All presidents lie
I suppose most of them—or at least many of them—do.
About sex.
About any number of things–usually minor things, or self-serving face-saving things when caught in error, or about things like smoking marijuana.
They also make errors: Bush on WMDs would be a good example, or Bush I’s promise not to raise taxes.
But I can think of no president who has lied in the way Obama has: about the fundamentals of who he is politically. About his plans for the United States. About the most basic details of a huge program he’s promoting, knowing he’s lying even as he’s promoting it.
That’s why I get so angry when I hear Obama supporters excusing him by saying “all presidents lie.” Not like Obama, they don’t.
Not to mention that long, long ago, in that time of hope and change and dewy-eyed voter optimism known as 2008, Obama was considered by his supporters to be someone who was above all that. Now they are reduced to shrugging their shoulders cynically and saying he’s no worse than all the others.
But actually, he is. Much worse. All lies are not created equal.
I always thought “I didn’t inhale” was an idiotic lie. Whatever the truth was behind it, what idiot votes for a guy who says that?
I agree with the point that not all lies are equal, and that Obama has told many lies, and exceptionally bad ones.
One perhaps minor lie interests me. In a debate with McCain, they were asked about their most difficult decsion. McCain’s answer was the expected one about the NVA offer to release him early, but Obama stated it was not supporting the decision of his country to go to war in Iraq.
How can that be a difficult decision? It was decision without consequence to Obama as he sat in the IL state senate in 2002. He had all the say I did in that decision. Was he trying to trick LIV into thinking he was in the federal senate voting against it? Was it just a dig at Bush, reminding everyone of the hated war? Whatever the answer, it seems he had a very low opinion of his potential supporters.
I get angry, too. At this point there have been so many lies, I start with the assumption Barack Obama is lying. He has to prove to me he is not lying. That is a pretty sorry state of affairs for our President.
Actually, Eisenhower said that it was very important that the POTUS never lie to the American people. He believed that when the President spoke to the people, they should know that he spoke truth. That is why he never answered any questions about Gary Powers and the U2.
His surrogates lied about it as long as they could; but, he did not..
A further point on the “all presidents lie” meme is that so many of those who say “all presidents lie” were once shouting at the top of their lungs, Bush lied, thousands died.” The alleged lies meme generally reference the WMD controversy and “mission accomplished” speech on the aircraft carrier.
Upon careful examination of what Bush said, these were not lies. As Neo points out, Bush was mistaken about WMDs, as were many other people. Similarly with “mission accomplished:” at the time, Bush acknowledged that the US and its allies still faced problems in Iraq. “Mission accomplished” referred to having toppled Saddam and the end of major military actions in Iraq. As such, it was neither a lie nor a misrepresentation of what the US and its allies faced in Iraq. But as partisan advantage could be gained by charging Bush with lying, the lying meme was pushed.
The ” all Presidents lie” meme is but one more illustration of what I have observed about the Democrats over the years: for many if not all Democrats, principles are adhered to only for partisan advantage, and are readily abandoned when doing so will gain partisan advantage.
As a third party voter in 2000, I saw how the Democrats suddenly decided that the rules for counting ballots in Florida needed to be changed- in Democrat-controlled counties where Democrats controlled the ballot design and rules for throwing out ballots. [Funny how often Demos claim how dumb Pubs are, but then suddenly decide that Demo voters are too dumb to decipher a ballot which Demos designed.]
How many times in the last ten years has the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts legislature changed the procedures for filling a US Senate seat vacated in mid term? I believe THREE times, each change depending on who controlled the Governor’s seat at the time.
The “all Presidents” lie meme is but one more illustration of how Democrats lack principle and will say anything to gain partisan advantage, regardless of how this may violate any principles the Democrats previously claimed to support.
The Benghazi lie sent chills down my spine. It wasn’t the usual equivocation and fudging. It was an invented narrative cut from whole cloth, a whopper, a falsifying of the historical record. That they lied so readily, and so (apparently) unnecessarily, set off a deep alarm in me. It seemed so wild, so out of control.
Now I see the dots between that lie and the health care lies connected.
Everything Obama says is untruthful. Take this example:
“We all know the arguments that have been used against a higher minimum wage. Some say it actually hurts low-wage workers — businesses will be less likely to hire them. But there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs.”
There is solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs but, in typical Obama fashion, he asserts the opposite.
