Bush lied? Some proof.
Must be about the WMDs in Iraq and Saddam's link to the 9-11 bombers.ederic Email Homepage 07.15.04 - 2:23 pm
Well Edric if that is the case, the supposition is dead wrong and I will be more than happy to debate the issue.A question to both of you have you red the US Intel Commission report of the recent Brit Lord Butler report?marc Email Homepage 07.15.04 - 8:12 pm
Yes I have. And I have closely followed the proceedings on Tony Blair's... I think Marc wishes to point out that if the Butler Report is to be believed, since it admits to a failed intelligence (albeit not the first one to point that out) it thus suggests that a low quality of information would have reached Bush and Blair --- that is to say, these two guys based things on a flawed informaion and 'could not have lied' based on these circumstances.
My contention why he lied is tying things together between 9-11 and Iraq:
1. Through Command Responsibility.
Presidential Letter Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
GEORGE W. BUSH
# # #
2. Saddam, as Blair says needs to be removed, at that time he was considered a threat, that containment no longer works, and that based on Resolution 1441, and that habitual rejection and violation of inspectors means somebody needs to do something. That doesn't tie him up with terrorism though. Hence there should be two issues at hand, and they are not linked. There is paranoia on the possibility that the terrorists will have access to WMD. That is it all. That's it all. No link, they are scared it may happen.
Unfortunately, it was shown to the public that they mean the same thing, apples and oranges.
3. Lying, to Marc, I think in his argument is an independent and singular action. Hence to his contention, citing Intelligence as failure, calling an apple juice an apple juice when it was derived from orange is not lying. It was an error of judgment. there if in this case bush did not lie, he is just somebody who didn't veify information, a victim of circumstance
That's where we differ. Bush lied because he has this equation: Iraq/WMD=imminent threat=terrorism. More times than one, this is his logic. specially in interviews (check dubyaspeak on the net for more details). It's whitewash if we believe that he did not check his sources, and that he ended up being just stupid? I don't think so. How can any one man stay clueless for so many years? Ultimately he is responsible for the deaths innocent of Iraqis who all are saying they are Iraqi's not Talibans.
BAGHDAD, Iraq July 9, 2004 — Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say.
The officials told The Associated Press the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.
He said he met Tuesday with four tribal sheiks from Ramadi who "made very clear" that they had no desire for an Islamic state, even though mosques are used as insurgent sanctuaries and funding centers.
"'We're not a bunch of Talibans,'" he paraphrased the sheiks as saying.
(ABC News, July 9, 2004)
4. DICK CLARKE (video):I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer....
5. Bush --- "You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, (where???) But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." (what???) --WP, "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003 (comments mine)
(Washington Post, May 31, 2003)
It is in this sense, that I believe Bush lied, and the raw intelligence was forced to meet the specs they need to launch a war. It was recurring. When Colin Powell had that sarin bottle shown on UN and on TV I was so afraid. I took that to mean gospel truth. The world took that to mean thet US intelligence is 100% certain. And it was in that scare that their tanks rolled into Baghdad. Appeal to Fear (A.K.A., Argumentum ad Metum) , Bandwagon Fallacy.
posted by Jdavies @ 7/16/2004,
Jdavies lives in Quezon City, Philippines and has been blogging since 2002. A brand manager in a leading technology company and a freelance new media/web strategy consultant, he has refocused his blogging from personal, political & sociological observations, to marketing-related efforts and Internet trends that are relevant to his career and branding advocacies.
About This Blog
This blog is a depot of thoughts and observations on marketing trends which remain personally relevant to the Author as far as his marketing career is concerned. Having evolved from the personal blog of Jdavies, much of the earlier work contained herein are laced with personal speculation, political views, and similar advocacies. These posts are being kept for posterity's sake and for no other reason. No effort is being made to claim that the author will not contradict himself from his previous positions or that such advocacies are absolute.
Request access to my Linked-in Profile