Say Anything Blog

Yes, what a convincing piece of propaganda.

Too bad Bush pulled the inspectors out before they had finished their job - but then had they continued to come up empty, Bush was worried that he wouldn’t get the war he so desperately wanted.

[...] Refuting The “Bush Lied” Meme By Rob on January 15, 2006 at 2:52 pm [...]

Tweet!!!

Offsides on mcair. Five yard penalty. Still first down.

Ha!  Simply label is “propaganda” and move along.... Nice, Mcair....

And for the record, this video is two months old or so, You would have seen this when it came out if you read my blog

Help me here folks - what does this video prove? That there were WMD in Iraq? How does this exculpate Bush from hyping intelligence? How does it excuse the Bush gang from their lies about Yellowcake from Niger, the aluminium tubes, Atta meeting with Iraqi agents in Prague etc.etc.?

Do you’ve shown some prominent Democrats declaring Hussein to be a threat - if uncontained. Were any of them advocating immediate invasion? No.

The US and its allies had Hussein contained - and if you doubt this, then consider that no WMD -or facilities for their production- have been found. Iraq had no significant military. None of the neighboring countries were claiming that Hussein was a threat to their security (save perhaps the Likud faction in Israel.

Lastly, if you want to play the “gotcha” with Democrats, lets hear from the president’s own father, regarding Dester Storm:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable “exit strategy” we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

mcair,

You’re right this video proves nothing that we didn’t already know. We knew that at the time, the very people that are currently outspoken against Iraq, saw, and agreed with the same intelligence that the President had. If you really want an investigation, we should figure out where the WMDs went, rather than if the President hyped up information to fool senators into going into a war. Which is more realistic, a terrorist supporting regime having WMDs and getting rid of them, before we announced an invasion, or a secret conspiracy hoax by Bush to fool hundreds of politicans to thinking there were weapons.

hmm....dont think too hard

d.narloch

Propaganda.....maybe, but not nearly in the realm of propaganda as anything the great white fat man Moore has ever made.

d.narloch

Mcair, this video simply shows that the very people who are complaining about being lied to about WMDs and “hyping” intel about Iraq are the very people who were “hyping” and “lying” themselves before it was politically inopportune to do so…

You can beat around the issue all you like with the out-of-context “he said/she said” game, the leaders you cite apart from Blair favored the continuance of the sanctions and containment - until Hussein was eventually overthrown or died in office. I don’t recall any of them stating that the supposed threat posed by Hussein warranted immediate invasion and occupation.

Bush had Iraq on the agenda from his first day in office. 9/11 gave him the excuse. None of what the administration portrayed as a likely outcome has come to pass. None of it.

Democracy in a three-way power-struggle between religious and secular factions? Fantasy.

Cost of invasion and rebuilding pegged at $70 Billion? Utter fiction.

Conflict lasting “6 weeks, certainly no more than 6 months?” Rumsfeld should have been fired a looong time ago.

And on and on. Don’t you guys get tired of defending this failed policy? In three years when Bush leaves office, he’ll will retire in comfort. The next president will inherit a de-stabilzed Middle East, with Iraq a client state of Iran.

Saying there is intel to justify the presence of weapons is one thing, verifying that intel and presenting all the known facts is something else. The administration pushed all the circumstantial evidence they had, and excluded anything that indicated that the intelligence was shaky, at best. I am not defending the actions of Democrats that voted to authorize use of force.

They took the word, and put on the payroll, the indicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi - now thoroughly discredited. One of their key Iraqi informants, codename “curveball” was a drunk that nobody - save the neo-cons - took seriously.

The president was either lying or is guilty of criminal incompetence in this fiasco. Which is it?

Make your choice.

OR Saddam managed to fool the world into believing that he had WMDs when he really did not… EVERYONE agreed he had WMDs before we went in. So is Chirac, Putin, Blair, and the leaders of all the world’s powerful countries guilty of the same?  Because they believed the same thing.  And about about Bill Clinton, was he also guily of incompetance?  He was the president that stated Regeim Change in Iraq as official US foreign policy, Bush followed through on the policy.  Are they BOTH in on this?

The problem is you can’t just pin it on Bush.  There are way too many other leaders guilty of whatever you try to pin on Bush.

I don’t recall any of them stating that the supposed threat posed by Hussein warranted immediate invasion and occupation.

No, but they all agreed he had the weapons.  They just didn’t have the will to act.

Bush had Iraq on the agenda from his first day in office.

Actually, it was on his agenda since about 3 years BEFORE he got into office… you know, when Bill Clinton and Congress made it official US foreign policy in 1998!

The next president will inherit a de-stabilzed Middle East, with Iraq a client state of Iran.

Hey, way to be optimistic!  It’s a good thing that you’re not all pesimistic and stuff because that usually doesn’t go over too well in elections....

That mcair troll is amusing. And he/she/it gives more evidence of why the lefties in this country have had to relinquish power and will continue to slide into the abyss. They can’t be trusted with anything except white flags.

Sphagnum:

No, but they all agreed he had the weapons. They just didn’t have the will to act.

I would rather say their economic interests in the status quo outweighed their moral obligations.