Bush never lied to us about Iraq

bhkad · 06-16-08, 06:52 PM

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

Quote:

In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

Bush never lied to us about Iraq - Los Angeles Times

The L.A. Times is admitting the truth, finally.

Who can guess why they are doing so, now?

I'll give you a clue, it's got something to do with, "Obama."

niftydrifty · 06-16-08, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Who can guess why they are doing so, now?

you were right to put this article in the "media bias" forum.

the LA Times is doing so now, because it switched ownership. the new owner is (Bush & McCain donor) Sam Zell.

independent_thinker2002 · 06-16-08, 07:18 PM

Yes, we were greeted as liberators. In Iraq, IEDs are the customary way of saying welcome.

The insurgency was in it's last throes. The six months Cheney was talking about just haven't started yet.

Iraqi oil is paying for the war. That's why our surplus is growing exponentially.

Chanda · 06-16-08, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

The L.A. Times is admitting the truth, finally.

The isn't the L.A. Times' opinion. It is an op-ed by a New Republic editor.

niftydrifty · 06-16-08, 08:37 PM

Kirchick says "administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods" ... as if we/they don't know what a lie is.

Oh, dude, we like totally know what a lie is.

Heres the whole thing Kirchick doesn't grasp, and which allowed him to write this crazy article.

The administration was presented with facts about the impending task ahead. And it wasn't rosy. But in attempting to make the case for war, they did make it sound rosier than the intelligence suggested. They picked and chose what they shared with the public. That's being dishonest, deliberately.

We were misled.

Befuddled_Stoner · 06-16-08, 10:58 PM

"He's not malfeasant, he's just incompetent!"

Well, that completely assuages my concerns. I guess there's no need to hold him accountable for this debacle.

Hatuey · 06-17-08, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Yes, we were greeted as liberators. In Iraq, IEDs are the customary way of saying welcome.

The insurgency was in it's last throes. The six months Cheney was talking about just haven't started yet.

Iraqi oil is paying for the war. That's why our surplus is growing exponentially.

Don't forget 'We know where the weapons are'.

bhkad · 06-17-08, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

you were right to put this article in the "media bias" forum.

the LA Times is doing so now, because it switched ownership. the new owner is (Bush & McCain donor) Sam Zell.

I didn't know that!

I must say that I was guessing the CHANGE in editorial attitude was due to Obama making the change to a War Time Presidential candidate and he was paving the way for the radical left to be overruled by the far and mainstream and moderate left.

Sending the word to Obama-friendly writers to point out where Bush was correct about the war would help Obama when he, too, would have to adopt those same positions as Bush yet hope not to be the target of unfriendly leftist criticism.

See this thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-ele...post1057648293 (Obama aide: Winnie the Pooh should shape foreign policy)

bhkad · 06-17-08, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Yes, we were greeted as liberators. In Iraq, IEDs are the customary way of saying welcome.

The insurgency was in it's last throes. The six months Cheney was talking about just haven't started yet.

Iraqi oil is paying for the war. That's why our surplus is growing exponentially.

Not completely off topic, but just OT enough to accuse you of dodging inconvenient truths in favor of your typical and now proven unfounded Bush bashing.

bhkad · 06-17-08, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

The isn't the L.A. Times' opinion. It is an op-ed by a New Republic editor.

You busted me on that one. But it does strike one as surprising to see anything which suggests Bush isn't evil incarnate in the L.A. Times.