Bush didn't lie...it's the media who did.

[miyi]

An excellent piece from the LATimes (yes, the LATimes! not your typical conservative source):

Bush never lied to us about Iraq, The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception. By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,5015496,print.story)

So please, stop spreading this lie. Investigate the intelligence, and quit it with the impeach-Bush mantra. You have no case.

[SoulReaporKoul]

Uhmmm, I was wondering if you could explain the title of your post, do yo mean that the Media is the one that lied to us about the war in Iraq, or are they NOW lying when they say that Bush lied to us about Iraq.
[hr]
Depending on your answer, I'll formulate a way to destroy you :D.

(Just joking miyi, but seriously, I'm currently finding a way to argue with the article)

[miyi]

Uhmmm, I was wondering if you could explain the title of your post, do yo mean that the Media is the one that lied to us about the war in Iraq, or are they NOW lying when they say that Bush lied to us about Iraq.
<hr noshade size="1">
Depending on your answer, I'll formulate a way to destroy you :D.

(Just joking miyi, but seriously, I'm currently finding a way to argue with the article)

The belief that Bush "misled" us into war is predicated under the assumption that Bush and his staff made deliberate attempts to link Iraq and al-Qaida. In reality, there was intelligence that pointed to this, so it would be dishonest to accuse Bush for having "lied" to the American people. He may have gotten false intelligence, but that does not, by itself, constitute what one considers a "lie".

So who came up with that assumption, that Bush "misled", anyway? The media? perhaps. They've repeated this point over and over that it is self-reinforcing.

I don't mind having a debate with you, I'm up for the challenge. :)


and sorry about the misleading headline to this post....it's a bad habit I picked up from the media :D

[redcometfm]

Wow. Im liking this. Slowly, certain media are showing the true picture of it all. About time. I cant wait till this catches on and destroys CNN and CNBC's (or is it MSNBC?) credibility, its going to be an eye opener for the people.

[thsv]

Well the whole adventure was dodgy from the start. If the police need a certain level of evidence before they can charge someone, why wouldn't the government try to make sure it had similar levels of evidence before invading a sovereign nation?

Plus on the whole Saddam in league with Bin Laden, he'd be even less welcome in Iraq than the US. In fact he'd prefer to get caught by the US than Saddam's Iraq. At least the US would give him a trial

That being said the UK government joined in and they should have known better. They knew a lot of their intelligence was out of date but went ahead anyway.

[D3M1URG3]

Well, this just goes to show that Spin networks are finally being shown for what they really are.

[miyi]

Well the whole adventure was dodgy from the start. If the police need a certain level of evidence before they can charge someone, why wouldn't the government try to make sure it had similar levels of evidence before invading a sovereign nation?

to counter that argument, let's just assume for a moment, that it was likely that Saddam did have WMDs, as the intelligence at the time has said was plausible. Add to the fact that Saddam has continued to disobey UN resolutions requiring him to allow nuclear weapons inspectors to inspect.

Would you then wait for the moment until we obtained a "certain level of evidence" that Saddam may in fact have nuclear weapons, before we act?

(Even had we attempted to obtain this "certain level of evidence" that you seek, how can you even achieve this, when Saddam is blocking every efforts at weapons inspections?)


Since when have law enforcement officers wait until they had a "certain level of evidence", that the suspect is armed, dangerous, and intends to kill, before apprehending this suspect?

Normally, we apprehend that suspect before he reaches the point of being armed and dangerous, and then we investigate.

If we follow the protocol of waiting until there is a "certain level of evidence", it might be too late, and by then, the suspect could very well be holding his victim at gunpoint.

Since when do we allow suspects this amount of freedom and alloted time, to be in a position to shoot his victim at gunpoint?

And what's even the purpose of having an intelligence gathering, if we don't intend to act on their findings?

Do we keep assuming: well, perhaps the intelligence might be faulty. Let's wait until the intelligence is 99 percent near-accurate.

If this is how the USA operated, then our ability of intercepting would-be terrorist attacks, would not only diminish, it would disappear entirely. We might as well open up our borders, and shut down our military. Seriously, what's the point?

[segua]

I got to read the article but I must say that things like this must be critically studied. From following this, it seems that the intelligence community wasn't wrong but certain people in the administration. I also smell a "blame game" going on. When there's a blame game going on, that means that no one wants to take responsibility or admit fallacy.

Also, that person who wrote the article could be used by those in higher positions to spread mis-information.

[miyi]

I got to read the article but I must say that things like this must be critically studied. From following this, it seems that the intelligence community wasn't wrong but certain people in the administration. I also smell a "blame game" going on. When there's a blame game going on, that means that no one wants to take responsibility or admit fallacy.

Also, that person who wrote the article could be used by those in higher positions to spread mis-information.


nevermind about the article, just examine the direct source:

here, read the Duelfer Report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/).

Not everything in the media are propaganda, some are actually decent. I complain about a liberal slant in the media, but that's ok. I have no problem with it, because I'm aware of it, so I try to read a little deeper and seek other sources to see if there's corroborating evidence to determine the truth. Everyone ultimately gets their information from a primary source, before they regurgitate that information based on their interpretation. So my suggestion is to go right at the source.


There is no dispute that Bush received pre-war intelligence that turned out to be faulty. The question is, whether his administration deliberately "embellished" the facts and overstated WMDs to provide justification for war.

He clearly did not, and I challenge anyone to provide proof that the Bush administration deliberately embellished the intelligence findings, ideally a proof that is reached via a non-partisan method of analysis.

Besides, if you read President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html), you'll find that Bush did not argue that we were invading Iraq solely because we suspected he had WMDs. He listed several other key reasons why, and among those were to topple a brutal dictator, who continues to threaten our allies and neighbors; the fear that Saddam might provide assistance or safe haven to terrorists, or to provide the technological-know-how to develop nuclear weapons to others who seek it; that Saddam continued to disregard the UN Resolutions that required him to allow routine nuclear inspections that was part of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and so on.

War critics continue to cite, falsely, that Bush went to war based on the suspicion of WMDs alone. Clearly this isn't true.





anyway, I recommend this power point presentation (a Professor of mine created it), that makes the pro-war argument, in my opinion, compellingly:

Click here (http://faculty.piercecollege.edu/chartrfj/Articles%20and%20UN%20and%20Iraq%20and%209%2011%20Korea/Going%20to%20Iraq.pps)