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
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless 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
- Republicans, Independents Make the Difference in Support for Obama on Afghanistan
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 32)
16. It's evident that Mr. D'Souza worships at the altar of George W. Bush and his imperial presidency. Bush used the WMD fear argument because that was the one that would resonate most with the American public. How many times did they repeat: "...before a smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud." This was used as a tool to win over the hearts and minds of the American public and was clearly deceptive. They wanted us to believe that rhetoric when they had evidence to refute such an inflammatory claim.
Later the argument for war kept shifting and people like Mr. D'Souza refused to see the deception and lies. Maybe Alan Greenspan was right and the invasion of Iraq was all about oil from the beginning.
Steve at 3:23PM on Jan 23rd 2008
17. OK- maybe it was not an outright lie. But Bush & his admin definately chose to ignore the truth. I heard and read reports from CIA agents assigned to determine this issue and almost all said the same thing...there was no evidence that Hussein had WMD's. Why is it that I knew and Bush didn't. What Bush did know is that it wouldn't matter at first to the American public if he was wrong. We as a nation like action and vengence especially. After 9/11, it would seem like we were doing something..even if it was directed at the wrong parties. When the average American at the time was asked what country the 9/11 terrorist came from, the answer was overwhelmingly "Iraq". Even though not one did.
Also, those who voted for the invasion did have access to this information as well. But after the PR blitz to the public that our safety was endanger..very few could go against the tide. Doesn't excuse but explains.
nilsensfour at 3:36PM on Jan 23rd 2008
18. Tomsgirlcat; and yet with 24 hour satellite coverage between the US and Israel, no one ever saw any thing go to Syria. Go figure.
Ryan Anderson at 3:31PM on Jan 23rd 2008
19. Not only did bush lie about iraq, ( & still is).He lied about iran & their nuclear objectives, when he had the intelligence to the contrary,for years.He also lied about 9/11, they knew about intelligence on the hi-jackers intent for 2 weeks before it happened.
jimmy at 12:53PM on Jan 24th 2008
20. I hope the Democrats win everything and them let helter skelter begin. I hope it begins with another attack in NYC and I hope a few Dems get some of their family members killed by drunken illegals with dirvers license and while we are at it I hope they get a few daughters raped by the scum they give sanctuary to and throw in a few child molestations. Yeah, call me ugly or anything you like but I hope it happens. Oh, I hope they murder a few liberal judges too. Yes I mean it.
xistentl1 at 3:40PM on Jan 23rd 2008
21. Ryan - I understand what Saddaam was but I also know the greatest threat to the safety and security of this country is now the terrorists and jihadists - those who would easily sacrifice their own lives with a bomb just to further their cause, whether they live to see it or not. That's one reason that type of terrorism wouldn't work with Americans. You won't find a handful of Americans willing to blow themselves up for their cause. LOL
ducky at 3:38PM on Jan 23rd 2008
22. ducky; OK, but to talk about Saddam's Iraq and Terrorist and Jihadist in the same conversation is to confuse the subject, and that is exactly what Bush did. On purpose... you know... a lie.
Ryan Anderson at 3:41PM on Jan 23rd 2008
23. Is xistentl1 really Dinesh? At least that's how I imagine Dinesh really thinks.
Ryan Anderson at 3:43PM on Jan 23rd 2008
24. It is well known and established as FACT that Bush intended to invade Iraq before he set foot in the white house. He just made shit up to scare the populace and have a "justification".
Lies, lies and more lies.
Linda at 3:44PM on Jan 23rd 2008
25. 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. >>>
Let history decide if Iraq was a mistake. That said, a mistake is not a lie. As to alienation of allies ... you can thank the liberals that told the world our goverment supports the abuse, torture and even the murder of our prisioners.
May 5, 2004, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts accused our troops of torturing prisoners in the same manner as Saddam Hussein, stating “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management,” and
June 14, 2005, Senator Durbin of Illinois compared our troops to Nazis and genocidal maniacs, stating “If I didn’t tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot, or others that had no concern for human beings. Sadly that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in their treatment of their prisoners,” and
December 4, 2005, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts alleged that our troops were terrorizing Iraqi civilians, stating “There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children, women”
Note: None of the above is true, but liberals are believed ... because they live here.
As to Katrina: The Feds were never meant to be first responders. Meaning FEMA doesn't evac people. The real culprits here are the democrat mayor and govenor.
Seriously, your cult-like aversion to the truth is the real problem here.
