Blogcritics Comments on Why it matters that Bush lied

Comment by Hillary Lied Too.. on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:00:17 EST

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Comment by Thomas on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:22:26 EDT

I don't remember Republicans equivocating about the reality of military intelligence before the war. Back then, the pro-war folks exalted Bush Administration propaganda as if it were irrefutable proof. Now they twist and contort themselves to defend President Bush. Why not just hold him to account? I mean, he's not a deity. (Technically, he's just a civil servant.)

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:18:33 EDT

Brian- An impressive demonstration of your fertile imagination or lack of understanding of how intelligence works. Which is it?

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:00:32 EDT

Interesting column today by Bob Somerby in his Daily Howler. He gets into the tricky area of what "lying" means. As he shows, if the President's defenders want to defend him, as Eric has, along the "he just saw what he wanted to see" lines, that pretty much gives the President carte blanche to deceive us however much he wants. The Howler:

In fact, few major Dems have said that Bush "lied"—in part, because presidents rarely have to. Lying is rarely needed in public life; professional communicators can completely mislead an audience without making a single false statement. How do they do it? By "exaggeration" and "over-emphasis"—by putting certain facts out on the table, and keeping other facts hidden from view.
more

That pretty much sums it up. If this is okay, then lying is okay. It means the following scenario is okay: 1) Fact: intelligence agencies agree that Saddam probably doesn't have a nuclear weapons program and may not have a WMD program of any kind that is a threat--maybe, maybe not. 2) The President finds this fact inconvenient. He knows "maybe" means inspections, while "certain danger" means support for an invasion. 3) So the Pentagon orders a "special team" of intelligence analysts to be put together with the goal of finding interpretations that sound more scary than the current, nonpolitical consensus from intelligence agencies. 4) This special team finds discredited evidence of an attempt by Saddam to buy nuclear weapons material, of an attempt by Saddam to purchase aluminum tubes (consensus from experts: the tubes were not used in a nuclear weapons program), and of a discredited rumor that an al Qaeda agent once met with the Iraqi government. All of these pieces of evidence were known to the CIA and other intelligence agencies--and all agree they are without merit, or at least highly questionable. 5) Knowing the status of these pieces of "evidence," the President cites them to the American people as if they are credible proof of a WMD danger in Iraq. If that's okay, then lying is okay. You're basically saying, it's okay if the President lies, as long as he goes through a rigmarole on the way to telling the lie.

Comment by Phillip Winn on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:42:53 EDT

Joe - every time I see a post like this (meaning "another anti-Bush screed from Bryan Flemming" or maybe just "a post in which the very first statement is clearly a lie"), I hope nobody will respond. This time it took only ten hours, and the BAM! Hook, line, sinker, pole, fisherman, boots, etc. Ah well. I spent a little time looking into the initial Bush tax proposal, and I still can't figure out where people keep coming with the idea that people who pay income taxes aren't getting a cut. I saw the chart, but no explanation. As I concluded in my above-linked article, "Unless you're a single person earning $10,800 or less, it's better." But I guess I'm a liar, too, because there's this pretty chart with no explanataion, see?

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:20:03 EDT

Brian- Other than firmly establishing how remarkably low your bar is set for the concept of journalistic excellence, your point is what? That you can find several other people on the internet that feel exactly the way you do? Curses! Once again, I've been tricked into thinking you had a serious point to make!

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:15:22 EDT

There is an excellent article in Slate, by Timothy Noah (who annoyingly calls himself "Chatterbox"), that explores this "Was he ignorant or did he lie?" issue. Noah's conclusion: Why can't he be both ignorant and a liar?

