Did Bush knowingly mislead America about Iraq?

[bascule]

A new report from the House Oversight Committee shows the Bush administration was warned repeatedly by the CIA not to include information about Saddam attempting to purchase Nigerian yellowcake in the State of the Union address. It also goes on to state that Alberto Gonzales mislead Congress when he claimed the CIA approved the incorporation of that information into Bush's address:

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_CIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

Is it clear at this point that Bush lied to the American people and the world as the basis for invading Iraq? I think so. I just wonder if we can ever untangle this web of lies to the point that it becomes blatantly obvious to anyone.

[Pangloss]

Faithfully believing in something does not make it so, but hey, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. There's still no direct evidence that he lied, only circumstantial suggestions that could easily mean that the administration committed errors or (as now seems more likely) gross wishful thinking. Occam's Razor is not your friend here, it's your enemy.

 

Still, I have come around to a point of tolerance for the accusation of deception. The circumstantial evidence is compelling enough to forebear the argument, at any rate. People will keep looking at it, just as they keep looking at Watergate and many other historic events (hey, I could have said the Kennedy Assassination), and perhaps over time some real evidence will appear. You never know.

[Reaper]

Have you guys ever seen the movie W? It explores some of why the Bush administration was totally inept.

 

I don't think Bush lied, but rather that he was just stupid.

[Pangloss]

I haven't seen it yet, but I will when it comes out on DVD. I've seen all of Oliver Stone's conspiracy the-.. I mean movies. I don't think you should be taking factual impressions from that source, Reaper (e.g. "explores"). He's not exactly known for historical accuracy, and that isn't the point of his efforts anyway.

[Sisyphus]

I think we were intentionally, greatly, and apparently casually mislead about the strength of the evidence, but I also think they actually believed that evidence anyway, and just wanted the chance to prove it. They shouldn't have believed it (the evidence wasn't there, after all), but they did, because they were so caught up in the groupthink and neoconservative revery.

 

Incidentally, it really was the bit about Nigerian yellowcake that just barely tipped me into the pro-war column, so the fact that that was blatantly false still feels like a personal insult to me. Some commentators try to play it down as "just 14 words" or whatever, but that really was what made all the difference, as it was the only hard evidence of nuclear WMDs.

[Reaper]

He's not exactly known for historical accuracy, and that isn't the point of his efforts anyway.

 

I wasn't aware of his past records.... ah well, I don't really pay any attention to politics in general.

[iNow]

Some accurate, some "artistic license."

 

Ollie Stone did the JFK movie with Kevin Cosner.

[waitforufo]

The Bush administration clearly articulated that in a post cold war, post 9/11 world, the United States was no longer operating under the need for conclusive proof when dealing with destabilizing nations like Iraq. The United Nations had already passed 16 resolutions against Iraq. The burden of proof was Iraq's. Hans Blix said that Iraq had not proven that it had destroyed its WMD or it capability to produce WMD. Prior to the invasion, Saddam once again let in UN inspectors only to again thwart their investigation. No matter how weak or contrived the evidence for Nigerian yellowcake, there was evidence, if not confirmed by the CIA, believed by our allies (the 14 words). So again, it was Iraq's responsibility, particularly under UN resolution, to prove that it did not have or attempt to purchase Nigerian yellowcake. Nigerian yellowcake may have gained high public importance but it was only one of many reasons for invading Iraq.

 

Some may not like this history, but it is the history, and there are no lies within it.

 

The Bush administrations only real mistake was putting the burden of explaining this to the nation and the world in the incompetent hands of Collin Powel. A man that history will not remember kindly.

[bob000555]

The Bush administration clearly articulated that in a post cold war, post 9/11 world, the United States was no longer operating under the need for conclusive proof when dealing with destabilizing nations like Iraq. The United Nations had already passed 16 resolutions against Iraq. The burden of proof was Iraq's. Hans Blix said that Iraq had not proven that it had destroyed its WMD or it capability to produce WMD. Prior to the invasion, Saddam once again let in UN inspectors only to again thwart their investigation. No matter how weak or contrived the evidence for Nigerian yellowcake, there was evidence, if not confirmed by the CIA, believed by our allies (the 14 words). So again, it was Iraq's responsibility, particularly under UN resolution, to prove that it did not have or attempt to purchase Nigerian yellowcake. Nigerian yellowcake may have gained high public importance but it was only one of many reasons for invading Iraq.

