Two leftist organizations have released a study that claims that the Bush administration lied about Iraq. Somehow I think we've heard that one before. Well, the two groups--the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism--managed to secure major media attention by making the claim that the Bush administration released 935 false statements. Clearly no one was in the mood to read all 935, so the leftist groups boiled them down to 532. We hear that on 532 occasions the Bush administration claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. So the claim is not that Bush told 532 lies, but that he told the same lie 532 times.
But consider this: If Bush actually knew that Iraq didn't possess weapons of mass destruction, and yet repeatedly told the American people that Iraq had them, didn't Bush expect that following the Iraq invasion his deception would be found out? When I raise this point with liberals on campus, they typically say, "Well, we're not saying that Bush knew for sure that there were no such weapons. We are saying that his administration stacked the data." But this is another way of saying that Bush actually believed that there were those weapons, and he mobilized whatever evidence he could muster to make his case. This may reflect prejudice against Saddam Hussein's motives or even imprudent decision making but it is hardly proof of lying.
Consider a similar decision made by President Roosevelt. In the period leading up to World War II, a group of refugee German scientists warned Albert Einstein that the Germans were building an atomic bomb. The project was headed by that country's greatest scientist, Werner Heisenberg. Acutely aware of the dangers of Hitler getting such a weapon, Einstein took this information in the fall of 1939 to President Roosevelt, who commissioned the Manhattan Project. America built the bomb, and later dropped two of them on Japan.
Many years later, Americans discovered that the Germans were nowhere close to building an atomic bomb. Their project was on the wrong track, and it seems to have stalled in its infancy. Some historians believe Heisenberg was trying to thwart the project from the inside. Be that as it may, in retrospect we now know that the intelligence that led to the Manhattan Project was wrong. But no one goes around saying, "Einstein lied" or "FDR lied." They didn't lie. They used the information they had to make a tough decision in a very dangerous situation.
The same is true of Bush. As a statesman, he had to act in the moving current of events. He didn't have the luxury of hindsight. To those leftist pundits who say, "Knowing what we know now, Mr Bush, why did you do what you did then?" Bush's answer is, "Obviously I didn't know what we know now." Acting against the somber backdrop of 9/11, Bush made a hard call based on an assessment of the intelligence provided to him. He may have acted in haste, and he may have acted in error, but he did not act in bad faith. Therefore the claim that Bush lied is itself a lie.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Actually Bush Didn't Lie
Posted Jan 23rd 2008 1:20PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Breaking News, Iraq, George Bush, Controversy
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- FL Chick on Jesus Statue Stolen By Dog Haters?
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- GearHedEd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- GearHedEd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- mac on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Washington in 60 Seconds: Senate May Work 24/7; Jenny Sanford Files for Divorce
- More Federal Workers Make Six Figures in the Recession
- Sarah Palin Praises Obama's Nobel Acceptance Speech
- Divorce and the Changing Fortunes of Mark and Jenny Sanford
- Help the Children -- It Won't Cost a Thing
- Coakley Wins, Nelson Loses: A Victory for Women
- John Thune: The GOP's Answer to Obama?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 32)
1. I find the constant defense of the Bush administration to be bizarre--almost cult-like-- in its refusal to acknowledge this administration's HUGE mistake which not only include the war in Iraq but its alienation of allies that were once sympathetic to our plight after 9/11 to its inept, bumbling handling of Hurricane Katrina. One of the most repellent traits of hardcore Bush fanatics is their ability to rationalize every toxic move his administration makes. It very much reminds me of the whole cult of religion which operates on denying the fact, then when the facts can no longer be denied, making up a fantastic story to make the facts fit the situation at hand.
Sophia Rox at 2:07PM on Jan 23rd 2008
2. LOL
The difference in your Roosevelt comparison is they ACTUALLY started working on the atomic bomb. The fact that they weren't on the right track is entirely different than not even having a program in place!
As far as getting "found out". What did he care. 1-he had a 50-50 shot of being right, and 2-he's been bailed out of everything he's screwed up his entire life.
He took advantage of american sensibilities and their hatred for Saddam to get us into Iraq. Also, I don't want to hear about how everybody thought he had WMD's. Germany and France didn't believe he did and neither did the UN ambassador.
Tim at 2:37PM on Jan 23rd 2008
3. Liberals sure do have a short memory. If Bush lied about WMD's then so did the beloved Hillary and Bill Clinton along with all of the other Democrats who voted for war. While Bill Clinton was in office, he had all the same intelligence about WMD's and talked about the danger of Saddam having these weapons. As for our support after 911, Germany and France oppossed the war in Iraq. Their far left leadership has since been replaced by conservatives and both Germany and France are both trying to repair the damage created by their previous socialist nutball leaders.
Katrina is another story. The Democratic leadership at the city and state level in Lousianna never seems to get their share of criticism for failures during Katrina. New Orleans is a great example of a welfare state that requires the federal government to take care of the mass. Democrates have made the people so dependant on Goverment that they can't take care of themselves.
TimLogeman at 2:44PM on Jan 23rd 2008
4. Re:
As far as getting "found out". What did he care. 1-he had a 50-50 shot of being right, and 2-he's been bailed out of everything he's screwed up his entire life.
