Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
- Big Government
- Hot Air
- Open thread: House votes coming; Update: Ryan, Pence videos added; Update: 219-212; Update: GOP’s hail mary fails; Update: Roll added
- Last gasp: GOP may try to kill the bill by forcing a vote on Stupak’s language; Update: Pro-life group strips Stupak of award
- Pence to Stupak: You traded 30 years of pro-life law for a promise from the most pro-abortion president in history
- Michelle Malkin
- Attorneys general launch lawsuit backlash against Demcare
- The gloater-in-chief: “Another stone laid in the foundation of the American dream;” Pelosi jokes: “No money exchanged hands (laughter);” Slaughter: “There is nothing now that we can’t tackle”
- Consequences: Stupak stripped of “Defender of Life” award
- Jake Tapper
- Legal Insurrection
- Lynn Sweet
Bush “lied”?
A report issued Thursday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the administration’s pre-war claims about Iraq was used by partisan Democrats to strongly imply that the administration “lied” about the justifications used for the Iraq war. Of course, many Democrats, both in Congress and in the punditocracy, have been claiming for years that the admin “lied” about WMDs, AQ in Iraq, and just about every other piece of intelligence used to justify going to war with Iraq. And now they are using this report as some type of “definitive proof” of it.
Unfortunately, this “report” did not prove any “lies” – in fact, it proved just the opposite (h/t: The Anchoress):
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
I guess with all the progress we’ve been seeing from Iraq since the start of the surge last year, and the fact that as a result more and more Democrats in the House and Senate are looking like fools for opposing the surge, perhaps Senate Dems felt they felt like they had to do something (disingenuous) in an attempt to distract from that progress.
What does all this prove? That once again Congressional Democrats are playing politics with the Iraq war in an effort to gain more traction in an election year – probably in an attempt to help out their anti-war nominee, even when they know that the prior administration made almost identical claims about the threat from Iraq, and even though they have to know that their own report repeatedly points out that Bush’s claims were “generally substantiated by available intelligence.”
Shameless.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
8 Responses to “Bush “lied”?”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Doesn’t this bring up the matter of political judgement as an important factor when selecting a President ?
Let’s see should it be the guy who hung out with the racist preacher for 20 years, the 60’s radical in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ? Me thinks not.
And thanks for the heads up, Sen. Rockefeller.
This is exactly the same technique that so many in the global warming BS practice. ReakKlimat is particularly bad at this. They never link to the article or paper they are disparaging, instead they tell you what it says and then debunk that. They deliberately mislead and lie about what the paper in questions says, setting up a strawman, and then “debunk” and disparage that, and most people won’t try and find the original paper to read it themselves. Plus they know most of their audience are AGW groupies who couldn’t understand the paper anyway and are just looking for talking points to prop up the alarmist position.
And the sheeple eat it up. We are doomed by the American Idol generations lack of attention span.
All this means is the same old same old. Bush says, “Yes.” The Left says, “No!” Bushs says, “Up!” The Left says, “Down!”
Nothing new here. The Left will lie until the cows come home. And there are enough idiots in America who will believe whatever the Left tells them. And now we have the Obamessiah to be their mouthpiece. Yeesh!
Can we question their patriotism now?
I remember when the UN Survey team found these. The scientists were attempting to pack these up and ship them to a safe place where the team had already been. The Swedish guy who was leading the Survey Team, attempted to tell the US that this was not reason enough to attack Iraq. Iraq had all sorts of military equipment they were not suppose to have. Technology they were not suppose to have too. I remember when the found the latest MIG interceptor buried in the sand. Why did Saddam need the latest MIG Interceptor?? Simple, he was sick and tired of our jets patroling the “No Fly Zones”. He would have eventually used them on our fighters. He would have lost, but he would have tried. Just like he used radar guided mobile SAMs. God Bless the man that created the JDAM Missile.
You know the continued short sightedness of the left continues to astonish me. I usually shut them up with asking them 1 question. I always ask them: “Where was Osama going to go to next??” They usually shake their head in a lack of understanding.
No surprise that 
But honestly, Osama set up a base of operations 1st in the Sudan, then in Afghanistan. Well we had just kicked him out of Afghanistan. WHere was he going to go?? You can’t give me this blah blah blah about Saddam not liking Osama, Saddam loved anyone who got away with an attack on America. We had to attack Iraq, Osama would have set up a base of operations in the western part of Iraq, and it would have taken alot more than what we have lost in this to root that dog out of there. – Lorica
From the LA Times ..