Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Wow! That's SO much worse than Bush's $225 billion lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! We DEFINITELY can't trust Kerry!

Posted by at October 29, 2004 10:25 AM

I know this won't penetrate your tiny mind, but Bush didn't lie about that, unless you have some kind of first-hand knowledge that he knew the weapons weren't there at the time. And if Bush "lied" about it, then so did John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and many others who said exactly the same thing.

Apparently "Bush lied" is the left's Big Lie for this election cycle.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 29, 2004 10:28 AM

Rand...does Kerry think that the Oval Office comes with a Presidential Crystal Ball that he can use?

I mean, really. He has said that he would take action depending on what the outcome would be. Well, there's no way to know for sure when you take a particular action what the outcome will be. You have to do the best you can with what you know, and adapt your plans to fit the situation as it develops.

Kerry won't do this, he wants to hold summits and talk about stuff while actually DOING nothing about anything.

Posted by Astrosmith at October 29, 2004 10:38 AM

Actually, Rand, Bush did lie. If he had said "We *think* there are WMD in Iraq," he could weasle out of it. Or "we suspect..." or "we have some evidence..." or "we believe...". In that case, he could be called misinformed, but not exactly a liar.

What he said, though, was this: "We KNOW that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

That was a lie. Deal with it.

Posted by Nathan Koren at October 29, 2004 11:32 AM

He thought he did know, Nathan. Or do you know that he knew otherwise, but was deliberately lying about it?

And everyone else thought they knew as well--Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton et al--who told us that they were there at the time, based on the same information that the president had, but now wish to rewrite history.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 29, 2004 11:36 AM

A lie, as defined by Webster's, is:

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Bush believed the information he was given to be accurate. He didn't intend to deceive in his message. He didn't LIE!!!

Posted by Tom at October 29, 2004 11:50 AM

From the President's most comprehensive statement on the subject, the 2002 State of the Union address:

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. . . .The 108 U.N. inspectors were. . .were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.

From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Nathan, can you point to the lie, please? The part where he said something he knew at the time to be untrue?

Rand, my apologies for the length of the comment.

Posted by Carl Pham at October 29, 2004 12:20 PM

"That was a lie. Deal with it."

You are a Dumbass Nathan, deal with it! No one died and gave you the right to redefine the english language. You moron!

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 29, 2004 02:02 PM

Let's try and tone it down a little.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 29, 2004 02:06 PM

Nathan,

Tell us all how your man Kerry rates on the old truth meter... Let me start you off...

1) Kerry looked straight into the cameras during the debates and told the entire world that, before the vote authorizing use of force in Iraq, he met with the *entire UN Security Council*, including nations like Germany -- FACT: He met with at most FOUR UNSC members AND... Germany wasn't even on the Council at that time! (As an aside, does anyone know if a Senator is permitted to pursue diplomacy in that manner???)

2) Kerry claimed to have been awarded a Silver Star with Combat 'V' -- FACT: *NO SUCH MEDAL HAS EVER BEEN AWARDED*

I'm sure others could add to this list. Point is, while there have been times when Bush would've been better off just saying that he'd have to check on something rather than depend on memory, these instance pale in comparison to Kerry's inherent nature as a pathological liar -- not just in things that don't matter much, but in matters that cut to the very core of what sort of President he'll be.

Really, Nathan, you should sever the connection to the Democratic hive-mind and think long and deeply about the choice this Tuesday. My daughter put it well the other day, "It must be hard to be a politician, you have to keep track of all your lies." Kerry hasn't even done a good job at that. So, if you don't like Bush's domestic agenda, then fight REALLY hard for a Democratic Congress in two years -- but don't put someone in the White House who lies continually and further, who wants to subjugate our foreign policy to the very same corrupt organization that ran the Oil-for-Bribes program.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at October 29, 2004 06:57 PM

Several things about the WMD claims. First, it's erroneous to claim that Kerry had access to the same sources that Bush and his administration had access to. Rather, Kerry and other senators on the respective intelligence committee would have access to conclusions and supporting arguments more than the raw data. Why are we surprised by Kerry's reversal in the matter when this information was found to be in gross error and unreliable?

Second, I tend to agree that there's no reason to suppose that Bush was lying. However, the same can't be said for the people that fed the information to Bush. In particular, Rumsfeld seems to me either a liar and/or someone who didn't let facts interfere with his worldview. He even went as far as to create his own intelligence processing group which appears to bypass the CIA and the other official channels. Bush continues to show poor judgement in keeping Rumsfeld at his post. With the exception of the departure of former CIA chief Tenet, no serious reform of the various intelligence agencies or of the people who control these agencies has occured.

Finally, I am amazed at how forgiving people can be about grossly incorrect statements by politicians. Whether it be the Clinton receiving blow jobs in the Whitehouse (and commiting felonious perjury in court to cover it up), the "no new taxes" pledge by Bush elder which later turned out to be in error, or the recent WMD claims by Bush junior which also turn out to be in error. Ultimately we should hold these people accountable. This is a more important issue than how we fight the "war" on terrorism. That's why I won't vote Bush.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at October 30, 2004 06:12 PM

>I am amazed at how forgiving people can be about >grossly incorrect statements by politicians. >Whether it be the Clinton receiving blow jobs in >the Whitehouse

Well, he was impeached for it. Not very forgiving, even if not convicted. And he was disbarred.

