Bush's own man trashes his SOTU claims on WMDs

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The wmd claims remind me of the way Hitler always claimed little countries had attacked Germany just about an hour before the unprovoked surprise attack was launched.

It's also just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which North Vietnam was claimed to have fired on US navy ships. The U.S. used this to justify intervention in Vietnam. It never happened.

Oh well - they are paying for it now. The whole war is a just a big pack of lies.

The intervention that was justified never happened and that is why Johnson failed.

It was not VC boats that attacked us.

It was North Vietnamese boats.

[Boris Godunov]

Johnson lied about the second torpedo attack, which is what he used to justify retaliation. Everyone who was there has avvered there was no second attack, that they were just shooting at non-existant targets. Johnson didn't care that the incident was fictional, he still used it as justification for escalation.

"For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." - LBJ. Yeah, that's great justification or a war there.

And Admiral Stockdale, who was a witness to the events, wrote in his 1984 book that there was nothing there, except American firepower.

As to the first Tonkin incident, it was certainly provoked:

"There have been some covert operations in that (Tonkin Gulf) area that we have been carrying on - blowing up some bridges and things of that kind, roads and so forth. So I imagine (the North Vietnamese) wanted to put a stop to it." - LBJ

And I'll leave with this all-too familiar thought:

"In Retrospect, many of the people who were associated with the war ..... were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing. ....." - former Undersecretary of State George Ball

[Sava]

Ned, I don't care if Bush actively lied or is just incompetent. The point is, he propagated informations THAT WASN'T TRUE. Hundreds of Americans are dead and billions of dollars are wasted. VP Cheney's Halliburton is stealing tax payer money (even admitting it now) and still no one seems to care.

The fact is Ned, Bush wasn't telling the truth. In my book, I don't care if he put "British Intelligence said..." in front of his lies. They are still lies. He's still a criminal. And he should be hanging at the end of a rope for the treasonous acts he's committed (after a trial of course).

[Jac de Molay]

Better yet, throw him from a helicopter...

[Ned]

Sava, the problem with your position is that Clinton said the same things as Bush. Ditto the entire Democrat party leadership, cabinet and Congress. Also, they continued to say it during the Bush administration. Witness the oft quoted Clark testimony.

And did you ever hear Hillary's speech in favor of the war.

If Bush is a liar, so is Bill Clinton and all the Democrat leadership of that era, and Hillary Clinton and General Clark.

If Bush is a liar, so is Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt.

If Bush is a liar, so is Senator Kerry who supported the war and argued in its favor once upon a time.

This Bush is a liar mantra is pure politics.

[Ned]

Boris, I have no doubts that some of the Tonkin Gulf incident was fiction.

But it was clear we were attacked by North Vietnam and not by the Vietcong.

That was my point.

[Boris Godunov]

Ned, but the real point is that we had been provoking the NVs into an incident. Blowing up bridges and roads is generally considered an act of war, is it not? And Johnson DID use a fictional event to justify the war, not a real one.

As for Bush, considering Tenet personally intervened in October 2002 to stop Bush from making any references to the Nigerian yellow cake claim in a speech in Cincinatti, and at that time the NIE had concluded that the claims of the material was "highly dubious," I'd say it's inclusion in the SotU address was a calculated lie, undoubtedly. The CIA had a conniption fit when they got the first draft of the speech over those claims. But since Bush was hell-bent on saying, it, they could only get the compromise that the intelligence be pinned on the British instead of the U.S. agency. When Bush said "British Intelligence has learned..." he was practicing deliberate deceit, because he and his staff, and the CIA, knew it had been first a CIA information-gathering mission (and that the British were using CIA info), and they knew the claims were unfounded.

Did Bush want to believe the reports? Sure, but that doesn't excuse him for using what was known to be unfounded claims in his SotU address to frighten Americans into supporting a war he had been wanting since before he took office.

Frankly, to make Bush's statements "true," you'd have to do the kind of semantical hair-splitting that made Clinton's statements about the word "is" true.

[Wezil]

Ned - Bush didn't lie and OJ didn't kill Nicole.

I'm tired of arguing the obvious to people that REFUSE to admit they were in error.

Note - I was given the options of a) believing Bush, or b) believing Saddam. I chose to believe Bush and I was wrong. I can admit what the facts show.



edit: spelling

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
As for Bush, considering Tenet personally intervened in October 2002 to stop Bush from making any references to the Nigerian yellow cake claim in a speech in Cincinatti, and at that time the NIE had concluded that the claims of the material was "highly dubious," I'd say it's inclusion in the SotU address was a calculated lie, undoubtedly. The CIA had a conniption fit when they got the first draft of the speech over those claims. But since Bush was hell-bent on saying, it, they could only get the compromise that the intelligence be pinned on the British instead of the U.S. agency. When Bush said "British Intelligence has learned..." he was practicing deliberate deceit, because he and his staff, and the CIA, knew it had been first a CIA information-gathering mission (and that the British were using CIA info), and they knew the claims were unfounded.

