Did Bush Lie? Google it.

Roger1

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 3, 2002
1,152
0
Michigan
Just found this at michellemalkin.com Thought it was pretty interesting.


DID BUSH LIE? GOOGLE IT
By Bryan Preston · November 15, 2005 08:21 AM
The Bush administration is finally and concertedly pushing back against the Deaniac Democrat lie that President Bush somehow lied us into war in Iraq. The president has delivered two speeches in the past few days that take direct aim at those Democrats who voted in favor of the war but now claim that the administration duped them into that vote by lying about the intelligence regarding Saddam's WMD. All of this is to the good, and it's long past being about time the administration did this. A majority of the country now sees President Bush as a dishonest man; the "Bush LIED" meme and the administration's lack of a robust self-defense against it are two big reasons why.

The tragedy of the situation is that the administration could prove beyond doubt that it didn't lie its way into war just by promoting a simple Google search. Take a look at this graphic.


You can either go to Google and plug in the search string in that graphic, or you can just click on the graphic. Google will take you back in time to 1998, the last time prior to the invasion that the US and Saddam Hussein had a major confrontation. The Google search string Clinton Iraq 1998 will bring up 3.5 million hits about that conflict, during which pretty much every prominent Democrat expressed his or her belief that Saddam had or was developing WMD and was a threat because of it.

No one believed then or since that any US action including Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 completely destroyed Saddam's WMD programs. So if the Democrats believed in those weapons back then, why are they claiming to have been fooled by Bush into believing in them in 2002 and 2003? Well, it's obviously politics at work--the leftwing base of the Democrat party has pulled even its national security hawks to the left, where conspiracy theories rule. And the biggest conspiracy theory that the left loves concerns the war, and how Bush LIED us into it.

So Google it. Prove for yourself that he didn't, and indeed couldn't have. Tell your wavering friends to Google Clinton Iraq 1998. If you have Bush-hating friends, make them do that search and then watch their world crumble around them.

By the way, my latest column for TechCentralStation is on this very topic.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
Yeah, libs/dems/some media outlets like to preach the "Bush Lied" rethoric. Of course they will say anything, true or untrue, to try and discredit the Bush administration. I don't buy it. Before Bush, even Clinton was saying that Saddam needed to be disarmed, he just didn't have the gall to do it.

Take for instance John Edwards, who was on the senate intelligence committee, and voted for the war based on the evidence...

Surely they are not so naive as to think that Saddam was going to just leave all of the WMD's in his trunk and say, "hey, they're in here."

I guess Bush just made up the "evidence" back when he was governor, showed it to his Dad, and then they roped Clinton into believing it and everyone now is caught up in the brainchild of the idea that was governor GW Bush's in the first place.

Only problem is, most dems/libs wouldn't say that Bush has enough brains to be behind a scheme this grande, yet they accuse him of it.
 

Advance The Man

macrumors 6502
Apr 6, 2005
493
0
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Above link, Clinton gives another warning about Iraq's WMD's.

crdean1 said:
Yeah, libs/dems/some media outlets like to preach the "Bush Lied" rethoric. Of course they will say anything, true or untrue, to try and discredit the Bush administration. I don't buy it. Before Bush, even Clinton was saying that Saddam needed to be disarmed, he just didn't have the gall to do it.

Take for instance John Edwards, who was on the senate intelligence committee, and voted for the war based on the evidence...

Surely they are not so naive as to think that Saddam was going to just leave all of the WMD's in his trunk and say, "hey, they're in here."

I guess Bush just made up the "evidence" back when he was governor, showed it to his Dad, and then they roped Clinton into believing it and everyone now is caught up in the brainchild of the idea that was governor GW Bush's in the first place.

