The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

exactly. In the beginning the right was whining that the democrats had tried to stop the use of force resolution... and now that everyone sees the entire operation as the cluster(*)(*)(*)(*) that it always was... the right is pointing out that the democrats were the ones who really wanted to go to war and that they would not have been able to do it without their votes. Pathetic.

 

how many casualties did we suffer in the Iraq war? 4489 as you erroneously stated earlier, or was it a higher number?

Who ordered our troops into harm's way on the basis of a lie?

I'll wait.... but you should probably clean your nose off first.

 

No it doesn't but it makes you an intellectually dishonest, partisan hack who's opinion isn't worth poop, because you're trolling. If a whole bunch of people say the same thing you can't call some of them liars and ignore the others... Unless you're trolling.

 

That's the definition of a Democrats answer that they lied to begin with. Just as Democrats are now whining about the cost of Obamacare. They caused the mess and now who will they blame? Republicans of course. Just ask McDermott, Levin, Doggett, and Rangel.

 

The Bush dead enders have beat a steady retreat from the chest beating chicken hawk attidude they all presented 12 years ago.

Even as the Iraq War was dissolving into the chaotic civil war that critics warned Bush would happen, it was becoming increasingly evident that even the sales pitch for the war was bogus. That realization came late to Americans, as the rest of the world saw through it from day one.

Back then, as Bush's claims started coming apart under scrutiny, the Dead Enders restorted to parsing footnotes in reports to prove their arguments. They also cited other dubious reports as evidence of proof, much of it from right wing blogs, which played a crucial role in advacing the fear mongering that was so much of the Bush case.

Even before Joe Wilson laid to rest any doubt about the veracity of the Adminstration's claims, heavy doubts had emerged in the US. (as I noted, the rest of the world wasn't buying from day one).

The Bush adminstration did its best to forestall the inevitable by blocking investigations., It stonewalled the formation of the 9/11 Commission for months,and enlisted its GOP allies in the Senate first to prevent a formal investigation into the claims that sold the war, and then to make sure that investigation never asked questions about the role of the White House, until after the 2004 election.

Of course, once the election was over, the Senate investigation turned its focus on the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, the Vice President's office and the White House.

It found that the White House had deliberately inflated dubious claims. Reports in the liberal press about how the Bush team stovepiped intelligence claims from groups like the INC, avoiding the intelligence community all turned out to be true.

By then, the Dead Enders had abandoned their insistance on the truth of Bush's claims about WMD's, and its hints of terrorist ties.

But they held out almost to the moment when Bush himself had to admit the absence of WMD's.

The next tactic was to spread the blame.

Cue the oft repeated collection of quotes on WMD's by various Democrats, ususally uttered around the time Sadaam launched one of his periodic breaches of the No Fly Zone. Far right wing types cite this as evidence of "lying" even though none of these people were doing anyting other than reciting conventional wisdom, and NONE of them were advocating starting a war.

The tactic here is to pretend that Bush wasn't the outlier here, and that the was prior support for an unprovoked unilateral attack on Iraq outside the Bush adminstration. This is patently false.

Another variation is to try and represent starting the Iraq war as a bi partisan exercise. In fact, Bush cynically scheduled the vote on the AUMF a week before a mid term election as a way of pressuring Democrats into not looking weak by refusing to endorse Bush's reckless gambit. His father did not stoop that low, delaying the vote on the Gulf War until AFTER the mid terms in order to remove politics from a decision that might wind up sending Americans to die. Bush the younger had no suck scruples.

In the latest iteration of this steady retreat, some Dead Enders are now claiming that where was a "Drumbeat for war" in Iraq before Bush. No evidence of this exists at all. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

But in the end, all this comes down to is the peretual unwillingness of the far right to admit their role in promoting and supporting the worst foreign policy disaster in US history.

The history has been written. The fact are in,

"Bush lied" is not only NOT a "dangerous lie" it's fact.

 

Your dems started beating the WMD war drums as Bill Clinton did nothing about the UN violations buy Hussein. So the casualties are on them. Be proud of your dems. You got a little Obama on your face.

 

Clinton perpetrated the lie to put pressure on Saddam (notice, Clinton did not invade). Bush said "Patience my ass, I wanna kill something" and glommed onto the lie for all he was worth. It was all payback to the Israelis for staying out of GWI and payback to the neocons for Daddy's failure to march on Baghdad in GWI. That's how the politics of war works.

 

Clinton let Hussein do as he please instead of taking him to task for violating UN resolutions. Dems also said there were WMD and they said it first............plenty of them. Dems also voted for the wars, voted to fund them and voted to continue them.