This reminds me of Jim Hightower's great line about Bush, "Born on third and thinks he hit a triple"
Sophia Rox at 2:45PM on Jan 23rd 2008
5. Mr. D'Souza's column is dead on.
Faulty U.S. intelligence is the reason--and the only reason--that weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq. Virtually EVERYONE-from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, the overwhelmng majority of the US Congress and all of our national security agencies were convinced that Saddam had and was developing more sophisticated biological weapons. And jhis stupid behavior only compounded the problem. Why else would any sane despot not live up to the UN Inspection agreements that were part and parcel of the Gulf War conditions that allowed that bastard to continue to rule Iraq if he weren't hiding something?
For all the Bush hatersout there, and there are many, you are dead wrong about Bush lying to the American people about why we went into Iraq. Until we know the final outcome years from now we won't know if going there was a mistake or not. I personally believe that it was the right thing to do but no one knows with certainty and only time will tell. However, on the issue of lying I'm convinced that Bush speaks the truth. The majority of people in this country may not like what he says or stands for, but in my view he is among the most honest presidents in my lifetime--from Eisenhower on. You may not like him or respect him but I'm absolutely convinced that he is a man of integrity.
mike m at 2:55PM on Jan 23rd 2008
6. The argument has always been "were they stupid or did they lie". Dsouza comes down on the side of stupidity - "Oh my god! they got yellow cake and aluminum tubes - we gotta invade!"
He's probably right about Bush, but the neo-con fools supplying the information that convinced Bush had an agenda and lied to achieve it.
tadchase at 3:19PM on Jan 23rd 2008
7. Thank you for attempting to set things straight. Those who feel Bush lied will believe it until the day they die. As you so correctly pointed out - there's a big difference in lying and being wrong. Besides - how much time did we give Sadaam to get rid of his WMDs? How many times did we warn him? How many months did it take for us to finally go over there and see for ourselves? It will be interesting to see how a new administration, particularly a liberal one, will deal with the terrorist groups and jihadists of the world....
G-Man at 3:03PM on Jan 23rd 2008
8. DD says, "When I raise this point with liberals on campus,they typically say, "Well, we're not saying that Bush knew for sure that there were no such weapons. We are saying that his administration stacked the data.""
Well... it's easy for us to imagine that these liberals on campus are saying stoopid things like this for you to twist things around... because you are saying that they said it.
I'd say that Bush lied and he didn't care if there were any weapons found, because he knew that it would be impossible to get out of Iraq.
If it ever became 'possible'... the strategy would be to drag 'suspects' off the street and torture them... thereby making it impossible again!
1990's Cheney knew that the USA should NOT occupy Iraq... and the Twin Towers incident changed NOTHING as far as that piece of rational thinking went.
not-pboyfloyd at 2:57PM on Jan 23rd 2008
9. I will give Dinesh this one. When talking about WMD's bush may not have technically lied because he was using bad intelligence.
I believe he knew the intelligence was bad, but there is no way to be sure.
A more important question is, of the 532 lies, 28 were about Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda and not about WMDs.
Those have been proven to be actual lies.
So either way, Bush did lie.
Ryan Anderson at 3:01PM on Jan 23rd 2008
10. I just hope that Laura Bush runs for president some day, so Republicans can then circumvent the rules of a 2-term limit and elect Bush to a third term, and then a fourth, like Democrats are now trying to circumvent the rules in trying to get Bill a third term. That is my hope.
spb534 at 3:04PM on Jan 23rd 2008
11. The reason we went to war with Iraq is because Bush led the American people to believe that we were in 'imminent' danger. See: National Security Strategy of the United States. A number of countries have weapons of mass destruction but we don't attack them. A lot of countries have evil dictators and regimes and we don't attack them either. Everything hinged on the idea that our country was in immediate danger from Iraq because of its extensive weapons program, something Bush supporters seem to conveniently forget.
Sophia Rox at 3:04PM on Jan 23rd 2008
12. G-Man; just for the record, Saddam was an evil dictator, not a terrorist or jihadist. Just FYI.
Ryan Anderson at 3:05PM on Jan 23rd 2008
13. Wow...he puts his first lie into his first sentence.
"Two leftist organizations have released a study that claims that the Bush administration lied about Iraq."
Center For Public Integrity and the Fund For Independence in Journalism are non-partisan. If they weren't, they wouldn't have 501(c)3 status.
Comparing Bush to Einstein is pretty funny. Maybe D'Souza should consider doing stand-up.
Tatiana at 3:10PM on Jan 23rd 2008
14. When I read this study, I expected D’Souza to rush to the administration’s defense, but whitewashing the White House is no longer convincing.
In the absence of any facts, Decider Dubya simply decided that his whim was enough for war. He could just make an occasional triumphant claim that “we found the WMDs” and the compliant corporate media would accept his claim and move on to the next celebrity sex scandal.
362 days, 20 hours, and 50 minutes left.
cognitive dissident at 3:20PM on Jan 23rd 2008
15. I believe that Dinesh's assessment is correct. I saw a news interview with an Iraqi citizen who knew of Saddam's program and has said that he sent the WMD's to Syria...I think the leftwing needs to get their heads out of the sand (or butts)...to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the radical world is suicide for us.
Tomsgirlcat at 3:23PM on Jan 23rd 2008