Only problem is, most dems/libs wouldn't say that Bush has enough brains to be behind a scheme this grande, yet they accuse him of it.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Bush didnt lie, what he did was stretch the truth, what he did was spin things. I head him a million times tell me about those WMDs Iraq had. Where did they go? I heard yellow cake was being bought for nukes but that turned out to be false, though Cheney and his men did out the agent who checked into this for Our Country. Thanks you big Dick! Libby is protecting this Dick thats why he has been indicted.
Blair over in the UK had a meeting with Bush before 911 and he was talking of Iraq then....................
Bush was looking for any excuse to go into Iraq and 911 gave it to him.
He was stretching,spinning intelligence and we now have 2,000 dead,15,000 limbless,300+ Billion of American Taxpayer money spent and a President & Republican Congress who want to stay in Iraq and wont even give a time for getting out though again there isnt any WMDs.
 

Advance The Man

macrumors 6502
Apr 6, 2005
493
0
IJ Reilly said:
Did I see a point go sailing by? No, I didn't think so.

Obligatory...


:)
You don't see the point? Well here it is. Democrats are slamming President Bush that he lied on WMD intelligence. These same democrats were saying the same thing years ago before Bush was in office and during the time Bush has been in office. Once Democrats realized that year in and year out they get beat at the polls, they created lies that Bush misled and created intelligence (the same intelligence the Democrats including Clinton relied on). I will say this, the Democrats plan of lies is working. It has decimated Bush in the polls. Now that Bush is fighting back (finally!) he will slowly wake up the braindead public.

Fairly simple, but I see that you are wearing Blue Goggles.:(
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Advance The Man said:
You don't see the point? Well here it is. Democrats are slamming President Bush that he lied on WMD intelligence. These same democrats were saying the same thing years ago before Bush was in office and during the time Bush has been in office. Once Democrats realized that year in and year out they get beat at the polls, they created lies that Bush misled and created intelligence (the same intelligence the Democrats including Clinton relied on). I will say this, the Democrats plan of lies is working. It has decimated Bush in the polls. Now that Bush is fighting back (finally!) he will slowly wake up the braindead public.

Fairly simple, but I see that you are wearing Blue Goggles.:(
All debunked in another thread, in detail.
 

emw

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
People would be naive to believe that the democrats were so stupid as to be "lied to" about this stuff - they knew all they needed to know, and felt at the time it would be political suicide to vote against "fighting terrorism." Now they're attempting to shift the blame to a lame duck president with a low approval rating, thinking it will somehow bolster their chances at the polls in the future. I'm sick of both parties at this point.

The general American public, however, has an attention span of about 13 minutes. Referencing materials from the Clinton administration is about as useful as relating this war to the Revolution.

When it's all said and done, Bush was president when we went to war, a war which has become largely unpopular among not only in the US, but the world, and that's all that matters. Did he lie? Who cares? We're there, no WMDs were ever found, and now soldiers are dying fighting a battle we don't know how to end.

The general public is going to hear what they want to hear, now just as they did 2 1/2 years ago when we first went to war. And with body bags piling up on Iraqi soil, they want to hear why this thing failed. If what they hear is "Bush lied" then so be it. Research is dead. Rhetoric is king.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
So was Rumsfeld telling the truth when he said "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Was he telling the ****ing truth then?

Oh and as to Malkin's 'point' -- if you Google 'miserable failure' does that prove anything?
 

Roger1

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 3, 2002
1,152
0
Michigan
mactastic said:
Oh and as to Malkin's 'point' -- if you Google 'miserable failure' does that prove anything?

Don't know. I'll have to save it for my next thread- Maybe I'll try to start one over there. :p
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
IJ Reilly said:
All debunked in another thread, in detail.
Why do I get the feeling that some here don't like to deal with the specific facts of recent history so they avoid them by jumping to a new thread. Advance the Man and crdean1 try reading the contents of "Bush goes on a lying campaign" and try responding to the facts instead of relying on talking points.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Advance The Man said:
Now that Bush is fighting back (finally!) he will slowly wake up the braindead public.
I see you have resorted to calling the public stupid because they don't agree with you. Wasn't that the rallying cry of the right just one year ago? "Don't call the country stupid for voting for Bush, you'll just dig your own hole deeper."

