Premise: Bush lied. What does that mean?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As the heading said the premise of this thread is that the administration used the WoMDs as a tactic reason to start the war. So if you don´t share this pov please argue like it was a hypothetical situation or stay out of the debate. There is another thread for if and when they lied.



What is the consequenses of their lying? Domestical and international? The real consequenses and what you wished they would have been?



I have one offer/guess but before I say mine I would like to hear some others.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Where's the "Chirac" lied thread.
  • Reply 2 of 44
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Where's the "Chirac" lied thread.



    Where you start it. As in "not here"
  • Reply 3 of 44
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Bush lied as all presidents and world leaders do.



    And as history has shown us, it only matters in terms of what his political opponents want to do with it.



    It's up to them.
  • Reply 4 of 44
    thttht Posts: 3,108member
    groverat got it right. Which means nothing happens to GWB because the Dems are too weak, too gutless, and have no vision.



    GWB has been lying ever since he entered professional politics, and probably well before. He's got the knack (of lying without believing it is wrong, which makes it believable). He lied during the nationally televised Presidential debates (he said he supported health care in Texas), but no one used it as a political wedge. It was obvious he was lying during the Iraq marketing campaign, and almost any policy campaign the administration has marketed since his inauguration. If one can call the administrion having an actual policy.
  • Reply 5 of 44
    yzedfyzedf Posts: 24member
    Rather obvious the result... no more Saddam ruling Iraq.



    Did he or didn't he lie? To late now.



    How about this, let the world fix their own damn problems.
  • Reply 6 of 44
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    He'll land in the jail cell next to that other Texan bugger who lied to get us into a war. I haven't heard from LBJ in while...he's away for life, right?



    I don't think you can expect anything to happen, except maybe him getting voted out in 2004 for other reasons. There's just no basis for any kind of legal proceeding. And remember that those who like him never cared about WMD, while those who don't never believed him anyway. Polls in the US about this are sharpy divided on partisan lines - which means nothing will happen. The 33% who hate Bush still hate him, and the 33% who love him still love him. Of the other 33%, half support him all the way, and half support him halfway (looking for an investigation, at least). There's no sign of that changing.



    As for the rest of the world, we obviously don't care what you think.
  • Reply 7 of 44
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    He'll land in the jail cell next to that other Texan bugger who lied to get us into a war. I haven't heard from LBJ in while...he's away for life, right?



    LBJ didn't put us into Vietnam, Kennedy did (you were talking about Vietnam, right?); but i empathize with your sentiment.
  • Reply 8 of 44
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Wow, it's weird seeing all these WMD threads. Oh yeah, groverat isn't a moderator anymore. He must be clicking on the "lock this thread button" screaming "It's not working! Why isn't it working!"



    IMO, the importance of this "lying to go to war issue" is that this was a new type of war for the US. It was pre-emptive. It was a war of choice rather than necessity. Therefore, any future preemption strategy is going to be influenced by how this war is perceived.



    If the US citizens and the world could say after this war that "hey, the US is honest, we trust them, I guess a muscular interventionist US foreign policy will be a good thing for the world," then that plays out very differently than saying "OK, they had their shot at this pre-emption business, and this just proves why we shouldn't trust them with that kind of power."



    So I would say that, assuming the WMD basis for this war turns out to be false, Bush has done a great deal of harm to the future of a strong interventionist US foreign policy.
  • Reply 9 of 44
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    If the US citizens and the world could say after this war that "hey, the US is honest, we trust them, I guess a muscular interventionist US foreign policy will be a good thing for the world," then that plays out very differently than saying "OK, they had their shot at this pre-emption business, and this just proves why we shouldn't trust them with that kind of power."



    So I would say that, assuming the WMD basis for this war turns out to be false, Bush has done a great deal of harm to the future of a strong interventionist US foreign policy.




    This is where I would pick up.



    Before the end of the war I saw two possibilities:



    -The intel was right (the claims put forward in the SC by Powell turned out to be true). Then everybody could say "Well what do you know. They were right and the evidence proved what they claimed: The war was just". This would not change the view on war to the worse or the better. Reasons for war would have to be given before the action and a certain level of expectation of proof after the war would still exist. But not anymore than it did in this war.



    -The intel was wrong (and thus the administration lied about their proofs. That is my belief). This gives two situation,



    -One where the lying was condemmed. the partners in the coalition and congress would denounce Bush and say they had been fooled and they had learned from this, would be much more cautious in the future and question the idea of preemtime war altogether. This would result in a much more realistic view on wars in the future. Or



    -One where the arguments of the US administration would be adopted because it would be the soft landing ("but there were so many other reasons (forgetting the actual lies put forward)") This would without doubt be the worst situation because it creates a presedence for...not caring at all about the reason for going to war. Come up with any reason you want (Nuclear program, harbouring fleeing Saddam loyalists) and we will find a suitable reasons afterward that will be accepted. This would be a carte blance for any war you wanted to start.



    So I had preferred they had found WoMDs in Iraq because then this "test" wouldn´t have to be made. Now without WoMD the future of wars are decided by the leaders of the countries in the coalition and by the congress. And right now it looks like the course of war is going to be accepted and only minor questions will be asked. And if the need for another war pops up the administration could probably use the same decievious tactics in the future. The war was a test and the administration cam out ahead becuase it has given them a set of whole new tools to wage war with.
  • Reply 10 of 44
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Spinmeister JC Watts was recently on Hannity & Colmes and has started using the RNC's brand new spin-slogan, "we found and took out the biggest weapon of mass destruction...Saddam Hussein." Well, there you have it folks. We all thought we were looking for little viles of chemical and biological weapons. What were we thinking? Duh.