Is President Bush a liar? The New York Times' David Rosenbaum examined this question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22 "Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied" in two particular instances. The first was when Bush claimed he knew Saddam Hussein to possess large quantities of nuclear and biological weapons. The second was when Bush claimed that his tax cut would provide tax relief for everyone who pays income taxes. In both instances, Chatterbox is baffled by Rosenbaum's doubt.
Let's address Bush's tax claim first. Its falsity is not in dispute. Chatterbox has written elsewhere that Bush lied when he said, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." (The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million people who pay taxes but will receive no tax cuts.) Rosenbaum recognized that Bush's statement was untrue but expressed doubt that Bush knew it to be untrue. Can a false statement be a lie if the speaker is unaware it is a lie?
That leads us immediately to a second question, one that Rosenbaum dared not address: Why is the speaker unaware that his statement is a lie? In Bush's case, the answer is painfully obvious. It's because Bush is a functionally not-bright man. As Chatterbox has explained elsewhere, it's impossible to tell—and, ultimately, of little interest—whether Bush lacks the necessary mental equipment, or whether he's simply incurious. The end result is the same. Even Bush's allies concede that Bush is strikingly ignorant. In the July Vanity Fair, Sam Tanenhaus quoted Richard Perle as saying that when he first met Bush, it was "clear" that "he didn't know very much." Perle went on to argue (with what he failed to recognize as condescension) that Bush is an eager pupil. But there isn't much evidence to support even that.
It's often said that Bush has the virtue of self-awareness, that he knows what he doesn't know. That's probably true. But if it is true, then Bush really oughtn't to go around making sweeping statements that he hasn't made any effort to verify. When these statements turn out to be untrue, Bush's feigned certainty alone justifies calling these statements lies. They may not be the sort of lies a clever person (say, Bill Clinton) would tell. Indeed, many left-of-center commentators (Paul Krugman and Eric Alterman come to mind) refuse to admit that Bush is dumb, presumably because they fear that would make it impossible to hold him accountable for terrible things that he and his administration do. (Many felt the same way about Reagan.) But there's no reason Bush can't be thought of as both stupid and a liar. As Slate's Michael Kinsley has noted, Bush's lies are typically lies of laziness: "If telling the truth was less bother, [he'd] try that too."
Saying that Bush lacks much on the ball does not mean that he never lies the way clever people do. Surely, for instance, Bush is aware on some level that it has yet to be proved that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons stashed away prior to the war. In addressing this question, Rosenbaum let Bush off the hook by focusing on what he said before the war began, e.g., "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." Like Rosenbaum, Chatterbox is eager to cut Bush some slack on this, if only because Chatterbox, too, was convinced prior to the war that the presence of biological and chemical weapons had been proved. (Click here and here to read two columns Chatterbox now wishes he'd never written.) But Rosenbaum never considered what Bush said on Polish television after the war ended:
We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on.
In fact, it has yet to be proved that the two mobile labs were used (or even designed to be used) to build biological weapons. It isn't possible that Bush fails to grasp that. So, why did he say something so obviously untrue? Chatterbox posed the question to The Nation's David Corn, who has written extensively on the question of Bush's veracity. In Corn's view, the key to Bush's lies isn't necessarily that he doesn't know any better, but that he doesn't care. "He mischaracterizes situations to fit his pattern of thinking," Corn explained. "Does he believe he's lying? I don't know." But "he still should be held accountable, whether he made a mistake of this nature in good faith or in bad faith." Amen.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:01:33 EDT

This is a false dichotomy: a president undoubtedly knows more than the rest of us about lots things he is privy to nd we aren't, but that doesn't mean the intelligence he is given can't be wrong; and as has already been stated here, inteligence is open to interpretation, spin, opinion, and as with all such things, those involved will naturally will tend to see what they want to see.

Comment by Thomas on Why it matters that Bush lied

Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:51:28 EDT

From January-March of 2003, conservatives often justified the war in Iraq by asserting that President Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt because he knows more than the rest of us. Now they are claiming that President Bush deserves to absolved of any wrongdoing because he wasn't aware that much of the intelligence he was pushing was faulty. Well, which is it? Is President Bush all-knowing or is he ignorant? You can't have it both ways.

Comment by Brian on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:32:45 EDT

Brian- At the time they were presenting those examples did they have a reason to believe they were wrong? At its core most intelligence should be viewed with skepticism, it is generally more art than science and you never have the 100% solution. The analogy you offer is rather extreme. I don't think, and I'd imagine that you don't truly believe that Josh Marshall, TNR, and Michael Kinsley, et al., are unbiased and that their reporting is not made with their respective audiences in mind.