 

Some may not like this history, but it is the history, and there are no lies within it.

 

The Bush administrations only real mistake was putting the burden of explaining this to the nation and the world in the incompetent hands of Collin Powel. A man that history will not remember kindly.

 

Since when can the burden of proof ever legitimately be on the accused? I claim you have WMDs in your home. Me and my buddies have passed resolution saying the burden of proof is on you, so prove to me that you don’t have any or I’m going to invade you house, oh btw your a terrorist untill you prove your not.

Edited December 24, 2008 by bob000555

[padren]

I do think Bush intentionally misled us about the specific details cited as evidence, and I don't think it bothered him to do it because he was so certain he'd be able to say "okay, we didn't find the yellow cake...but had we not moved in we wouldn't have found all of these smoking guns" and he expected to be vindicated either way.

 

Granted that is my opinion based on my observations of what all went down and on how I think he thinks - not a body of evidence. Of course, a friend of mine had some evidence following a trip he took to Africa, but I was warned repeatedly not to use it in my post as it was shaky at best.

[Pangloss]

Since when can the burden of proof ever legitimately be on the accused? I claim you have WMDs in your home. Me and my buddies have passed resolution saying the burden of proof is on you, so prove to me that you don’t have any or I’m going to invade you house, oh btw your a terrorist untill you prove your not.

 

If you'd spend the previous couple of decades gassing your neighbors, molesting their children and stealing their furniture then yes, that might be a reasonable thing for your neighborhood to do.

 

But it's not a small thing and only to be taken under careful consideration of the facts and legal, unemotional deliberation. (I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.)

[bob000555]

If you'd spend the previous couple of decades gassing your neighbors, molesting their children and stealing their furniture then yes, that might be a reasonable thing for your neighborhood to do.

Ah pangloss this passage from my psych textbook may well be about you:

 

“Cognitive dissonance: Relief from tension”

 

“So far we have seen that actions can affect attitudes, sometimes turning prisoners into collaborators, doubters into believers, mere acquaintances into friends and compliant guards into abusers. But why? One explanation is that when we become aware that our attitudes and actions don’t coincide we experience tension or cognitive dissonance. To relive this tension, according to cognitive dissonance theory proposed by Leon Festinger, we bring our attitudes into line with our actions. It is as if we rationalize “If I chouse to do it I must believe it.” The more concerned and more responsible we feel for a troubling act the more dissonance we feel. The more dissonance we feel, the more motivated we are to fine consistency, such as changing out attitudes to help justify and act.”

 

“The US invasion of Iraq was mainly premised on the presumed threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. As the war began only 38% of Americans surveyed said the war was justified if Iraq did not have WMD (Gallup 2003) and nearly 80% believed such weapons would be found (Duffy 2003, Newport and others 2003). When no WMD where found many Americans felt dissonance which was heightened by our awareness of the war’s financial and human costs, by scenes of chaos in Iraq and by inflamed anti-American and pro-terrorist sentiments in some parts of the world.”

 

“To reduce dissonance some Americans revised their memories of the main rational for going to war, which now became liberating and oppressed people and promoting democracy in the Middle East. Before long the once minority opinion became the majority view: 58 percent of Americans said the supported war even if there were no WMD(Gallup, 2003). “Weather or not the find weapons of mass destruction doesn’t matter” explained Republican pollster Frank Luntz “because the rational for the war changed.” It was not until late 2004, when hopes for a flourishing peace waned, that Americans’ support for the war dropped below 50 percent."

 

Psychology by Doctor David Meyers, 8th edition, Worth publishers, New York, New York, pages 731-732

Edited December 24, 2008 by bob000555

[Pangloss]

What does that have to do with your neighborhood example? You were making bad analogy. Don't extrapolate my refutation of your analogy to mean that I am in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

 

Your psych textbook is also completely off the subject of this thread. It sounds like it might be an interesting subject for a different thread -- the psychological impact of not finding WMDs.

