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
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- SC on Are Father-Daughter Purity Balls Really Christian?
- Richelle on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- MI on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- MI on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Richelle 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
- Texas Governor Says Obama Is 'Hell-Bent' on Socialism
- Michelle Obama 'in Awe' of Military Families
- Lou Dobbs Leaves CNN to Pursue Activist Role
- Tom Perriello: Virginia's High Wire House Democrat
- The Misfits: Eight Politicians Who Really Ought to Switch
- Baltimore Braces for Trial of Mayor Dixon, Accused of Stealing from Needy Kids
- 'V' is for Obama? Not So Fast
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 32)
46. Ed B.; I don't remember anyone hammering on Bush for invading Afghanistan. Mainly because it was actually connected to Al-Qaeda through the Taliban.
Can we please separate 9/11 and Iraq???
Ryan Anderson at 4:14PM on Jan 23rd 2008
47. 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.>>
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
When Bush was the govenor of Texas.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998>>>>
Is the above a lie? Note: These statements were made when Bush was the govenor of Texas. So, how did Bush convince clintoon to lie? Riddle me this, or stop the mindless bullshit!
For good measure:
"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
Thomas J Gassett at 4:15PM on Jan 23rd 2008
48. Tom; for the record, I think Bill and Hillary Clinton are a liars too.
So your point is?
Ryan Anderson at 4:16PM on Jan 23rd 2008
49. Someone stop the spinning hack before he becomes a funnel cloud!
Anybody with any sense knew in 2002 that BushCo was trying to lie us into attacking Iraq. Some, like the Dems you mention, played along--whether for profit or out of fear, I don't know. But anyone still defending this criminal administration is either a moron or has a gun to his head.
Speedy at 6:52PM on Jan 23rd 2008
50. Tom; I'm still waiting for your source on this quote.
"The factory was built by Bin Laden to make WMD for Saddam."
The only other place on the entire world wide web where this quote exists is where you typed it on another Dinesh blog (2007/04/26) and on a young turk blog (2007/05/02).
I think you make up stuff.
Ryan Anderson at 4:19PM on Jan 23rd 2008
51. B.S.!!!
Budo at 4:23PM on Jan 23rd 2008
52. ryan @ 46 Who tells the truth? I find it amusing that a lot of people base their conspiracy theories on speculation.
marc at 4:22PM on Jan 23rd 2008
53. The only thing you could pull out of my statement was that let's seperate Iraq from 9-11! O.K. I'll concede that but isn't terrorism terror no matter where it is. The fact is that the international community had set forth resolution after resolution and it was ignored everytime. The first gulf war was never over, it was merely a cease fire that were based on certain things being followed. Iraq did not follow through on the agreed terms so we went back to work. It's not Bush's fault that Clinton didn't have the balls to enforce the cease fire agreement.
Ed B. at 4:35PM on Jan 23rd 2008
54. "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?"
Yes, perhaps he did expect it, but seeing how he has allies in the media like D'Souza, Bush was obviously willing to act anyway. I find it galling that D'Souza tries to persuade us that because lying would obviously mean that he would be found out, Bush must have been acting on good faith. I don’t find that logic convincing, considering that D’Souza’s own perspective refuses to acknowledge Bush's mistakes. Considering that it has been proven by non-partisan, not "leftist" groups (oh wait, anyone that publishes studies contrary to Bush must mean they are part of a liberal conspiracy, right?) that Bush lied, D'Souza is simply contesting what seems to be proven fact. D’Souza is simply spinning the story so as to make the tiniest bit of room to argue that Bush was not acting on bad faith. And D’Souza tries to make his argument on a technicality. I agree that if you act on faulty information, your judgment will be faulty as well. But the point is that we should not remove our value judgment of Bush’s willingness to be persuaded to use such bad information. To think that our administration wouldn’t have access to advisors who pore over this material, who would have offered counterpoints and advice on whether this information could be trusted, is absurd. The point is that Bush acted on bad information, and as the president, he would have at the very least have been offered advice as to how reliable this information was. Whether he knew conclusively or not that there were weapons is something that we cannot know. However, as an administration on the brink of going to war, it is their moral obligation to be pretty damn sure that they are acting on correct information. I don’t think Bush, and I mean his administration, advisors, etc. were acting responsibly. And I find D’Souza to be extremely frustrating to read, when he seems intent to remove our judgment of our leaders for not being as thorough and as sure as they should have been. Bush went to war because he wanted to get rid of Sadaam Hussein, and not because his evidence proved it conclusively. For D’Souza to ignore the administration’s intent is naïve. Moreover, he sounds dogged and star-struck, unable and unwilling to look at the proof that argues otherwise. Because in the end, D’Souza attempts to get away from the point that we should be angry about the fact that our leaders weren’t acting responsibly, and they acted on their own desire to see a leader deposed, not on conclusive evidence.
asb64 at 4:30PM on Jan 23rd 2008
55. . 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.
xxx
and this disproves bush lied how?
Clif Kuplen at 4:28PM on Jan 23rd 2008
56. Ed B. You seem to imply Saddam was a terrorist.
"...isn't terrorism terror no matter where it is"
He supported Hamas. Big deal, so do our Allies in the region.
There were Al-Qaeda Camps in Western Iraq and in Kurdistan, but he had no control over that part of the country since Gulf War I.
So why make it about terrorism?
Ryan Anderson at 4:31PM on Jan 23rd 2008
57. 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.
xxx
and who convinced them?
Clif Kuplen at 4:31PM on Jan 23rd 2008
58. In Dinesh's world, he can assert anything he likes and it is up to everyone else to prove him wrong. He believes the same thing about God.
AndrewV at 4:34PM on Jan 23rd 2008
59. So now the only way to act upon information is to be 100% sure. Well I hate to tell you this but nothing is 100%. I guess if we use your model, we would have to wait until something happens and then we could act. Great plan nuckle head.
Ed B. at 4:36PM on Jan 23rd 2008
60. 55. The only thing you could pull out of my statement was that let's seperate Iraq from 9-11! O.K. I'll concede that but isn't terrorism terror no matter where it is.
xxxx
timothy mcveigh and the unabomber were also terrorists. how do you parse them into this?
Clif Kuplen at 4:39PM on Jan 23rd 2008