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:12:12 EDT

Joe, Major difference: While the articles I quote support my argument, I don't have good reason to believe they are wrong. This is not the case with the Niger fiasco, the aluminum tubes misrepresentation and many other instances of supposed "self-deception" by the Bush Administration. For example, the Administration had good reason to doubt that the Niger story was real, yet it still insisted on trumpeting it in the State of the Union address. The Administration had no solid reason to believe in a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein--it just WANTED there to be a link. So it stated unequivocally that there was one. That is, quite simply, not honest. A more sound analogy than the one you offer would be if I had no solid sources to back up my claims but instead sought out some biased, left-wing website with an agenda and hired that website to "interpret" the available information and offer me a "report" with made-to-order conclusions, which I then quoted here as if it were the product of independent, solid research and analysis. Yeah, if I did that, I'd be a liar.

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:53:21 EDT

Brian- Interesting that you picked up on the "seeing what they wanted to see" notion. I read most of your posts and that's usually the impression I'm left with, you've taken an article(s) that parallels your view and use it to amplify your point. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but then surprising that you would condemn others for doing the same thing. Would that make you a liar if the article is later proved to be wrong?

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:31:25 EDT

Eric,

...I am still waiting for evidence that anyone did anything beyond looking at conflicting opinions and evidence and seeing what they wanted to see.

This is okay with you? Doesn't "seeing what they wanted to see" at some point become a form of deception? For example, I have little doubt that Bill Clinton really did draw a distinction between oral sex and "actual sex." So, technically, he was just "seeing what he wanted to see" when he told the American people "I did not have sex with that woman." I still call that a lie. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Bush Administration did more than look at 1 + 1 and see 3. They looked at 1 + 1 and saw 100. They knowingly relied on biased sources. The Pentagon set up a special unit just to deliver the intelligence conclusions the Administration wanted--because the CIA wasn't giving them what they wanted. And those conclusions--that Saddam had massive stores of WMD ready to deploy and intended to use them--were clearly wrong. Coincidence? There may not be a smoking gun here, ever. Still, that doesn't mean that our country went to war based on a solid, honest process that we should be proud of. There is enough evidence right now to conclude that at the very least intelligence was politicized--and that's enough to be concerned about. Hypothetically, let's say you don't support the next war. Will it be okay if the leaders of our country distort intelligence and "see what they want to see" in order to justify it? Mike, True, a lot of the opposition to reality here from super-conservatives is cult-like. But, then, it's always like that with this particular (small) group. I think a lot of others simply don't want to believe that a) Their leaders would trick them into supporting a war, and b) They got tricked. Joe, If you read the Post article, you'll see that legislators did struggle to get more information--and to get it out to the public--and were often stonewalled. And legislators are now saying that Wolfowitz gave them certain assurances, and they trusted him. Now they want to know why these assurances were given.

Comment by mike on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:23:50 EDT

Left leaning NPR reporters????!!!!!! Can I have some of what you're smoking?? Because I would love to live in a world where NPR or any other U.S. network leaned to the left. Next you'll be saying that The New York Times is liberal. As if!

Comment by Eric Olsen on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:12:02 EDT

There is no question this is an important issue. Regardless of other circumstances, it does matter if a leader of a democracy lies. While the lack of evidence of WMD is embarrassing and damaging at this point, I am still waiting for evidence that anyone did anything beyond looking at conflicting opinions and evidence and seeing what they wanted to see. This is not the same thing as "lying": making assertions known to be untrue. Just as there is no clear "smoking gun" yet of WMD, neither is there a smoking gun of anyone in the administration "lying," nor is there evidence that the Jessica Lynch rescue was anything but that. I have listened very carefully to clearly "objective" left-leaning NPR reporters on this, people in Iraq, and while the anchor tries to draw accusations out of them, not one has been willing to even imply the possibility that anything was orchestrated, falsified or that any misinformation - like that Lynch fought like GI Jane - came from the military or administration.

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Mon, 23 Jun 2003 01:00:01 EDT

Brian- Indeed information is channeled through committees, but, additionally, committee members also have access to reporting as necessary and make routine visits to agencies as a part of their oversight capacity. The people that appear before the committees would probably argue that they serve the country. When committees are briefed, it is not generally a one-way conversation, committee members are free to ask questions and request further information. Do you think that the committees gave a pass in this instance and didn't press further? The function of intelligence is to provide decision-makers with information. I would imagine that given the previous situations with WMD's in Pakistan and India most folks in the community were less likely to accept risk with regard Iraq. So perhaps the posture now is not based upon being sure that things are very dangerous but rather not giving the benefit of the doubt unless you are sure that there isn't a risk, a subtle but significant difference. I see some parallels to your stated position with regards to the current administration. Mike- Once again, insightful and rational comments with great bearing upon the issues being discussed.

