I think the issue of lying is really non-partisan, and separate from anti-war vs. pro-war. The lies Lyndon Johnson told were not any more acceptable because they were "Democratic" lies. Bill Clinton's dick wasn't any less sucked because he lied about it. The issue is lying. Should any White House Administration be able to get away with the lies that the Bush Administration told? If Republicans answer yes, they will have no moral standing if a Democrat tells similar lies in the future.
Scheer:
- It is expected that despots can force the blind allegiance of their people to falsehoods. But it is frightening in the extreme when lying matters not at all to a free people. The only plausible explanation is that the tragedy of Sept. 11 so traumatized us that we are no longer capable of the outrage expected of a patently deceived citizenry. The case for connecting Saddam Hussein with that tragedy is increasingly revealed as false, but it seems to matter not to a populace numbed by incessant government propaganda.
The only significant link between Al Qaeda and Hussein centered on the Ansar al Islam bases in the Kurdish area outside of Hussein's control. That's the "poison factory" offered by Colin Powell in his U.N. speech to connect Hussein with international terror. But an exhaustive investigation by the Los Angeles Times of witnesses and material found in the area "produced no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated terrorist organization." Moreover, the purpose of this camp was to foster a holy war of religious fanatics who branded Hussein as "an infidel tyrant" and refused to fight under the "infidel flag" of his hated secular regime.
The embarrassingly secular nature of the government was summarized in another Los Angeles Times story on the status of women: "For decades, Iraqi women — at least those living in Baghdad and some other big cities — have enjoyed a degree of personal liberty undreamed of by women in neighboring nations such as Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joe
So the premise is that they would lie and fabricate to get us into a war, but they wouldn't do the same afterwards to justify it (eg. have the Army declare the 55-gallon drums as WMD)?
Additionally, most intel reports are referred to as estimates for a reason. The fact that our best guesses based upon limited information were wrong shouldn't come as a huge shock.
2 - Howard Owens
Let's see, inspectors should have more time, into months and years, but the U.S. military should have only days or weeks, and based on this clearly, Bush and Blair lied.
Furthermore, it has to be a lie. If we don't find any WMD -- and I believe we will -- it has to be a lie; it couldn't possibly be that they were just wrong.
And I like the point that if the U.S. was willing to lie to get us into a war, why wouldn't it lie about finding WMD? As just about every detractor has point out -- it wouldn't be difficult for the U.S. to plant evidence. So if it's all a lie, why hasn't the U.S. planted any evidence yet?
3 - Brian Flemming
I'd like to hear the loyal fans of the Bush Administration either defend or condemn EVERY lie that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld told in the run-up to the war, not just cherry-pick the ones you find it easiest to manufacture a vague excuse for.
Of course, in order to do that, you'd have to acknowledge the lies. You'd have to take an honest look at what this Administration said and did, and appraise those words and actions in the same way as you would if there were a Democrat in the White House.
And I know that is forbidden.
But it shouldn't be. The lies don't just disappear because you like the result of them. And anyone who ignores, downplays or denies the obvious lies told by the Bush Administration loses any standing when complaining about the lies that, say, President Kerry tells in 2005-2009.
I expect to hear not a peep. Because with your silence, you have clearly demonstrated: You believe it is okay for the President of the United States and his Administration to lie.
(Oh, and if you're unaware of the lies--that's no excuse either. You'll just have to be "unaware" of them when the Lying Democrat tells them, too. Because you have no excuse for failing to notice lies published on the front page of the newspaper.)
4 - Howard Owens
What lies, Brian?
Apparently, you can handle the truth. Your post was refuted in no minor way and you don't even deal with it. You just soldier on in your self-rightous manner.
5 - Brian Flemming
Howard,
Put your cards on the table.
Are you claiming that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld have told no lies in their official capacities during the run-up to this war?
Yes or no.
6 - Joe
Nice job tiptoeing around both Howard's and my response. Typical.