    If that spin-line doesn't reveal what the true motive for the war was, I don't know else would.



    There are a lot of little things that make up the whole story. This is not cut and dry like Clinton lying about Monica. Therefore, it will be next to impossible to convict Bush of "high crimes" because there are millions of little instances and facts that can be argued and filibustered by the right. In other words, did Clinton lie about the bl*wjob? Yes. Did Bush lie about WMD? Sort of.



    When Bush was originally trying to make his case against Iraq, the left was not buying the argument. The left pounded the fact that Bush needed to present his evidence. Every Democratic pundit on every TV show demanded evidence. Giving into pressure, Bush and company talked up the evidence and intelligence, perhaps even exaggerated in order to quell the skeptics. This is where Bush took a wrong step.



    Every TV show and newspaper (left leaning and right) said it straight up, "If the US does not find any WoMD, there will be a lot of egg on their face." Isn't funny that those with egg now on their face are "shocked and amazed at this recent wave of anti-americanism within our own borders. This policy of blame America first has to stop". When did being critical of our sitting president become anti-american? Oh wait, I forgot. Republicans have the fix on that one.
  • Reply 11 of 44
    Where's Saddam? We haven't found him yet so I guess he didn't exist too.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Bush lied as all presidents and world leaders do.



    And as history has shown us, it only matters in terms of what his political opponents want to do with it.



    It's up to them.






    Rather I think it's up to the people to decide what to do. How they feel about lying to start an expensive war in a time of economic strife.
  • Reply 13 of 44
    bananabanana Posts: 61member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Where you start it. As in "not here"



    I think as days go by and no WMD get found the chances increase that they both lied. Chirac's position however; often portrayed as somehow pious [along with Russia and Germany] lacks any credibility for me simply due to the billions those respective countries would lose in the event of war. And it doesn't stop there. They all benefited from the oil for food program too. So it was a double whammy for all those guys desperately trying to present a 'moral' position while on the one hand failing to offer an alternative and [more seriously] failing to admit to their own squalid interests.
  • Reply 14 of 44
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by banana

    I think as days go by and no WMD get found the chances increase that they both lied.



    Whether any small stocks are found at this point is irrelevant. We already know they lied.
  • Reply 15 of 44
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Whether any small stocks are found at this point is irrelevant. We already know they lied.



    No, we know that they misinterpreted (to us and themselves) the information and analysis that they had at hand. Lying requires intent to deceive. I don't think Colin Powell had the intent to deceive anyone ESPECIALLY since he and the rest knew that they'd be RAKED over the coals if it turned out to REALLY BE lying, instead of misinterpretation.



    Regardless of the facts, though, we'll continue to hear snickers about "lying" right up until the election. Welcome to the politics of the Left.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Anders, this is a dumb topic even by your own standards. Maybe you should have titled it.



    " Bush & co are Big fat Liars so there ! ".. ho hum..

    .

    Would love to see you to focus that beam of yours on the VOMM's caused by Saddam.



    (Victims Of Mass Murder )
  • Reply 17 of 44
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Anders, this is a dumb topic even by your own standards.



    Well thank you.



    I had the intention of starting another type of debate instead of the person focused one that always get tied with WoMDs.



    I have a academic interest in the issue since I am a student of International Relations. How the WoMD situation is handled WILL have an impact on the future of war and what is "allowed". That is my interest in this thread.



    And if you read my own take on the situation I am focusing on how other leaders are reacting on this situation. Not on how stupid or deceiving Bush is.



    So actually I find this thread to be one of my most serious ones and had hoped someone would chip in with a balanced analysis what this means for the future. But as your own post shows its very hard for people to try to take a neutral position and they want to focus on other (for this discussion) non relevant angles on the war. But thats how it is.



    A note about timing: I have wanted to post this for at least three weeks but was held back by the obvious argument "but they haven´t had time to find anything yet". But if I waited until it had been proved without certainty of doubt that the intel had been fabricated the interest on the subject would have dissapeared. Thats why I did it now.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    bananabanana Posts: 61member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Whether any small stocks are found at this point is irrelevant. We already know they lied.



    You don't know that. I don't know that. Someone in the Pentagon and Whitehall may have a better idea. So far they've got to have an even better idea to fix the administrative mess they've left behind. Send police for Allah's sake.
  • Reply 19 of 44
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    OK. I see the angle from which you are trying to look at it.

    From my perspective, what is going on in England, the taking of evidence, is a start. However, English parliament still hasn't called for a " Royal Commission " which in effect is empowered to force imformation that can lead to impeachment or censure of a group, party, leader or individual.

    Even if the American congress held an open enquiry to determine whether or not Bush lied, it would run into a numbers problem, with the Democrats no longer holding power in either houses. Any attempt to empeach Bush would be knocked down along party lines.

    Even Irangate, Reagan & the fall-guy Oliver North failed to produce an impeachment.
  • Reply 20 of 44
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    OK. I see the angle from which you are trying to look at it.

    From my perspective, what is going on in England, the taking of evidence, is a start. However, English parliament still hasn't called for a " Royal Commission " which in effect is empowered to force imformation that can lead to impeachment or censure of a group, party, leader or individual.

    Even if the American congress held an open enquiry to determine whether or not Bush lied, it would run into a numbers problem, with the Democrats no longer holding power in either houses. Any attempt to empeach Bush would be knocked down along party lines.

    Even Irangate, Reagan & the fall-guy Oliver North failed to produce an impeachment.




    Which is yet another reason why the two-party system is so irrevocably flawed.
Sign In or Register to comment.