It took him long enough
Published Tue, Jun 10 2008 6:01 PM
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has offered Articles of Impeachment in Congress against President Bush alleging that he lied to Congress and that he's guilty of war crimes. He's been promising to do this since 2006 and even before then.
But, did President Bush actually lie? Allegedly the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence released a report that tells us that he did. That's what I've been hearing for the last several days, and if it's true, then maybe Rep. Kucinich has a case. Still, from a cursory reading, the Washington Post (not exactly a beacon of conservative media bias) appears to have come to a different conclusion.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
Isn't it interesting that Sen. Rockefeller (the current chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) himself said in October of 2002…
There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
This from the man that's skewing the report's conclusion to take "issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held."
The minority dissent is full of statements from Democratic Senators that are similar to Sen. Rockefeller's statements in 2002.
The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."
When will this tired old canard, this political myth that "Bush Lied" die? We may have to wait until Sen. Obama's hopes to win "Jimmy Carter's second term" go down to defeat in November. While you're waiting though... here's a bit of a blast from the past.
"There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
— Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."
– Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
– Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
– Al Gore, 2002
Ah, I hear you say. All of that is AFTER President Bush spoke to Congress, so maybe he lied after all? Maybe not... let's set the wayback machine a few years earlier shall we?
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"
– National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
— From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”
— Madeline Albright, 1998
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”
— Bill Clinton in 1998
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”
— Tom Daschle in 1998
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
— Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
I think it's long past time that this canard was put to rest. George Bush wasn't even running for President in 1998. If he anticipated in 1998 that somehow he'd
- Run for President
- Lose the Popular Vote
- Have to counter-sue in Federal Court after the winner of a mere plurality of the Popular vote sued to have the results in Florida overturned.
- Take his case all the way to the Supreme Court and win - despite the 5-4 liberal majority of justices there.
- Become a "wartime" president after tricking the world into believing that Al Qaeda had destroyed the twin towers of the world trade center in New York, a field in Pennsylvania and part of the pentagon.
- Finally have the chance to "finish what his daddy started" in Iraq.
... if only he could somehow convince Democrats in 1998 that Saddam was a threat to world peace and then manipulate the intelligence that everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike were seeing so that he could "lie" his way into a war. If he anticipated that back in 1998 and carefully orchestrated things so that five years later he'd be able to do all that, then tell me...
... Why is it that a man who could pull off a complex five year plan like that, fooling the brightest minds on the left and in the intelligence community, is considered a gibbering idiot by his enemies on the left? And don't tell me it was some master plan of Karl Rove's.
Rep. Kucinich is an idiot. And so is anyone that still falls for the "Bush Lied" myth. That goes for certain presidential nominees too.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1171
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/6/10/1171.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Angel responded with:
 | what a tool this man is..shame on all of them Perri! |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | Again, it all comes down to education. It almost seems strange that politicians can hold such widely disparate positions over time. The quotes from 1998 seem to be forgotten by the Democratic party of today, because they are holding the completely opposite position today in so many cases. Of course, this simply argues for the idea that they think that the public is stupid and won't remember and call them to account for their previous words. Their allies in the media (and we know the media has HUGE archives of this stuff) play along with them so that perhaps people DON'T remember. Their allies in the public education system play along too, teaching students WHAT to think. How many times have we read about teachers pushing a political agenda from the classroom rather than allowing open discussion of issues? Games like this make it obvious to anyone that cares to do a little research just how much contempt today's politicians hold for the electorate. The situation I've illustrated covers a span of a decade, but Presidential campaigners really take the cake, with Barack Obama holding totally different positions just a week apart in his campaign. It all depends on where they're campaigning and to what audience. The thing to remember about this particular issue is Rep. Kucinich is a FAILED presidential candidate, and he's simply using the House floor to campaign to his peers. Why else have the clerk read the entire content of the Articles of Impeachment over the course of several hours? |