Comment by mike on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:12:13 EDT

I just notified them. It turns out, however, that the Times is treading lightly around the L word these days, as much of its staff has, er, truth issues of its own. Prowar apologists remind me of cult members. Before the war, they demonized anyone who doubted WMD claims. (Bill O'Reilly of Fox News practically made a fetish of it.) The evidence that Saddam had WMDs was so overwhelming, they said, that it made Iraq an imminent threat to U.S. security. Doubters like the now-vindicated Scott Ritter were often accused of treason. As soon as these claims were revealed as false, the prowars turned on a dime and now say, in unison, that WMDs were beside the point. No self doubt, no nuanced reflection, tempers their venom. Debating them is like debating pit bulls on crack. Maoists have better capacity for independent thought.

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:47:42 EDT

Phillip, True, there is still that debate over the proper term for the lies. Deception? Exaggeration? Distortion? Fabrication? Fact is, any of those kinds of lies with regard to intelligence matters that lead us to war should make anyone concerned. That's why "hardened idealogues" is an appropriate term for those who think these lies don't matter (or who purposefully avoid the subject, thus implying that the lies don't matter). These kinds of lies would matter deeply whether they were told by a Democrat or a Republican. Joe,

So you don't think Congress had any access to information that wasn't previously vetted by the White House?

Congress as a whole? I doubt it. Sensitive national security information is (properly) channeled through the appropriate committees, which often meet in closed session. Appearing before those committees are bureaucrats who serve the President. If the information given in this room is tainted politically, something very anti-democratic happens. In a democracy, we don't want ANYTHING government-related to happen in secret. But if it must (and national security issues must), we need to trust that the President is not jiggering things to suit his agenda--because the secrecy means that he holds most of the cards, and if he wants to act less than honorably, he can. That's why lies, exaggerations, distortions, deliberate misrepresentations, whatever are so important to punish. Intelligence is one area where politics is not supposed to enter the picture.

And do you disagree with me that the intelligence could have just been flat out erroneous?

It depends on where you locate the error. I disagree that it is likely that the White House was unaware that the Niger story was bogus. It's pretty obvious that they used it because it helped, not because it stood up to rigorous examination. In the case of the aluminum tubes, the Administration simply chose not to hear interpretations it didn't like. There is no doubt that the only reasonable conclusion to draw in March 2003 was that Saddam Hussein MIGHT have chemical or biological weapons. Nobody could be sure he didn't. The question is...how dire is the situation? Is it so bad that it requires a swift invasion? Or is the more appropriate course an inspections process backed by force? Clearly, the situation would have to be dire to justify an immediate invasion while U.N. inspectors were asking for just "weeks" to finish their work. You've gotta be pretty sure that things are very dangerous (i.e., tons of evil shit about to rain down on the U.S. or our allies) to recommend a rush to war. So Bush said the evidence showed there was such a grave danger, to a high degree of certainty. But the evidence he cited showed no such thing, and he knew that. He lied.

Comment by Phillip Winn on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:47:21 EDT

"Whether Bush lied is a settled issue for all but the most hardened idealogues." Gee, somebody should tell that to the NY Times.

Comment by SparkeY on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:13:36 EDT

Forbidden words in idotarian wordls is A) the US public at large doesn't care about WMD... B) WMD is one of three reasons given for invasion c) why everyone lied with GWB if he is lying Hence, the truth is, you are the lyer because you refuse to even address the issues. IF GWB lied why did all those other Democrats and France et al sing the same song. Unless you can address that truth, then you are a snake-oil liar and worth nothing but contempt. Of course, if you lookedf at my posts you'd already see how morally bankrupt your position is. But the real truth is not of any concern to you is it? You want to believe what you want to believe because you can't admit that you're wrong. Pitiful, simply pitiful... I'm glad I'm going on vacation for two weeks... BTW: I remember the midterm elections, you lost...

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:00:34 EDT

So you don't think Congress had any access to information that wasn't previously vetted by the White House? And do you disagree with me that the intelligence could have just been flat out erroneous?