[bob000555]

Just like Americans did with the real war you took my invalid justification for invading a person’s house and replaced with a more morally justifiable explanation… and I was considering starting a “Psychology of Political Science” thread though it would probably belong in the psych section of the Medical Sciences section of the forum.

[waitforufo]

Since when can the burden of proof ever legitimately be on the accused? I claim you have WMDs in your home. Me and my buddies have passed resolution saying the burden of proof is on you, so prove to me that you don’t have any or I’m going to invade you house, oh btw your a terrorist untill you prove your not.

 

 

The burden of proof for cons out on parole is different than for those not under control of the criminal justice system. The 16 UN resolutions were in place.

 

Now imagine if Saddam had assigned Uday to one UN investigation unit and Qusay to another investigation unit. Also imagine if these investigation units were allowed to search where they liked unannounced. Then image that at every gate, door, file and safe, Uday or Qusay would have said, no don't delay, open it right now and then they were opened immediately. Then instead of the video we did get where searches were delayed and inhibited, searches were quick and uninhibited. Under such a scenario don't you think it likely that Saddam would be in power today?

[bob000555]

The burden of proof for cons out on parole is different than for those not under control of the criminal justice system. The 16 UN resolutions were in place.

 

Perhaps the best false analogy I’ve seen recently. Comparing a sovereign nation to a convicted felon is laughable in the first place. Ignoring that US citizens submit to US law by the social contract the nation of Iraq submitted in no way. The us is not the world’s justice system, but just another of it’s citizens. The argument that our power justifies our “world police” ideology makes about as much sense as saying that Bill Gate’s(now Warren Buffet but that’s besides the point) wealth gives him the right to demand you submit to his searching your house. A better analogy would by my neighbor invading his neighbor’s house analogy.

 

Even if it were a just analogy a con has been convicted by a jury of his peers and a court of laws handed down a sentence, part of that sentence is begin required to submit to searches by his parole officer. If the officer finds grounds to do so the judge can retroactively extend the sentence for the original crime to the degree allowable by law. If the state wishes to make a new charge it must go to another trail where the burden of proof is agene on the state. It isn’t as though parole is completely involuntary either every con if the so chose could opt out of parole and go to prison, but this option is so rarely exercised it only nominally exists.

[Pangloss]

I think that argument falls short when you ignore the UN resolutions. The correct analysis is that there were resolutions in place but whether or not the world acted on them was something that the world should have decided jointly instead of unilaterally by one nation. It overstates the case to say that there was no justification for the war, just as it overstates the opposite case to say that an invasion was necessary.

 

I think comparing Saddam's behavior with that of a convicted felon is a reasonable analogy. He was an absolute dictator, whatever it was called -- everyone seems to agree on that. His decision to invade Kuwait was unilateral and we all know what happened to those who disagreed with him.

[Sisyphus]

waitforufo, calling the evidence for nigerian yellowcake "inconclusive" is incorrect. It was known to be false, and there was no other evidence for a nuclear program. Citing UN resolutions is disingenuous as well. Many nations have them, and that doesn't give individual nations a justification for making war on one another. If it did, we (and anyone else who felt like it) would be invading Israel, Turkey, etc. And if human rights abuses were justification for unilateral war, then we'd have to declare war on every nation on Earth, and they'd all declare war on us for the same reason. Fun, no?

[bob000555]

Utter ridiculousness you cant justify making an entire populous pay the price for their [unelected] leader’s stupidity. The comparison of Iraq to a convicted felon is ridiculous because felons, as citizens, submit to their nations laws via the social contract; there was no such relation between Iraq and the UN, in fact the UN charter specifically stipulates that member states retain sovereignty. I’m not even sure Iraq was a member of the UN at the time.

[iNow]

Iraq joined the UN in December 1945, so yes, they were a member in 2003.

http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml

[D H]

there was no such relation between Iraq and the UN

Yes, there was. UN Security Council Resolutions 686, 687, and 1284, to name a few.

[bob000555]

Yes, there was. UN Security Council Resolutions 686, 687, and 1284, to name a few.