7 - Wendy Dunst
Why hasn't the administration planted evidence of WMDs in Iraq? Well, I think the simplest answer is the best here. They would not be able to get away with it.
Why has the administration admitted that it deceived the public as to reasons for the Iraq invasion? Because, with every (non) find of (non) WMDs brought to light the fact that they *had* deceived us. If there had been any way out of it, they wouldn't have admitted it.
Either that, or they thought we'd be so blind/brainwashed as to accept the fact that they had lied without fearing reprisals. Apparently, they've succeeded in some quarters.
8 - Brian Flemming
Joe,
I have responded elsewhere to these same claims and will do so again here.
However, first, put your cards on the table:
Are you claiming that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld have told no lies in their official capacities during the run-up to this war?
Yes or no.
9 - Howard Owens
Brian, you silly boy ... you're asking us to play a fools game ... make a blanket statement so you can easily knock it down.
If you're going to accuse the president of lying, you need to prove it.
What are the specific lies you believe the administration has told in the run up to the war?
Don't dodge now, as I know you love to do. Point by point, what are the lies?
10 - Joe
No cards to show here. Please read my comment. I've made no claim with regard to anything anyone said. I'm neither defending or condemning the administration. I've merely questioned why they would lie in one instance not in another. Nice try, though.
11 - Brian Flemming
Howard,
Your ignorance of and/or unwillingness to acknowledge and condemn the lies the Bush Administration told are part of my point. The title of this article is "Lies Don't Matter." I believe this is your position, even though you won't state it. I am offering you a chance to refute this proposition by illustrating that you are aware of the significant lies told by the Bush Administration and that you condemn them because they are lies.
An abusive ad hominem such as "silly boy" doesn't somehow mean you are not failing to be straightforward here. Either you feel the Bush Administration has told no lies, or you feel that it HAS told lies, or you don't care. Take a stand.
I'll expand the questions, if that will help you:
1. Are you claiming that Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld have told no lies in their official capacities during the run-up to this war?
2. If you are not claiming this, what does it mean that you have failed to acknowledge and condemn the lies? Have you failed to acknowledge and condemn the lies because you support Bush, and therefore the lies he and his Administration tell are acceptable?
12 - Joe
A rather slippery slope, don't you think?
Have you ever told a lie in your life? No? You're a liar! Yes? You're a liar!
Have you ever tolerated a lie in your life?...
So Brian, would you care to show your cards now?
What's your point?
13 - Brian Flemming
Joe,
What does it mean that you won't take a stand on the issue of whether the Bush Administration has told lies in the run-up to the war?
I mean--isn't this important? You don't care?
My point is that it is obvious that you and Howard both know that the Bush Administration has told outrageous lies in the run up to the war. They are obvious. That's why you fear denying them.
Still, you refuse to acknowledge or condemn them. And unless you would provide the same "see no evil" favor to a Democratic President (or anyone else with whom you disagree), this is hypocrisy.
Perhaps I should put my cards on the table with regard to a Democrat.
----------------------------
BILL CLINTON AND THE LEWINSKY SCANDAL -- LIES
Bill Clinton told ties throughout this scandal. The biggest lie he told was when he wagged his finger at the American people and said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." (Not only was this a lie, but also caddish toward Lewinsky. "That woman"? What a pig.) But Clinton also lied during his videotaped testimony, even if he did manage to do so cleverly. I don't care if they are merely lies of omission, or lies done with technically "truthful' wording. Clinton intended to deceive, and he did deceive. He lied.
This lying is part of a pattern. He also lied about similar sexual issues when he was running for President in 1992. Clearly Clinton has cheated on his wife many times and has a problem with regard to sex--he seemingly can't resist it, even when succumbing to temptation means disaster for his personal life, his career and even the prestige of the United States Presidency. He has these furtive encounters, then lies about them. And he lies with one clear goal--to save his skin. It isn't out of respect for his family, right-wing conspiracy, blah blah blah. No, he lies out of self-interest, pure and simple. When it comes to sex, I would never trust a single word Bill Clinton ever said. It would be reasonable to assume he is lying, because that's what he does.