Of course none of Neo’s readers are surprised by this president’s penchant for lying. One of the ones that really bugs me is his PR material for his books. The brochures and what not that say he is Kenyan. The material that he let stand for 15 years or whatever until 2007.
Can you imagine if Romney had lied on a resume for 15 years and said he was the captain of the Michigan football team when he never played football? Would anyone take him seriously? Would any of Obama’s voters hire someone who they knew was telling such large whoppers about themselves to make themselves more interesting?
How can people take seriously a fantasist who creates “composite girlfriends” and says he never met his uncle when he stayed with him for three weeks? This guy is pathological and I’m losing my ability to not outwardly disdain and mock anyone who still believes in him.
No other president has enjoyed such a compliant media. Perhaps if they would occasionally fact check the Liar in Chief he might be a little more careful with the truth. Instead they are active co-conspirators doing everything they can to rationalize and justify his rhetoric.
“They all do it” is the same meme the left used when the Rapist was President. All Presidents cheat on their wives. No not really.
And not all Presidents are psychopathic liars. Minor white lies are not the issue here. The lies of the mulatto Messiah are about fundamental national and international issues. They go well beyond any personal behavior.
But given that the voting public now apparently is largely low IQ/Information voters there is likely to be nothing coming of any of the Presidents lies.
What astonishes me is how casually he lies and he lies when the truth would do just as well. That’s pathological.
Gringo:
A variation on that theme, which I’ve already heard, is that Obama’s lies aren’t bad because nobody died, as opposed to Bush’s WMD lies.
Leaving aside, of course, the fact that Bush wasn’t lying, he was mistaken. Or that, if Obamacare goes on this way, people will die as a result, just as the left says they did from lack of insurance prior to Obamacare—because many will still lack insurance. Or that the war in Iraq saved lives, too, because it prevented Saddam from killing more people.
I’m playing with words here . . .
Yes, all presidents lie; but so few have:
deceived
misinformed
mislead
tricked
swindled
betrayed
conned
cheated
defrauded
duped
deluded
bamboozled
gypped
shafted
suckered
snookered
and just plain hoodwinked the public to the extent that Obama has – and he has had such willling, eager helpers in the news media.
Barry is in the same — low — class as the worst tyrants of the 20th Century when it comes to mendacity.
“But, it’s not a lie if you believe it!”
But, Barry doesn’t believe in anything, not even himself.
This is a direct consequence of being a Reactive-Dependent aka Gonnabee.
He HAS to believe in the Dreams FROM my Father.
=====
For new readers:
It’s now absolutely established that Barry’s biological father was and is Frank Marshall Davis — the card-carrying Communist. And, for sure, Barry knows it.
This means that his actual birth in Kenya is irrelevant. His standing to hold the office is IDENTICAL to John McCain — who was born in the Canal Zone to American citizens.
The Kenyan government, BTW, has NEVER failed to assert that Barry was born there.
His birth certificate — take your pick — are flaming frauds on their face. He’s NEVER produced the PHYSICAL certificate — to anyone. All that exists is a pdf file! Yes, that’s right. Do your own research.
As for the absolute proof:
1) Born August 4, 1961 — conceived election night 1960, basic biology — the nine month rule.
2) FMD, the pornographer, took private snaps of (first trimester) Stanley Ann Dunham — in front of the 1960 Christmas tree — of which the presents indicate that it is likely Christmas Eve — wearing a smile and shoes — and nothing else.
Subsequently, FMD published said photos in HARD COPY lo those decades ago. This is no photoshop.
Still later, said pics were uploaded to the World Wide Web. You’re encouraged to Google around. (I don’t want to post the link as that would merely speed the day of its suppression.)
The pics establish, without a doubt, that Frank was a butt man.
They also establish that Stanley Ann was a Girl-In-Love — with Frank Marshall Davis. Obama, Sr. had not entered her life yet. There is NO way that she was impregnated by Obama, Sr, and then slutty enough to have Frank take porno snaps. ONLY her lover could take those snaps. And the pictures ONLY appear in FMD’s published collection.
That the date is December 1960 is obvious from the record. She moved out of his life after that time — and was not his lover in 1959, for Barry was born in 1961.
ANY shred of hope that he’s the son of anyone else is utterly gone.
