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
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Botts on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- not-pboyfloyd on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- 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
- 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
- Jimmy Carter's Grandson Runs for Office in Georgia
- Of Babies and Boners: Boxer Compares Access to Abortion to Access to Viagra
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 32)
61. What ever happened to "war is the action of last resort"?
When you invade a country you are a war mongerer. You are just as vile as Hitler was in his invasions.
Bush = Hitler.
Linda at 4:40PM on Jan 23rd 2008
62. The foolishness and vanity of those who cry out, "He lied, he lied". Folks, it's Psychology 101 - Those who spitefully accuse others do so from the immoral morass within themselves. Subconciously, they know they have lied and spoken partial truths many times in their own lives. Therefore, they become blindly hateful of those they suspect or don't want to support. The verbal machinations of the ignorant aren't worth responding too. Neither is unwarranted hatred which only demonstrates profound character deficiencies. Let the uncircumcised roar to no avail. Their final end is clearly discernible.
Alan Lee at 5:40PM on Jan 23rd 2008
63. Ed B.; I don't think you are seeing the point.
There is nothing inherently wrong about...
...thinking something bad might happen
...acting on it
...and being wrong.
However, it's pretty well established that bush...
...wanted to do something
...selectivly used data to support his agenda
...selectivly presented data to get everyone onboard
...acted on it
...and was wrong.
Ryan Anderson at 4:41PM on Jan 23rd 2008
64. It's pretty simple: Bush said he had proof of WMDs. He did not, however, have proof of WMDs. Therefore, he lied.
JP at 4:43PM on Jan 23rd 2008
65. If I remember right we got McVeigh and he got what he deserved. As for war is a last resort. I agree that it should be a last resort but don't confuse last resort with never. There are some, like you that would never go to war no matter what happens.
Ed B. at 4:43PM on Jan 23rd 2008
66. 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 4:44PM on Jan 23rd 2008
67. Tom; I'm still waiting for your source on this quote.
"The factory was built by Bin Laden to make WMD for Saddam."
>>>
I admit I couldn't find the account I was looking for. That said, here is something from a source that that was taking a part clintons reason for bombing Afghanistan and Iraq.
"In a press briefing after the missile attack, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Sandy Berger claimed that exiled Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden helped finance the Al-Shifa "chemical weapons plant." Claims of proof for this tie-in have turned out to be as empty as the EMPTA "evidence."
Although bin Laden did live in Sudan during the early 1990s and is reliably reported to still have operational ties to the terror regime in Khartoum, Clinton officials have shown no trail linking either bin Laden or the Sudanese government to Al-Shifa. No evidence has been forthcoming to support claims that the facility was part of Sudan's "military industrial complex." (Even if evidence were produced drawing the bin Laden financial connection to the Al-Shifa plant, what justification would it provide for a military strike against a civilian target?)
As the bin Laden connection foundered, officials leaked another anonymous story: Saddam Hussein had helped set up the supposed VX facility at Al-Shifa. But again, no evidence, and this line had its own problems. If Baghdad was behind the facility, and if this connection provided the rationale for the attacks, then why was the White House attacking bin Laden and simultaneously bending over backwards to avoid confronting Saddam over his chemical and biological weapons facilities in Iraq?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The account from the clinton administration that I'm still looking for mentioned an Iraqi general making monthly trips to the factory in Sudan.
That said, the clinton administraion did try and make the connection as proved in the above account.
Thomas J Gassett at 4:44PM on Jan 23rd 2008
68. What is evident here and will undoubtedly become more evident is that for many people nothing bush does or did is too extreme for them.
I'm not sure what the payoff is considering what neoliberal republicanism has done to the country since reagan, but somehow people's knobs are gettin' polished.
Whatever it is, it's like crack. they'll wipe their ass on the flag and say clinton did it for whatever the jolt is, but what the hell is so important? there aren't multimillionaires who want to be billionaires posting, I don't think. There are a lot of holy rollers and general religious nuts, but the others just seem to want something to project frustration onto, hence liberals, atheists, queers, etc.
What's their reason? Always the same - you are ME!
Clif Kuplen at 4:48PM on Jan 23rd 2008
69. Clif, your statement has potential. I just have to smoke crack to understand what the hell your trying to say.
Ed B. at 4:53PM on Jan 23rd 2008
70. 60. It's pretty simple: Bush said he had proof of WMDs. He did not, however, have proof of WMDs. Therefore, he lied.
JP at 4:43PM on Jan 23rd 2008
xxx
this is the part that can't be spun. he presented it as fact when he was only convinced it was fact. he left the 'he was convinced' part out, and certainly left the part that 'convinced' him out.
He is a liar all those times and lying to get us into war where injury and death is caused is either a high crime or the mother of all misdemeanors.
But it doesn't make any difference to posters here. This isn't bullshit, you can look around and see what libertarianism/neoliberlism/republicanism has always yielded since reagan, see how europe and asia are decades ahead of us, and they want to keep backsliding. And these are the proles, not the ruling class - it's like they want slavery and really hate the history of freedom in the united states.
Before the 1880's the republican party was progressive. Now it's the 1880's again and has been since 1980.
Clif Kuplen at 4:56PM on Jan 23rd 2008
71. 65. Clif, your statement has potential. I just have to smoke crack to understand what the hell your trying to say.
Ed B. at 4:53PM on Jan 23rd 2008
xxx
blame your teachers, not me. Maybe you were a child that was left behind.
Clif Kuplen at 4:57PM on Jan 23rd 2008
72. do you really need a reason to hate bush? i doubt it, but iraq is as good a reason as any because it lets so many hide their hate behind a shroud. they want to claim the moral high ground when it suits the argument. whether or not we should have went to iraq is a moot point. the fact is we are there. but we in this country, aided by the liberal left, want to point the finger all the time.just like Katrina,somehow it was Bush's fault. everything wrong in america gets back to bush. its so predictable. perhaps those leftist should form a new union. a union where they can explore all the leftist agenda ideas on the their mass of followers. there is no question this country is great because of the conservative base that has kept its foundation in a judeo-christian ethic. when this country is contolled by the left we are doomed for destruction. because the left is powered by an inherant evil. a dark sinister vexing cloud of evil swirls around the leftist agenda. it smells like smoke. it truly concerns me to think that we are just one liberal away from oblivion. and the social experiment will begin. worried i tell you we should be worried. we are skidding down the slippery slope
brian at 4:59PM on Jan 23rd 2008
73. There was a LIST of reasons for going into Iraq. WMD was one of them.
STaylor at 5:02PM on Jan 23rd 2008
74. brian; it'll be fine. After all, Paul, your hero from the bible was a communist.
Ryan Anderson at 5:03PM on Jan 23rd 2008
75. Why is it that when people say progressive it is automatic that it means good. Progressive doesn't tell you anything. If liberals what bigger government or health care to everyone, yes it's progressive but progressively bad. I guess if a patient had progressive cancer he should be happy.
Ed B. at 5:09PM on Jan 23rd 2008