Heh.
Fairly simple, but I see that you are wearing Blue Goggles.:(
Oh and your goggles are clear?
:p
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
emw said:
When it's all said and done, Bush was president when we went to war, a war which has become largely unpopular among not only in the US, but the world, and that's all that matters. Did he lie? Who cares? We're there, no WMDs were ever found, and now soldiers are dying fighting a battle we don't know how to end.
I agree with this point. I think we tend to forget that, ultimately, the main issue here is that this president and no other person led the nation to war. He is responsible for making this decision, and its consequences. It's a measure of the growing public dissatisfaction with the justifications for the war, the preparations for the war, the way it's been conducted, and its outcomes, that the Republicans are lashing back, trying (vainly, I believe) to spread the blame around. This IMO is the most shameful aspect of this entire episode, surpassing in some ways even the dissembling which preceded it. But sadly it is true to form for this president to evade responsibility and accountability, and even more unfortunate that some people are so anxious to let him get away with it.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
Sayhey said:
Why do I get the feeling that some here don't like to deal with the specific facts of recent history so they avoid them by jumping to a new thread. Advance the Man and crdean1 try reading the contents of "Bush goes on a lying campaign" and try responding to the facts instead of relying on talking points.
Oops, sorry about that Sayhey, I forgot, you're not supposed to post your opinion in follow up to a thread topic here in the political forum. Instead you are supposed to post "blogs" and "editorials" as fact, right? :)

Edit: and roger, you should have posted the link, live and learn.
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.
 
L

Lau

Guest
Thanatoast said:
Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.
Well said.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
Thanatoast said:
Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?
There is, of course, a completely different standard of proof required when voicing one's opinions to when one is contemplating war.
Piss off.
A little immoderate, but I share the general gist of your sentiment.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
Thanatoast said:
Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.
Like I said earlier, Clinton lacked the balls to do what Bush knew he had to....or there would be a higher chance for more 9/11's. I don't agree with the way the war has been managed, I believe we could have saved many troops' lives if this war had been better managed. That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terrorists, and I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terrorists. It's all Bush's fault.

Piss off yourself.:p

Edit: O.k. Sorry about the last part...
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Thanatoast said:
Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.
LOL! thats funny for me and i voted for this Neocon first time around! I get the feeling this administration played everyone,Congress,and the American people. Was Saddam worth 300 billion and 2,000 thousands lives? Nope!
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,516
OBJECTIVE reality
IJ Reilly said:
Did I see a point go sailing by?
No, but you did see the truth sailing over their heads.

Thanatoast said:
Okay, I'm gonna say it.

Did y'all notice that when Clinton said Saddam had WMD's he didn't call for immediate invasion? Did y'all notice that in 1998 we had a system of inspections and research suppression that was stopping Saddam from developing weapons? Did y'all notice that Clinton never spent $200,000,000,000 to topple Saddam, even though he thought Saddam had weapons?

Did y'all ever notice that Clinton's policy was effective, while Bush's has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed thousands of lives, eroded civil liberties and vaporized world support for American initiatives?

Piss off.
Exactly!

Who was that guy who did the final weapons inspection report a couple of years ago? (Not Hans Blix.) He described in detail how Saddam did have a "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" weapons program that he was planning to use against Iran, but he dumped everything when the pressure of inspections got too hot for him. And that's the point. International pressure was doing the job.
 

emw

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
crdean1 said:
That doesn't discount the fact that we have uncovered an anthill of terrorists
If by "uncovered" you mean "encouraged the development of" then I'd agree.

I'm sure storming into Iraq did much to improve America's image in the minds of those on the fence and subsequently discouraged the recruitment of anti-American "terrorists" and those that remain are now shaking in their sandals hoping we don't come after them too. :rolleyes:

Edit: Forgot this part.

crdean1 said:
I'm sure you'll now try and tell me that we "created" these terrorists
Not created. Encouraged. The ingredients were there, we just stirred them up.