This totally explains is first autobiography and the immense amount of time that his ‘pal’ Frank spent indoctrinating him when he was a teen — as Stanley Ann left the scene.
Well, no wonder.
Any thought that Barry has abandonment issues can be put to rest. Without a doubt, Barry knows the true back story and in his own soul does not have feelings of abandonment.
His anti-Americanism, of course, springs straight from his father, a truly weird and alienated pervert. By his writings, his snaps, a total creep. What kind of pervert publishes PRIVATE snaps of a teen lover — a gal that’s carrying his child?
Copy and paste this….
In the fullness of time all of this will come pouring out into reality-space to become acknowledged history.
blert:
You are going on the assumption that the photos are of Obama’s mother.
They are almost certainly not.
neo — This man lied “[a]bout the most basic details of a huge program he’s promoting, knowing he’s lying even as he’s promoting it.”
I am treading on very questionable ground when I nitpick my esteemed hostess/landlord, but . . .
the use of the word “details” stopped me short. Maybe “particulars” or “features”. Whaddaya say?
M J R: Yes indeed, “features” is much better.
People died in Libya and Mexico and on the US border. Obama clearly lied about Libya and almost certainly lied about Fast and Furious.
Many stories and theories can be spun about BHO. His endless lies can be listed and commented on. But, the reality is what we know for certain: BHO is a pathological narcissistic, dictator wannabe.
I entered “Frank Marshall Davis” on Google Images. Who am I supposed to believe, Barack Obama or my lying eyes?
It’s easy really, if he says he will absolutely do something, he wont. If he says something will never happen, count on it. As a firearms enthusiast I breathed a sigh of relief when he swore he would pass gun control.
He is also the first to routinely blame large groups of Americans for problems and/or pit them against each other.
He does not understand that you stop campaigning after the election and govern for all the people.
He has quite a list of firsts.
Darrell…
What’s really creepy is that Adolf was the FIRST tyrant to keep on campaigning for office — after he was dictator.
Remember the famous “Ya” campaign?
He NEVER stopped taking polling! That was a first.
Goebbels was in charge, of course.
The other fellow famous for never ending his campaign: Bill Clinton. He had Dick Morris on staff — forever.
As Ray says, it’s pathological, and even deeper than that. Obama lacks any moral sense of right or wrong when it comes to what he wants to do. If he thinks it, it’s right, and therefore whatever he says or does is right. It’s not ever entered his head he’s wrong about anything. This we all know. Therefore the concept that anything he says is wrong, or nonfactual, is a foreign to him as breathing water is to land mammals. You can only understand what you say is a lie if you accept what you have said is incorrect – this seems obvious to a truthful person or someone who accepts truth lie outside one’s self- but all truth to BO is within himself.
There are no people in any of our experience so completely devoid of humility, or whose opinion of himself so high, that the rest of us can’t accept the lying an an artifact of his sociopathic personality.
Scumbag barely scratches the surface, but the other stuff isn’t fit to print.
“How can people take seriously a fantasist who creates “composite girlfriends” and says he never met his uncle when he stayed with him for three weeks?” Barry
The inimitable Victor Davis Hanson just addressed that very question; Obama and the Suspension of Disbelief
Those criteria of “intent, words and agenda” are the criteria that all on the left, hard core leftists or duped liberal, now evaluate everything and everyone by, political correctness is the litmus test by which ‘goodness’ is judged.
Thus, no matter what Obama does, he’s a ‘good’ guy with the ‘right’ intentions.
Southpaw,
You nailed it. I don’t think Obama ever had anyone teach him that morality was personal, that is, you have to make personal choices about how you act. He seems to have always existed in an environment where things like social justice and fairness were get out of jail cards for his own failings and where the word pragmatism was used to disguise disconnects between his alleged high principles and his actual deeds.
I’ve often said it’s important and relevant to popularly rehabilitate Bush’s legacy, particularly on Iraq. It’s not an exaggeration that Obama was elected President in 2008 based on the Dems false-narrative propaganda about the Iraq mission. It has fundamentally shaped the enduring zeitgeist, and the Dems continue to cite to it as a primary excuse/defense of Obama. By publicly discrediting the Dems false-narrative propaganda on Bush and Iraq, the Dems would be discredited and the zeitgeist could be reclaimed.