Nonetheless, I think Clinton was a good President. While I would score him a flat zero in the "sexual fidelity" and "telling the truth about sexual fidelity" departments, those are not very important departments for me when it comes to the Presidency. I think he did a stellar job in many of the other departments (such as the economy, and building a good military), and a fine job in most departments. So, yeah, he lied and lied and lied and lied, but, on the whole, I defend him as a President.
--------------------------------
You see what I mean?
That's what I'm waiting for from you and Howard. An unflinching look at the lies the Bush Administration told in the run up to the war, to prove that you aren't blinded by loyalty and ideology, and an explanation as to why you support the war and Bush anyway.
So here you go...
--------------------------
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE RUN-UP TO THE IRAQ WAR -- LIES
---------------------------
14 - Joe
Again, please pay attention to what I'm saying. I've made no claim with regard to anything anyone said, nor defended or condemned the administration. That's an interesting purity test you suggest that I NEED to prove I'm not blinded by loyalty and ideology.
You've made assertions, I've asked you to support them. In your failure to adress my question, you've attempted to redirect the argument against me.
Interesting. Weak. But interesting.
15 - Brian Flemming
Joe,
If you want to play a game of Who Asked Whom First?, I'd point to this line in my original article...
...do the lies matter?
It is a dodge to answer this with a question ("what lies?"). What I am asking is if we can first get an agreement on this subject:
There were lies, and they matter.
Agree or disagree?
THEN we can go on to deal with the lies/alleged lies one by one, and debate whether they were necessary, were "white" lies, whatever.
But if we are not going to start from an honest place, why bother?
I have stated my opinion on many of the individual lies told by the Bush Administration over and over. The evidence is all over Blogcritics. I haven't dodged this question at all. And I'm willing to catalog the lies again.
What I'm asking you and Howard to do is something you HAVEN'T done anywhere on Blogcritics. Take a firm and clear stand:
Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?
Yes or no.
That's not asking much.
And every time you and Howard avoid this simple question, you confirm my proposition: Supporters of the war ignore lies told by the Bush Administration that they would never tolerate coming from a Democratic Administration. And this is hypocrisy.
16 - Joe
Actually, Brian, I never had the desire or intention of discussing the Bush administration. You posted an opinion piece, I questioned your reasoning, you failed to explain or answer. That's all.
17 - Brian Flemming
Joe,
I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question in a direct manner if you'll answer mine.
I'll even do it first, if you insist. Give me your question.
Here's mine:
Has the Bush Administration told lies in the run-up to the war?
18 - Joe
Sorry, Brian, I was just interested in seeing if you could back up your argument.
19 - Brian Flemming
So far, you are confirming my argument. "Lies don't matter" to war supporters was my argument. And, clearly, they don't matter to you. You can't even be bothered to state whether the lies exist or not.
As for me, as you likely can guess, I think Presidential lies in the run-up to a war do matter.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Your original comment in full:
So the premise is that they would lie and fabricate to get us into a war, but they wouldn't do the same afterwards to justify it (eg. have the Army declare the 55-gallon drums as WMD)?
No, that's not the premise. The premise is, "Lies don't matter to you." And you have proved that.
But, yes, your assertion is apparently true, so far. It's a lot harder to manufacture real evidence with the whole world watching than it is to talk about imaginary evidence that depends on secret files.
Plus, the lies in the run-up to the war already served their purpose. People believed the lies long enough for Bush to get his war. That's why he told them.
It doesn't really matter to Bush when or if these lies are exposed. He doesn't give a flying fork about the international community anyway. And here at home...well, he has people like you who don't think lies matter anyway.
Additionally, most intel reports are referred to as estimates for a reason. The fact that our best guesses based upon limited information were wrong shouldn't come as a huge shock.