>the "no new taxes" pledge by Bush elder which >later turned out to be in error

Which is widely considered to be a major reason he did not win re-election.

>the recent WMD claims by Bush junior which also >turn out to be in error

It remains to be seen if he is held accountable for it or not. Ask me again next Wednesday.

Posted by sjvan at October 30, 2004 07:29 PM

Karl,

Why can't you wrap your mind around the concept that intelligence estimates are just that -- estimates. NOBODY *lied* about the WMD. There were very good reasons to believe the WMD were there, which have been gone through on this and other blogs ad nauseam. To argue that the WMD should be an issue in this election is the rankest kind of "Monday morning quarterbacking".

BTW, since Saddam was readying his own round of 9/11 style attacks (as the Russian intelligence services informed us), going into Iraq WAS part of the greater war on terror regardless of any other view.

There will be NO war on jihadism under Kerry, because he: a) believes terrorism was once just a nuisance; b) wants to subjugate our foreign policy to the incredibly corrupt UN, among others, as part of the 'global test'; c) just plain doesn't get it that Bush is aiming for the Hydra's body, rather than keep lopping off heads, by trying to remake the geopolitical structure of the Muslim world.

If the war on jihadism is your primary concern then voting for Kerry makes exactly zero sense.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at October 30, 2004 08:22 PM

I wrapped my mind around that concept just fine. My problem is with picking estimates that confirm what you already believe and ignoring the ones that don't. That's what Rumsfeld and some associates have been doing. As far as lying goes, there's a pretty good indication that Ahmed Chalabi, one of the prime sources for the WMD accusations was deliberately feeding the US false information.

Is this a problem? I still think of terrorism as a law enforcement problem (which is a view that Kerry apparently also claims to hold on occasion), and in that vein I think of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as appropriate if overdue law enforcement actions. I'm dubious of the usefulness of the UN in such a role (your item "b"). Kerry is mistaken here.

But a "war" on jihadism? Why should we expect Kerry to support such a poorly defined concept? Killing or capturing people who kill innocents, that's well defined. Stopping the flow of funds to organizations that kill innocent people is well-defined. Making Middle East countries more democratic and have them comply with international law, that's well defined as well. I believe Bush is making some progress on these fronts. But organizing some sort of global war on a religion and/or culture (that's what you're advocating right?) sounds rather ill-defined and even counterproductive.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at October 31, 2004 03:57 PM

You ALL forgot the tie in here of the blow jobee. He SAID they, Hussein and Iraq I mean, had WMD. Information based on intel from numerous sources, gleaned before the last election. How is it that once again, Der Schlickmeister and his ilk get a pass on this WMD crap and the BAD intel they turned over to the current administration is the current administations fault. How is it that Mr Bush "outsourced" the finding of UBL, but Der Schlickmeister gets a pass on not taking him from the Sudanese. Why? Because the Liberals have their heads planted firmly between their butt cheeks and it obscures their view of the truth and their remembering the way things have actually happened. Sad!!

Posted by Steve at November 1, 2004 07:43 AM

First, it's erroneous to claim that Kerry had access to the same sources that Bush and his administration had access to. Rather, Kerry and other senators on the respective intelligence committee would have access to conclusions and supporting arguments more than the raw data.

This is sheer speculation. There is no evidence that Congress, and most especially its Intelligence oversight committees, receive redacted information. Indeed, it's most unlikely. Congress has a clear right to be completely informed about what the Executive Branch is doing and no President has ever disputed this. Presidents routinely keep at least the top leadership informed even in cases where they run grave national security risks in doing so (because, for example, they are informing Congressional leaders of planned secret military action before it occurs).

Even if it were the case that routine reports to Congress were redacted, Senators have the right to subpoena almost anyone in the Executive Branch to come testify in front of them, should they want to see and hear the "raw" data. Remember Watergate? If the Congress wants to see and hear exactly what the President sees and hears, they can.

(Unless, that is, you've gone off the deep left end and believe the President to be conducting a treasonous foreign policy that is wildly illegal and thoroughly extra-constitutional. . .)

But actually, I think you are engaged in convenient historical revisionism because you and your candidate are stung by the criticism that all this carping about Iraq in 2004 is hypocritical Monday-morning quarterbacking at its worst, since y'all said exactly the same thing as the President in 2001 and 2002. Alas, the inconvenient fact is that a majority of Congress -- including the hapless Senator Kerry -- agreed with the President about Iraq in 2001 and 2002.

Mr. Kerry would be doing better in the polls, I think, if he just sucked it up and admitted this. If he said, for example: Well, we all agreed about Iraq in 2001 and 2002. We all had the same information, it wasn't perfect information but we thought it was good enough. We all came to the same conclusion, and I suppose we all did the best we could. But now we have more information, and I realize now we were all wrong. I made a mistake (an honest mistake) and the President made a mistake (an honest mistake) and so did most of Congress, the UN, Tony Blair, et cetera. But we don't have to continue making mistakes, we can change. I will change our policies. GWB, however, doesn't see that we made a mistake, and wants to stay the course. Therefore, vote for Kerry. . .

