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
- 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
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson 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
- Republican McInnis Leads Incumbent Ritter in Colorado Governor Race
- Copenhagen: U.S., China Battling Over Emissions
- Polls Differ on a Thompson Challenge to Gillibrand in New York
- 22 Million Bush Administration E-Mails Recovered
- Goodbye, Public Option, Hello Senate Bill? Hoyer Vows, 'Not Going to Happen'
- Michelle Obama Viewed Favorably by 68 Percent in Marist Poll
- Obama Presses Banks to Lend, Accept New Regulations
Reader Comments ( Page 31 of 32)
451. 442. Richelle...And if you were speaking English, what would you be saying my deary?
Bridget at 6:11PM on Jan 25th 2008
---------------------
just like i thought. you claim something is a psychological FACT then don't even understand a discussion of the psychology you were discussing.
be more careful of what you assert is a fact when you don't know enough about the topic to back it up or even understand argumentation regarding that topic.
Richelle at 7:37PM on Jan 25th 2008
452. bridget,
was that your creative way of saying "i didn't know enough about what i was talking about and now i'm gonna try to save face by making it seem like you are incapable of communication."
Richelle at 7:43PM on Jan 25th 2008
453. Yes - we sold many of them to him.
Yes - he used them before and after we (Donald Rumsfeld) normalized relations with Saddam. I.e. sanctioned their use.
Yes - as part of the cease fire to gulf war I. However, it's documented that they were long gone by 1992 so there was nothing to destroy.
Yes, See previous point
Yes, then no.
No, but anything is possible. It was highly improbable however based on all the evidence (see David Kay)
No, since he didn't have them.
>>>>>
All liberal drones need to report to their reprogaming stations for a hateware update.
Clue: The entire idiot list above is demonstratably baised, inaccurate, and already discredited.
I'll give one example. Yes, we sold Saddam WMD. NO ONE, I repeat for the retards NO ONE sells chemical weapons NO ONE!
Why, because you can get everything you need from a hardware store. What you sell is the duel use equipment (used to make meds, or chem weapons). It is a documented fact that France and Germany sold Saddam this equipment. What we have here is either a drone that can only mouth the words he read off some damn website with an agenda to push and no reputation to protect, or a learning challenged retard.
Thomas J Gassett at 7:47PM on Jan 25th 2008
454. To liberals like Steve who just don't get it, Yes it is about oil, and control, our problem is that it is Politically incorrect to say it.
When you are defending the interests of your country, rest assured other countries will object. And allowing the oil fields to fall into the hands of people who disagree with the US, will not be beneficial to us.
To squabble over whether or not Saddam had a nuclear weapon or what a WMD is, falls irrelevant, when you see how much damage an airplane can cause.
Dinesh D'Souza states the facts as they are, the people who hate Bush will not see the forest through the trees.
DoesitMatter at 7:55PM on Jan 25th 2008
455. You are a fucking moron.
David at 9:26PM on Jan 25th 2008
456. what do the worker-drones on the factory floor really know of the collusions and compromises of the suits and the bosses? absolutely nothing. but we find that,in spite of all talk, proclamation and protestation, Mr. jones's a-line job just got sent over-seas. why would i,or anyone, place total faith in any man or woman? do you know 1bush2bushcheneycondirove? have them over for dinner? of course not. personally, i don't care what anyone -ANYONE- says to me, not at all. cry me a river,sell me a bridge. actions are all that ever really matter, and actions speak louder than words. i voted for Shrub once (fool me once...),that was enough. try this out. after a while the wolf learned that the direct approach could be a little off-putting, so he sorta borrowed
some sheep's "clothing". and the trojans just loved that horse. but we're all still friends, right? wouldn't dare be disloyal, would we?...
adpprince at 1:07AM on Jan 26th 2008
457. The previous speakers collective arguments posted previously are too obviously slanted and illogical I find it impossible for me to ignore. As a liberal myself, I've been far from cognito about my recognition of the Administration's mistakes or lapses in judgement. The most obvious lapse in judgement being the Iraq War. I feel you have failed to accuratly represent the supporters of the Bush administration; many liberals and conservatives base their arguements solely on logical fallacies, as you have. Not only did you decide to blame the Administration, without bases, for responsible an list of assorted issues you produced, but you attacked RELIGION as a collective whole. I don't think you should spend much time on here until you can debate a point without personal arguements and attacks. In short, stick to your day job... if you have one.
Andrew Boyle at 4:53PM on Jan 26th 2008
458. Speaking of lapses excuse me for some spelling and grammer issues; I only recognized them after it was too late to correct.