From my blog:
Neo: “Not to mention that long, long ago, in that time of hope and change and dewy-eyed voter optimism known as 2008, Obama was considered by his supporters to be someone who was above all that.”
It’s willful on their part. Even setting aside the unsavory parts of Obama’s early political history that were obscured or ignored in the 2007-08 election campaign, remember the Reverend Wright controversy and Obama’s response to it?
That was out in the open. Both the controversy and Obama’s actions within it revealed Obama’s cultivated transcendent persona to be phony, yet a controversy that should have ended his presidential run was deliberately forgiven and forgotten, and the transcendent persona cleaned of it like teflon.
What comes out of Obama’s mouth is what goes in it.
(I’m being facetious here, M J R!J)
Who is the father of lies! And to that father, Saul Alinsky dedicated his work. And Obama is a disciple of Alinsky.
Stanley Kurtz identified that the core of Obama was lying. Obama is a liar, an unrepentant liar, one who lies and from whose lies death will follow if we allow that “everyone lies.”
No, we must make Obama and his followers and his handlers pay for their lies. If we do not, they will make us pay for our weakness.
I ♥ people who have perspective.
Look, I believe Bush senior and junior were good people. Some people believe he was a dunce or evil, etc. But I think that was based on disagreements with his policy.
It’s not that I disagree with Obama on his policy – it’s that I KNOW he is intellectually lazy as the way he treats EVERY piece of alternative information whether it’s coming from Paul Ryan or tea baggers as completely out of bounds to even consider.
So… what we have is somebody who will ONLY listen to one point of view and that is lazy.
Then he takes on the demonizer in chief role and articlulates an inaccurate point of view, ascribes it to conservatives and then knocks down that strawman.
OK – Let’s just say fine to all of the above – but then let’s just look at what he says HIS POSITIONS ARE. His positions are not supported by his actions or by the legislation or executive orders he writes or signs. He continually steps over bounds and acts as if he hasn’t. Nobody can tell him anything so he does whatever he wants.
The problem is people – he’s hurting a LOT of PEOPLE. People with cancer are losing their cheaper coverage that had doctors they liked. People with families are losing their plans that they liked.
I don’t know why but even likable liberals like Kirsten Powers keeps acting like the Obamacare plans are better when they have less supporting doctors on the plan and they cost more than the insurance the people had.. His lies have perpetuated by lazy non-thinking liberals…. Some are getting it. Some are. .But now the Jmu Greens of the world. Common sense and facts are impenetrable.
Obama is a wicked hateful man.
The people who support him are worse.
Never forget that. They are worse. They support this monster, knowing full well he is a monster, for their own aggrandizement or egos.
The worst thing ever in American History is the Democrat Voter of today.
Hitler was noting without his supporters. They made him and rightly was Germany “the nation” punished after WWII. Democrats today are no better than the people who supported Hitler. They are the same dog, different breed is all.
Have people figured out yet that Saddam’s WMD were shipped to Syria when the UN was busy giving time away?
delete.the.alternative, 9:16 pm — “What comes out of Obama’s mouth is what goes in it.
“(I’m being facetious here, M J R!)”
[ chuckles ] I’m with ya here, friend. Go for it!
“Who is the father of lies! And to that father, Saul Alinsky dedicated his work. And Obama is a disciple of Alinsky.”
And here, referenced and spelled out, is the allusion (turns out it’s biblical, KJV John 8):
42 Jesus said unto them, [ dot dot dot ]
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Ymar,
And…. if all politicians across multiple continents were saying the same thing concerning WMD’s, what was the lie?
Crazy world.
In this world now – Insurance companies, people who are getting dumped, cancer patients who are losing their coverage, businesses, etc are all putting out facts and figures contrary to the liar in chief.
Baklava, 12:55 am — “And…. if all politicians across multiple continents were saying the same thing concerning WMD’s, what was the lie?”
Yes. Going all the way to the John Kerrys and Hillary Clintons of the world. They were all warning of Saddam Hussein’s weapons, until they figured out it was in their political interest for politics to *not* stop at the nation’s shores.
Won’t get started on the insurance companies, and so on — except to note that as early as 2010, people with “R” after their name, such as Sen Mike Enzi, were warning of people getting their insurance cancelled due to the requirements of the law we had to pass so we could peek inside and see what was in it.
I saw a video yesterday of Sen. Harry Reid, with a “D” after his name, explaining how the misunderstandings came to pass. Ready? . . .