Did Bush want to believe the reports? Sure, but that doesn't excuse him for using what was known to be unfounded claims in his SotU address to frighten Americans into supporting a war he had been wanting since before he took office.

Frankly, to make Bush's statements "true," you'd have to do the kind of semantical hair-splitting that made Clinton's statements about the word "is" true.

George Tenet did not read the state of the Union draft. Had he done his job properly, I am sure that Bush would not have included the reference to Niger in his speech.

However I am equally a sure that Bush would still have pursued Saddam Hussein and that events would have unfold as they did. The Niger evidence was not critical to the overall debate.

[Ned]

"Ned, but the real point is that we had been provoking the NVs into an incident. Blowing up bridges and roads is generally considered an act of war, is it not? And Johnson DID use a fictional event to justify the war, not a real one."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but regardless of why we were attacked by North Vietnam, the point is that we were attacked by North Vietnam and not by the Vietcong. The Tonkin Gulf incident provided no legal basis in my view for active combat hostilities against the Vietcong. It did provide a basis for declaration of war on North Vietnam. Johnson did not pursue the enemy that had attacked us. In the end, this failure to pursue the true enemy cost us any chance of victory.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ned - Bush didn't lie and OJ didn't kill Nicole.

I'm tired of arguing the obvious to people that REFUSE to admit they were in error.

Note - I was giving the options of a) believing Bush, or b) believing Saddam. I chose to believe Bush and I was wrong. I can admit what the facts shows.

All I have to say is this. Everyone in the administrations of both Clinton and Bush believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons. You cannot say that Bush was lying without also indicting Bill Clinton and all of the top Democrat leaders including Hillary Clinton, General Clark, and Senator Kerry.

[Whaleboy]

Bush claimed there were WMD, and that has proven to be fallacious. The evidence that they based that claim on was clearly faulty, which seems indicative of the quality of intelligence. Any claim based upon such poor quality intelligence, is most likely guess work, which they purported as the truth, which is a lie.

[chequita guevara]

Bush claimed in this SOTU that there were WMD programs. Kay is saying this wasn't true.

More interesting, however, is the fact that the Administration has decided to stop cooperating with the 9/11 Inquiry. The Dem's really need to hammer on this.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Sava, the problem with your position is that Clinton said the same things as Bush. Ditto the entire Democrat party leadership, cabinet and Congress. Also, they continued to say it during the Bush administration. Witness the oft quoted Clark testimony.

then it's a problem with the intelligence community...

And did you ever hear Hillary's speech in favor of the war.

so? I hate Hillary, too.

If Bush is a liar, so is Bill Clinton and all the Democrat leadership of that era, and Hillary Clinton and General Clark.

or misled by the same kind of hawks

If Bush is a liar, so is Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt.

you won't get an argument from me on that one, but LIEberman and Twit Gephardt didn't get in front of the country and repeat assertions that the CIA KNEW TO BE FALSE (Niger).

If Bush is a liar, so is Senator Kerry who supported the war and argued in its favor once upon a time.

nah, but Kerry was probably a victim of misleading intelligence... I still don't like his defense of his IWR vote.

This Bush is a liar mantra is pure politics.

NO, it's pure fact... and since I'm equally bashing Dems who were misled, how is it politics on my part? My opinion on Bush is based upon a variety of sources, not just a knee-jerk anti-repuke feeling.

You should read the Bob Woodward book, "Bush at War". And also, search the net to learn about the Project for a New American Century. Had the Democrats you mentioned been part of such hawkish organizations or been so gung ho about making the war happen, then I'd bash then as much as I do Bush.

Yes, the Clinton administration thought there were WMD's... I THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD's. But I did not feel Saddam was a direct threat to the US. He wasn't allied with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda... they are fundamental enemies! And Saddam wasn't about to fire a SCUD and hit New York.

Bush made this war happen, Clinton didn't. THe Democrats only failing is that they trusted the uberparanoid inept intelligence community... and since popular opinion was generally pro-war, what with Bush scaring the public, most of them had no choice but to vote for war... or commit political suicide. Remember, the Iraq War Resoultion (IWR) vote was RIGHT BEFORE THE 2002 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS. That was also a planned political move by Bush.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
George Tenet did not read the state of the Union draft. Had he done his job properly, I am sure that Bush would not have included the reference to Niger in his speech.

However I am equally a sure that Bush would still have pursued Saddam Hussein and that events would have unfold as they did. The Niger evidence was not critical to the overall debate.

The CIA did review the speech, whether it was Tenet or not, and they did complain about the claim, thus getting the language changed to pin the intelligence on Britain. They would have struck it entirely, but the Administration was hell-bent on saying it. The simple fact of the matter is that we knew that the claim had first been investigated by the CIA, NOT the British, so at the very least, pinning the intelligence on the British was deceptive. I think it's obvious the administration did so to cover their ass once it was learned the intelligence was false.

And I think that public sentiment about the war would have been dramatically different without the false WMD claims. They scared people into thinking Saddam was doing something he wasn't to get public support for the war, plain and simple.