But he doesn't say this. What that tells me is, John Kerry is not an honest man. It tells me it's more important to John Kerry that he always be right than that he always be straight, even if that requires a bit (or a lot) of revision of history (and in this regard his revision of his own history, in re Christmas in Cambodia, his role in VVAW, whether he threw medals or ribbons over the White House fence, whether he voted for or against that $87 billion, what he believes about abortion, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum is also revealing).

Why would he think this way? Because he doesn't trust us plebes to make the right decisions. He figures if we realize he made a mistake, we're not intelligent enough to trust to the basic correctness of his judgment, we're not grown-up enough to realize nothing goes perfectly, and to expect setbacks on the road to any success, and we fickle intellectual lightweights will jump ship for some other demagogue who promises us the moon and the stars.

To John Kerry, we are children that must have a strong and infallible Dad who will take care of us, who is never caught not knowing, and who has a beautifully phrased explanation for everything.

Alas for Mr. Kerry, I already have a Dad. I'm looking for a President.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 1, 2004 10:07 AM

Steve, you bring up a great point. Many of the people responsible for September 11 came from the Clinton administration and I wouldn't be surprised to see them back in positions of power if Kerry gets reelected. From what I've heard, it's disturbing how much influence some Clinton advisors have in the Kerry campaign.

Carl, you ignore a number of scandals and such over the past few decades that involve among other things withholding information from Congress, eg, Watergate, the Iran-Contra thing, and Clinton's adultery. All involve the president or more usually a subordinate withholding information from the appropriate congressional committee. In other words, this sort of thing is fairly common.

Further, my stance on the Iraqi invasion and Bush's "war" on terrorism isn't historical revisionism. Prior to the start of the Iraqi invasion, I supported it (and FWIW I posted so on this website from those days). But obviously, the intelligence was wrong. I was far more concerned by: 1) the lack of planning for after the invasion, 2) the complaints coming out of the intelligence community about the efforts of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others in the administration to bypass legitimate intelligence analysis channels and to cherry pick intelligence that supports the conclusion, and 3) widespread use of torture.

Finally, I'm not a supporter of Kerry. This thread is drifting pretty far off topic. If there's a blog or such that is better suited to discuss this topic, then I'll be interested in hearing about it. Otherwise, we'll see who wins tomorrow. FWIW, Bush is projected to be more likely to win in the overseas betting markets at around 55%.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 1, 2004 12:01 PM

Carl, you ignore a number of scandals. . .

1. I don't ignore them. They were scandals because there was widespread public awareness of them and because they were rare. Both facts buttress my assertion that it's your case to make that John Kerry was deceived by others, rather than by himself. Analogy: that there are occasionally high-profile serial murder trials does not prove undetected serial murder is so commonplace it may be assumed to exist when convenient.

2. I think your examples are weakly relevant, at best. In all three you cite acts of the executive which in themselves were peripheral and not so much hidden as initially overlooked by Congress, and which possibly showed a lack of principle in the executive. I say "possibly" because, of course, another major characteristic of these three scandals is that there was (and is) no clear majority opinion about whether, in the end, they should have been considered impeachable offences.

None of this applies to Kerry's putative deception, which would be over a major policy decision about which he was (or should have been) intensely interested in becoming fully informed. It should not have been possible to fly under a Senator's radar on this issue, and if it was, it's the Senator's own express fault. He makes the laws. The Constitution gives him and Congress wide latitude in seeing that and how they are enforced.

...my stance on the Iraqi invasion...isn't historical revisionism. . .

I don't suggest you are rewriting your own history but rather the history of Congress' support for the President's decisions on Iraq.

I was far more concerned by 1) the lack of planning for after the invasion, 2) the complaints coming out of the intelligence community about the efforts of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others in the administration to bypass legitimate intelligence analysis channels and to cherry pick intelligence that supports the conclusion, and 3) widespread use of torture.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

Although I suppose I might ask...

(1) What makes you think there was no, or insufficient planning? The mere fact that the war brought some unexpected problems? If so, you have remarkably high standards. Do none of your own personal high-stakes ventures (marriage, career choice, investments) ever have unexpected aspects that make your prior planning seem less than top-notch?

(2) Wouldn't the important question with respect to intelligence analysis be not whether it was legitimate but whether it was correct? Your cherry-picking observation is either banal (because everyone prefers to believe facts that confirm previous opinion) or illogical (because you assume the Secretary of War is less rational than you, and would choose to ignore intelligence strongly suggesting the course of action he's embarked on would lead straight to disaster).

(3) If you use the adjective widespread to refer to the use of torture by American troops in Iraq, I wonder what adjective you have reserved for the use of torture by Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Posted by Carl Pham at November 2, 2004 11:42 AM

Oops.

Mr. Rumsfeld's [politically] correct title is, of course, Secretary of Defense.

Posted by Carl Pham at November 2, 2004 11:46 AM

Post a comment