure have some strange standards....

 

[a_unique_person]

My apologies for not being able to monitor this thread more. I just wanted to go through and see if I could indeed find any solid evidence.

There is evidence to suggest possible wrongdoing on the part of President Bush and if you have a natural inclination to hate him, I can see how easy it is to believe that he did lie.

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense. -- A rock solid case to illustrate that Bush deliberately lied to get us involved in the Iraq war.

For myself, I believe that Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD. I don't think he was acting. Perhaps he believed this with the same blindness that people now accuse him of lying. However; this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

edited to add: My apologies for not keeping up with this thread, life gets busy sometimes =).

According to the book by that watergate guy, (forget his name now), the war was already going to happen, he just wanted someone to tell him that there were WMD as a reasonable sounding excuse. Tenet let him know it was a 'slam dunk', meaning that of course they could whip up a case for him. The whole WMD was just post hoc, and had no actual part in the reason for the war. As it was, if you look at the CBS story in my previous links, the agents that do the real work, and copped the blame for the 'intelligence failure' never believed for a minute the crap that Powell was spouting at the UN.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, I do believe that Blix's group was complicit in helping cover up Saddam's intentions. Blix was pretty quick to give a nod to any possible dual use component. Blix also missed the entire Iraq nuclear program, first in the 80's, then again in '91. Not exactly the stellar record some would have you believe. I think our government was becoming aware that something was rotten in Denmark...

However; this falls into the same category as the "Bush lied" dogma, conspiracy theory and drug the thread off course.

Where is the evidence which could impeach Bush for lying to the American public to start the Iraq war? Do you not believe this is an impeachable offense if it were true?

Do you know what 'dual use' even means. Half the American manufacturing industries use 'dual use' materials. Iraq could not function as an industrial state without them.

 

[Earthborn]

Blix was pretty quick to give a nod to any possible dual use component.

A dual use component is exactly what it says it is, so it cannot be used as evidence for the existence of WMD. Blix took note of them, told everybody about them and searched a bit further. He had the job of looking for evidence of WMD, dual use components are not evidence of WMD. So what did you expect him to do about them?

Blix also missed the entire Iraq nuclear program, first in the 80's, then again in '91.

Remember that at that time he was not a weapons inspector. He was an inspector for the IAEA. He didn't find a secret nuclear program, because he wasn't looking for secret nuclear programs. In fact at that time, no one was looking for secret programs because in the political climate of the day allowing international inspectors to search through a country's secret facilities was considered an acceptable breach of national sovereignty.

However, what I am seeking is an impeachable offense. -- A rock solid case to illustrate that Bush deliberately lied to get us involved in the Iraq war.

By stating it like that, all you do is show how poorly developed the concept of political responsibility is in the US. In most other democratic countries high government officials or even entire cabinets would have been impeached or thrown out of office merely for being as wrong as the Bush administration was. It is usually considered completely irrelevant whether they lie delibrately or presented information they should have known to be inaccurate.

It is notoriously difficult to prove any untruth was a deliberate lie, because it is often impossible to know exactly what knowledge people had in the past and how they intended their actions. But it shouldn't matter.

I personally believe that Hans Blix gives us the simplest explanation: the Bush administration really, really, honestly believed there were WMD in Iraq. It means that there is something very wrong going on somewhere in the US government making it possible that they could be so profoundly wrong. It also appears that little is done to find out what went wrong or to correct it.

 

[C.J.]

For myself, I believe that Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD. I don't think he was acting. Perhaps he believed this with the same blindness that people now accuse him of lying. However; this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

Been following the thread with interest, and there is I think a valid point made by pepto in earlier posts. If we are talking about lying as involving intent to deceive, then we cannot now and likely never will be able to definitively say that Bush lied; he can always claim (truthfully or not) that he really believed in the presence of WMD's, and unless someone has developed psychic powers or we find a diary entry that owns up to it, we are in no position to say any different.

Don't go there unless you want to hear how Christmas in Cambodia was "burned into" John Kerry's memory.

Kerry's 'Christmas in Cambodia'

John Kerry is a proven liar.

I'd like to note to pepto, though, that in the above message you are engaging in exactly the same behavior you accuse others of. There is no evidence in the article linked to that Kerry intended to deceive anyone. He may simply have a poor memory or was mistaken in his location. You may find that unlikely, but you cannot condemn others for their means of attacking a politician you approve of and then use those same tactics to attack those you don't and expect to have your argument taken seriously.

Finally,

...this assertion remains as unproven as the assertion that Bush misled the world.

While we may not be able to say that Bush lied based on an "intent test," I believe that enough evidence has been presented in this thread to argue that he did mislead the world, in that his statements did not accurately convey the uncertainty inherent in the information the administration possessed.