Andrew Boyle at 4:57PM on Jan 26th 2008
459. i find the constant attacks on the Bush administration to be bizarre-almost cult-like-in it's refusal to acknowledge this administration's HUGELY NOBLE effort to free a nation from a terrible dictator and also in it's stand for what is right, regardless of what our allies think. And also it's effort to fix what the local government in Louisiana and the governor of New Orleans screwed UP. One of the repellent traits of hardcore Bush Haters is their ability to rationalize every toxic nutbrain thought that comes from their empty heads. it very much reminds me of the whole cult of liberalism that operates on denying the fact and letting their senseless emotionalism take over their actions and thought(less) processes, thereby brainwashing themselves into believing what is obviously stupid and allowing it to make sense in their empty heads.
Dave at 8:25PM on Jan 26th 2008
460. To counter the arms deal Reagan illegally brokered with the terrorists who seized the US Embassy in Iran during the Carter administration, America began supplying Iraq (Iran's sworn enemy) with millions of dollars worth of weapons including the ingredients to produce long ranged chemical and biological WMDs. This lunacy continued through the George H.W. Bush years. In fact, just weeks before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the executive branch of the U.S. authorized shipments of sarin (a highly lethal nerve agent) to Iraq - fully aware that sarin had been discovered as the cause of death in a mass execution of Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I don't know if this information supports GW Bush and his invasion of Iraq or indicts the previous two Republican adminstrations, that is a question be for the US voters to decide in November. This information is a FACTUAL part of US Congressional records. Research it if you don't believe me. When Clinton went after those weapons plants during his terms as president, the majority of Americans accused him of wagging the dog. I guess we can all take some amount of blame for the situation in Iraq - stop blaming each other and start making our politicians accountable for their actions.
David Albe at 12:18PM on Jan 27th 2008
461. Bush didn't lie, the check is in the mail, trust me I'm a professional, I'll only stick the head in, I'll never cum in your mouth...........
mac at 6:20PM on Jan 27th 2008
462. The liberals will believe what they want. The conservatives will believe what they want. And the two shall never meet. Bottom line is that based on information he had at the time, he made a decision as to what he believed was in the best interest of this country. I listened to the interview tonight of the FBI agent who befriended Saddam. Saddam did have WMD but said he destroyed them. He then also said he did his best to make everyone think he still had them and that he did plan to replenish his stash of WMD in the future. IT's going to take some time, but I think this country will see in the future that bringing down Saddam and bringing some sort of democracy to the land known as the cradle of civilization was the right thing to do.
Susan at 3:33AM on Jan 28th 2008
463. #460,
I just caught the last couple of minutes of the story. I hope they re-air the interview.
What i did find interesting was that his knowledge about the U.S. came from Television & Movies, not necessarily an accurate picture( Now this is not about any bias on TV or Hollywood). With all his wealth and power he did not have any solid intelligence about his adversary. An example was his "pretending" to have on hand WMD and not thinking we would do anything about it.
At the same time the U.S. is relying on its intelligence services for accurate information. Unfortunately the ability to gather data far exceeds the ability to accurately analyze it and come up with accurate projections. The scary thing is that these estimates in the past have been way off the mark. Presidents and congress have been told that something was not "possible/probable" for "X" number of years and the estimates were either off or completely wrong. Worse yet , sometimes they did not have a clue as to what was actually going on. This is evident when two seprate administrations both state that something is factual. Until the correctness of estimates improves greatly, these estimates should be looked at with a grain of salt. If "you" did not get it correct the last couple of times, then how is it "you" are correct this time. Absence of a continual rate of accuracy should be a warning.
M2D5 at 8:49AM on Jan 28th 2008
464. I would have to agree that the Bush administration are not liars, just simply incompetent.
Bill at 9:56PM on Jan 30th 2008
465. Congress never approved the war. The resolution called for going thru the UN and using diplomacy, FIRST. Then reporting back to Congress. The UN rejected the US FALSE claims and Bush never tried diplomacy, anyway Iraq offered to comply FULLY with the UN mandate. Saddam even offered to leave for a mere $1 billion.
No,Bush and Cheney wanted control of the Iraqi oil for the treasonous oil companies. Bush and Cheney achieved their goal of record profits for the oil companies. Americans pay at the pump while Iraqis are murdered by the thousands. Even if we pulled out today, the Iraqi death toll, from DU poisoning, will continue to climb eventually making Bush a bigger mass murderer than Hitler, his role model.
Larry at 9:30PM on Feb 2nd 2008