 

some people stated their belief that Saddam had WMD's. Those people were wrong, but not necessarily lying about it, unless they knew differently and said so anyway. Others stated that there was absolute certainty that Saddam had WMD's. Those people WERE lying about it because there WAS doubt. That latter group was also pushing the lie that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a working relationship prior to 9/11.

- - - Updated - - -

why can't you answer a straight question without all sorts of avoiding and dancing?

- - - Updated - - -

Clinton did nothing? He most certainly did take action.... he just didn't invade, conquer and occupy Iraq like Bush did.

I notice you forgot to answer the question about casualties. Cat got your tongue?

 

How can you make that claim with a straight face given the U.S. lost TEN times as many people in the Vietnam War as in the invasion of Iraq?

 

Vietnam was worse. And based on a lie, just like Iraq.

 

Which side of your mouth are you going to settle on talking out of today.

Out of one side of your mouth, you and one of your buddies, have been working this bogus line that there was a "drumbeat for war" from Democrats before Bush.

Then, out of the other, you say that "Clinton let Hussein do as he please instead of taking him to task for violating UN resolutions"

Another one of your Bush dead ender colleagues likes to assert that support for the war declined because of the "anti war left". But you point out (correctly) that Democrats voted the funding Bush asked for to keep it going, an obvious contradiction.

It's getting to be normal for the apoligists for mr Bush's war to talk themselves into corners of their own making like this.

It's what happens when history has long since proved you wrong.

 

What about

1) The decision to join the fighting in WW1?

2) Supporting the Soviet Union during WW2?

3) The ABM Treaty

4) Failure to eliminate the North Korean regime and their Chinese allies in the Korean War.

5) The War of 1812.

6) Buchanan's failure to deal forcefully with secession before he left office.

7) Lincoln's chronic inability to find decent generals.

Jefferson's efforts to appease France.

9) Roosevelts failure to adequately prepare for a much anticipated Japanese attack.

10) The Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Seems like the invasion of Iraq should not even be in the top ten much less the "worst"

 

what a silly rhetorical exercise. how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

and to put the Bay of Pigs on there is just plain silly, regardless.

 

However, time and time again, Clinton made the claim that Saddam was hiding WMD and creating more. He was so convinced that he bombed Iraq for nearly 4 days 24/7. Hmm..., how many civilians did he kill then?

 

Back to my point that the Clintonians were putting pressure on Saddam. It WAS noted that Clinton did not invade; Bush did. And they were pretty much singing off the same sheet of music except for some Bush-added crapola about mushroom clouds, mobile chem labs, yellow cake, bayoneting babies in hospitals, meanness to soccer teams, etc.

 

who cares? How many US servicemen did he lose?

 

I don't get this.

Clinton didn't invade Iraq thus what he believed about WMDs didn't matter.

Bush actually acted on what he (and Clinton) believed intending to end the problem with Iraq once and for all.

So why this obsession over Bush's actions just because U.S. soldiers got killed.

 

Snarling is not a refutation of what I said. Proof tends to anger libruls. Wipe the froth off your face.

- - - Updated - - -

Clinton did zero. He hoped and prayed nothing would happen on his watch and punt to the next guy.

I answered all of your questions lefty. Dems stated the WMD mess.

 

If he believed his own lies he would have invaded. Those lies were a PR campaign against Saddam. Clinton knew what he was doing. Bush, on the other hand, went "lies. O boy, o boy, o boy."

I'd bet if you asked Bush today, he'd say "Clinton punked me".

 

Because he sold the war on the basis of lies. There was not absolute certainty concerning Saddam's WMD's and there never was any pre-9/11 cooperation between Saddam and Osama.

 

how many casualties did we suffer in Iraq? Earlier, you castigated me for saying the number was 40K... YOU claimed it was only a little over 4K. Care to retract that?

 

You're still talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

YOU claimed that this was GW's doing. I have proven the dems were at least equally responsible. Care to admit that?

 

The more savvy repubs obviously realize that their best strategy is putting their fiasco behind them and keeping the Bush in strict campaign quarantine so as not to evoke it.

They are probably as frustrated when the ideologically-hidebound wacko birds keep dredging up the sordid Bush disaster in futile efforts to rewrite history as the were embarrassed when the same whack jobs persisted beyond all reason in their hilarious 'birther' derangement.

At some point, distinguishing between reality and fantasy becomes a necessity, and an inability to do so becomes very uncomfortable for those around you.

There must be times that the GOP's moneyed elite just want to scream, "Shut up and just vote for whomever we tell you to!"