Thomas J Gassett at 3:49PM on Jan 23rd 2008
26. Bush is so fucking stupid he probably had no idea if there were any weapons of mass destruction. He probably had no clue either way since he is most likely a puppet for someone else's agenda.
The idiot didn't even know what the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite was! He probably couldn't find Iraq on a map!
And how about his pardon for Scooter Libby? Libby kept his mouth shut about outing that CIA agent whose husband found no evidence of Iraq purchasing any items required to make weapons of mass destructions. When he strongly criticized the Bush administration and presented his evidence his wife's identity was released.
Then he is convicted and pardoned? Seems suspicious to me. Libby might have blackmailed in order to receive his pardon.
How about the Saudi's, and Pakistan? They house a huge network of terrorist yet the Bush administration turns the other way or we sell them billions of weapons.
Men that own oil companies, who are in the banking institutions, are pastors or have an IQ of 50 should never be allowed to be president. They represent only the richest 1% while the rest of America suffers indignation, poverty and a recession.
These Bush posters must have an equal IQ of Bush to not see how fucking retarded that stuttering fool is!
goddess1prevail at 3:53PM on Jan 23rd 2008
27. To add to Linda's comments, please look at the "statement of principle" on the website of the now defunct "Project for a New American Century".
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
And then read any of the articles on Iraq from 1997 to 2000 (Pre-Bush).
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
Selection from list of PNAC members...
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Ryan Anderson at 3:54PM on Jan 23rd 2008
28. It is well known and established as FACT that Bush intended to invade Iraq before he set foot in the white house. He just made shit up to scare the populace and have a "justification".
Lies, lies and more lies.
>>>
The only well known and established fact is that Clinton made regime change in Iraq American policy in the world before 911.
IN the world after 911 NO US President be he republican or democrat would tolerate a mass murder that had used WMD, had ties to terrorist and called for the destruction of the Great Satan (us) daily.
That our liberal brother can't seem to grasp this real world reality suggest they should concentrate on cartoons and leave the real world to those of us that actually live in it.
Lest we forget: When clitoon bombed a factory in Sudan he said: "The factory was built by Bin Laden to make WMD for Saddam."
This was the only operational connection between Saddam and Al Qeada ever made, and it was made by Clinton before liberals tell us Bush lied.
Thomas J Gassett at 3:55PM on Jan 23rd 2008
29. Thomas J Gassett; Um... all those statements you provided are proven true. Why do you think they are lies?
Ryan Anderson at 3:56PM on Jan 23rd 2008
30. If I remember correctly we went to Iraq because Saddam Hussein was known to have WMDs in the past (for sure) and then in 2002 refused to let UN inspectors review his inventory which contained certain weapons that could be used against neighboring countries with devastating effects.
In 2002 Bush warned Iraq that military force would have to be used if he didn’t allow weapons inspection.
Bush didn’t say we are invading Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction; He said (paraphrasing) we are going to war with Iraq because they are not complying with inspections rules, and we suspect that they have WMDs.
Imagine this: If you knew your next door neighbor was released from prison recently for assault with a deadly weapon and murder, and the police suspect that he had been hoarding deadly weapons since he was released, and the neighbor refused to let them enter his home even with a warrant, would you support a police raid?
Bush was in a damned if I do damned if I don’t scenario. If we didn’t invade Iraq and later they used a WMD against anyone, Bush would have been labeled guilty of neglect of duty. People would be saying, “why didn’t he stop them when we had a chance?”
The reason why we are mired in Iraq right now isn’t because Bush got us into this mess. In fact it is too easy to sit back and place them blame on Bush. The reason why we are mired in Iraq is because we did what almost everyone in the United States of America knew to be the right thing at the time.
The reason why we are still there are for multiple reasons. For one we are Americans. We aren’t going to punish the general Iraqi people for something the Baath party did or what violent Jihadist are doing now. Also if we pulled out of Iraq right now, that would allow a weakened Iraqi government to be overthrown by violent Jihadist, which would result in an even deadlier war later.
As a soldier for nine years, and having an older brother still serving for seventeen years, I hate that we have people dying violently in Iraq. but I’m not going to blame our President for doing the right, but unpopular thing.
Why is it that in 2001 you could see the US flag waiving proudly on every American street, but now you hardly see it? Are we ashamed to be American? I would like you to know that I am still proud to be an American and I’m proud of Americans, and would hope that if you aren’t you might reconsider what America is about. Yes, negative things exist in America, (pornography, drugs, children without good mothers or fathers) just like the rest of the world, but I feel that America in general is a good country full of good people, just like the rest of the world.
marc at 3:58PM on Jan 23rd 2008