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:35:53 EDT

Joe, Whether the invasion would have happened anyway is a much different question from what we should do about a President who lies to the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting that invasion. I agree--it's not as if there weren't other reasons to go in there. And there is no guarantee that there would have been no military action had Bush not ended the U.N. inspections. Nixon probably would have been elected in 1972 even if he and his operatives had not done what they did. But it STILL matters to our nation that he did what he did. He had to be held accountable whether his actions resulted in a much different course or not. This particular issue isn't about the result--it's about the lies our President told to get it. Even those who agree with the result should be concerned about the lies, because so much in our national security structure depends on Congress and the people being able to trust the President on these secret matters. Intelligence should never be manipulated like this to serve an agenda--intelligence information is the one thing we can't really keep a check on, because it is secret. We have to trust. And that means our President cannot abuse that trust without being held accountable.

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:11:15 EDT

Brian- The Chomsky remark was based upon a previous thread a few months back. I don't know that your assessment of Bush owning the intelligence agencies is completely accurate. I believe that the Congressional intelligence committees as well as armed forces and foreign relations hold some sway over the intelligence agencies as well. The reason I was asking you was because it just seems like you're too willing to give everyone else a free pass. My personal opinion is that the invasion would have happened sooner or later anyway. Clinton would have done it himself if he could have gotten the political traction in '98 (I seem to remember Cohen and Albright doing some sort of invasion roadshow that flopped). 911 created enough context to make the invasion politically feasible. Perhaps my opinions are tainted by a few years experience in the intelligence community. Could they have just been flat wrong? Well, somehow Pakistan and India both managed to hide nuclear test programs from them until they were both successful. Why should additional shortfalls on our part be so hard to swallow? Lastly, another NYT Article

Comment by Brian Flemming on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:46:34 EDT

Joe, I haven't referred to Noam Chomsky anywhere in this thread. I have referred to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Republic (which, btw, was for the war), Slate, the Hill and TomPaine.com. As far as legislators going along with the Bush Administration take on the WMD threat, those legislators do not have their own intelligence agencies, as Bush does. They depended on what they were told--which is to say, they depended on what Bush allowed to filter down to them. Washington Post:

On Oct. 4, three days before the president's speech, at the urging of members of Congress, the CIA released its declassified excerpts from the intelligence report as a "white paper" on Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda links. The members wanted a public document to which they could refer during floor debates on the Iraq war resolution. The white paper did contain passages that hinted at the intelligence community's lack of certitude about Iraq's weapons programs and al Qaeda ties, but it omitted some qualifiers contained in the classified version. It also did not include qualifiers made at the Oct. 2 hearing by an unidentified senior intelligence official who, during his testimony, challenged some of the administration's public statements on Iraq. "Senator Graham felt that they declassified only things that supported their position and left classified what did not support that policy," said Bob Filippone, Graham's deputy chief of staff. Graham, now a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposed the war resolution. When the white paper appeared, Graham and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an intelligence panel member and at that time chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked to have additional portions of the intelligence estimate as well as portions of the testimony at the Oct. 2 hearing made public. On the day of Bush's speech, Tenet sent a letter to Graham with some of the additional information. The letter drew attention because it seemed to contradict Bush's statements that Hussein would give weapons to al Qaeda. Tenet released a statement on Oct. 8 that said, "There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the president in his speech." He went on to say, however, that the chance that the Iraqi leader would turn weapons over to al Qaeda was "low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses" weapons of mass destruction. On Oct. 9, the CIA sent a letter to Graham and Levin informing them that no additional portions of the intelligence report would be made public.

No question, these legislators are accountable for what decisions they made with the information they had at the time. However, a key element in that information was the credibility of Bush and other executive-branch leaders and bureaucrats. They said, "Trust us." Many legislators, including Democrats, did. The questions now are, Should they have trusted Bush? Did he and his Administration deliver a reasonable interpretation of the secret information they had? The answer seems to be "no." It wasn't the job of a Senator to determine that the "aluminum tubes" (two more forbidden right-wing blogger words) were a crock. It wasn't the job of a Congressperson to determine that the scary Niger story was based on a forgery. They didn't know. The White House most likely did. Congress was tricked just like you and I were tricked.

Comment by Joe on Why it matters that Bush lied

Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:49:07 EDT

Brian- As always, an entertaining read. Would you care to address the "lies" of every other political figure (Dems, UN, et al.) that Sparkey posted? And, please, before you label me as an ideologue, and make me read Noam Chomsky, I'm not asking as some sort of debate point, I really would be interested in hearing your opinion.