A resolution is not the same as a social contract at all, not even vaguely close. A social contract is when a citizen gives away certain rights in exchange for certain securities. A resolution does no such thing. In fact a resolution is basically the opposite of a social contract, imposed by the ruler instead of the subject and the one’s of which you speak where completely without consent.

Edited December 26, 2008 by bob000555

[Pangloss]

Utter ridiculousness you cant justify making an entire populous pay the price for their [unelected'] leader’s stupidity.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But I hear this argument applied to Iraq quite often and I think it's weak, because the same people who make it turn right around and argue the exact opposite when it comes to Darfur, Rwanda, etc. Either it is okay to invade for humanitarian reasons, or is it not -- pick one. I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but I do believe most people who make that argument are being so.

 

BTW, just to talk about the politics of this for a moment, you really need to pick which basis you want to condemn President Bush on. When you make unilateral, across-the-board arguments like this you actually require people to support all those different sub-positions in order to oppose Iraq, and that's really the wrong way to go. It's actually quite fortunate for the left that the war became so unpopular amongst the conservative base -- I don't think it was anything the left did that made that happen. It certainly wasn't statements like "no blood for oil" that won over hearts and minds in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, but it was those three states that won the election for Obama.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Pangloss

[waitforufo]

bob000555,

In response to the analogy of Iraq under Saddam being comparable to an convict on parole you wrote.

 

Perhaps the best false analogy I’ve seen recently. Comparing a sovereign nation to a convicted felon is laughable in the first place. Ignoring that US citizens submit to US law by the social contract the nation of Iraq submitted in no way.

 

My post was direct to your analogy below.

 

Since when can the burden of proof ever legitimately be on the accused? I claim you have WMDs in your home. Me and my buddies have passed resolution saying the burden of proof is on you, so prove to me that you don’t have any or I’m going to invade you house, oh btw your a terrorist untill you prove your not.

 

How is your analogy not comparing a sovereign nation to an individual living under the social contract provided in the US? I was simply showing how, under your own analogy, that Iraq could and should have been treated differently that a person not under justice system control.

 

Utter ridiculousness you cant justify making an entire populous pay the price for their [unelected] leader’s stupidity.

 

You mean like the decade of UN sanctions that Iraq was subjected to? Sanctions that crippled the Iraqi economy and their medical care system. Sanctions that were marginally relived through the UN humanitarian food-for-oil program. The same food-for-oil program that caused near complete corruption of the UN. The same UN that did not think that violations of its previous 16 sanctions was an adequate reason for war.

 

Sisyphus,

I did not call the Nigerian yellowcake evidence "inconclusive." I said that some suspected Iraq of trying to purchase yellowcake and that it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that it did or had not. Also I disagree with our comment on the resolutions. Resolutions against Iraq were part of the secession of hostilities at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Violation of those resolutions meant that hostilities could resume.

 

waitforufo, calling the evidence for nigerian yellowcake "inconclusive" is incorrect. It was known to be false, and there was no other evidence for a nuclear program. Citing UN resolutions is disingenuous as well. Many nations have them, and that doesn't give individual nations a justification for making war on one another. If it did, we (and anyone else who felt like it) would be invading Israel, Turkey, etc. And if human rights abuses were justification for unilateral war, then we'd have to declare war on every nation on Earth, and they'd all declare war on us for the same reason. Fun, no?

[bob000555]

How is your analogy not comparing a sovereign nation to an individual living under the social contract provided in the US? I was simply showing how, under your own analogy, that Iraq could and should have been treated differently that a person not under justice system control.

My analogy was correct because it compared Iraq and the United states as BOTH being neighbors, yours made the fundamental error of arbitrarily elevating one to the level of sate and lowering one to the level of citizen. There is nothing I am aware of in international law that allows for such a relation between sovereigns .

You mean like the decade of UN sanctions that Iraq was subjected to? Sanctions that crippled the Iraqi economy and their medical care system. Sanctions that were marginally relived through the UN humanitarian food-for-oil program.

Yes that’s exactly what I mean, thank you for seeing my point, just kidding. The UN previously had a nasty habit of becoming an organ for American unilateralism, which was as I pointed out morally object able. Unilateralism will always illegally violent sovereignty.