I would agree with you that if, hypothetically, the prediction was "Iraq has 1000 tons of WMD," and it turned out that Iraq had, say 500 tons, or even 100 tons, that wouldn't make the original estimate a "lie." It would simply be off, and understandably so. I agree with you on this point, if that is what you're saying.
But then there's what Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld really said. And if you think the lies Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld told in the run-up to the war were mere "estimates," I hope you'll be as generous with the lies a Democratic President is sure to tell in the future.
(Oh, and I suppose Bill Clinton merely "estimated" that he did not have sex with Lewinsky. Suddenly, he looks a lot more truthful by your standards.)
20 - Joe
Actually, I don't necessarily think I've proved anything. If you wish to surmise certain conclusions about me, fine. If you think that your estimation of my opinions or thoughts (upon which you have no factual basis) somehow strengthens your point, more power to you.
I saw a glaring weakness to your original argument and I pointed it out.
BTW, all politicians lie, silly boy.
21 - mike
Re: Joe and Howie.
Are your posts 1 and 2 the best you can do? Consider: In 1995, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, Hussein's son-in-law, who had defected to the West, told the CIA that Saddam had destroyed all his WMDs after 1991. The Bush administration cited other statements Kamel made, IN THE VERY SAME TESTIMONY, that Iraq desired to obtain wmd's, neglecting to point out that he also thought it could no longer do so, owing to the inspections regime and the collapse of the country's infrastructre after Gulf War I.
But never mind that, as I'm sure you will. Subsequent to 1995, weapons inspections became increasingly rigorous (thanks in part to Scott Ritter), generating supporting documentation you can easily access through public sources, and yet no wmd's were found. Recently, we've heard off-line murmurings from Administration officials that wmd's were never the "real" issue. Translation: they were lying.
So, given the Administration's complete lack of credibility on this issue, it's going to have to do a good job of concocting evidence that will satisfy anyone besides the gullible U.S. media and the hawkish conservatives. So have patience. These things take time. You'll be suckered soon enough.
22 - Joe
Very good, Mike. Not sure I follow the logic: US has no credibility and has lied in past to further war goals, therefore US must now be completely honest because of what? Type slowly, I'm having a hard time following.
The point that I was trying to make before was if they didn't really care what anyone thought before, why do they care now?
23 - mike
My point is that if the U.S. wants to plant evidence of WMD's, it's going to have to do a top notch job to convince anyone but folks like you. That takes time, and that's why you haven't seen the fruits of its labor yet.
Why does it care? Good point. It may not, in which case no fabrication may be forthcoming.
But one reason why Administration officials might care is that if no wmd's are found, the invasion would be a clear cut violation of international law and entrenched Western notions of permitted use of force. And the Administration may care about THIS because:
If Bush or other senior officials were to travel to any Western country after they leave office, they would be at risk of arrest by judges under UJ (universal jurisdiction), a doctrine pioneered by Western human rights lawyers which argues that anyone traveling in the West who has been accused of aggression or war crimes anywhere on Earth can be arrested and tried in that country. This doctrine is what allowed Pinochet to be arrested in London, and it also accounts for why Henry Kissinger cannot leave the U.S. He was nearly arrested in Paris a few years ago at the behest of enterprising human rights lawyers, owing to his involvement in the East Timorese massacres, among other horrors.
24 - Joe
Oh, well, sure then, they'll flout all the other international conventions, but they're shaking in their boots(get it? boots? Texan) about a relatively untested law.. BTW before you go making snarky little "folks like you" remarks why don't you check where I've written that I was convinced there are WMDs in Iraq.
25 - mike
UJ may be untested theory, but enough bigshots have come close enough to being arrested, a la Kissinger, that a Karl Rogue or a Colon Bowel probably wouldn't want to sit around in overnight lockup waiting for counsel to spring them. Especially in Paris, where even the criminals are rough on Americans.
You wrote that "the fact that our best guesses based upon limited information were wrong shouldn't come as a huge shock."
They weren't "best guesses," Einstein, they were straight out lies. Not that folks like you would know the difference.
Cheers! Move along now. I'm done with you.
Next!