Between the time ACA was being considered and then passed, and the last quarter of 2013, said Reid, many, many insurance companies had updated their policies. And so, said Reid, the policies people held in 2010 are no longer the same policies they hold now. Therefore, said Reid, the promise “if you like your health care plan. you can keep your health care plan”, is void, no longer applicable — because people’s health care plans are no longer the plans now that they were in 2010.
I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears either. I watched/listened to Reid’s “reasoning” again, but there it was again, essentially as I just spelled it out.
“Crazy world”, opines Baklava. Worse, frets M J R.
Have people figured out yet that Saddam’s WMD were shipped to Syria when the UN was busy giving time away?
Beat me to it!
And we even have an IRAQI GENERAL who said as much, do we not? But, crickets. . . .
Pray that the right will thrive, folks.
Ymarsakar,
There’s a reason that despite all the hollering about the illegality of Op Iraqi Freedom, there have been no successful legal actions challenging it, and it’s not for lack of trying.
OIF was started on solid legal and policy grounds, 12 years in the intensive making. The UN, and Bush for that matter, shouldn’t be faulted (too much) for “giving time away” in 2002-2003 to Saddam to do whatever with his proscribed weapons because that time was used to dot the i’s and cross the t’s in following the established procedure for enforcing the ceasefire and resolutions.
Yes, technically, Bush could have cited Iraq’s on-going material breaches and picked up at the point Clinton had set the Iraq enforcement in 1998 when Clinton declared Saddam had failed his last chance. A fair argument can be made that Bush should have relied on our record with Iraq he inherited from Clinton and ordered Op Desert Fox, part 2, rather than Op Iraqi Freedom, especially given Clinton’s warning in 1998 when he rapidly bombed Iraq that “If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.”
But at the same time, I can’t fault Bush for opting to give Saddam an elongated second last chance to comply on the resolutions, not limited to WMD, and account for Iraq’s proscribed weapons to the mandated standard. Bush was, if anything, overly conscientious providing credible enforcement to empower the second last chance for Saddam to comply while also trying to forestall war.
Within the procedure, simply not knowing whether Saddam had hidden gleaming WMD stockpiles, labs, and factories, or had in fact destroyed everything in secret was enough to trigger military enforcement because Iraq’s guilt was presumed. Our enforcement – by design – could only be switched off when Saddam proved Iraq’s rehabilitation by sufficiently accounting for his proscribed weapons and complying with the full slate of resolutions.
Dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, Saddam was given another last chance to do both in 2002-03. Iraq did neither.
It may or may not be true that Saddam used that suspicious truck convoy to ship out warehouse loads of NBC stocks and dismantled labs and factories to Syria. Perhaps the Syrian chem weapons being, maybe, destroyed are actually Iraqi in origin in a hall-of-fame cover-up. From a procedural standpoint, all of that’s irrelevant.
Procedurally, what is relevant is that OIF was triggered by Saddam’s failure to account for his proscribed weapons and failure to comply with the resolutions, not limited to WMD.
Just know that every time you emphasize the *unproven* supposition that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria, you are effectively reinforcing the Left and Dems’ false premise that Bush held the burden of proof on Iraq’s proscribed weapons when, in fact, the entire burden of proof was on Iraq.
The true premise is Iraq failed to meet its burden of proof despite Bush gracing Saddam with an elongated second last chance to meet his burden and thereby prevent war *after* Clinton had, in 1998, already declared Saddam failed his last chance and warned of the danger of giving Saddam “more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.”
The real story is Saddam failed to account for his WMD and failed to comply with the resolutions, not that Bush failed to prove Iraq possessed WMD.
There are 3 primary reasons I see Dems opposing the war.
1. An actual war demands performance, so Diane Feinstein and blue dog Democrats couldn’t funnel enough military contracts to cronyies. They wanted that cash for domestic development, favor buying, and personal corruption.
2. Getting rid of totalitarian regimes or destroying WMD proliferation to their allies, Islamic Jihad, were things they didn’t want to come to pass. It might lead back to Chicago, DC, central.
3. They wanted to preserve military cannonfodder for Democrat wars, like Obama’s, so they didn’t want people to support or like wars under Republicans. The Left has not entirely given up infiltrating the US military with gays, feminists out for power, and various others cliques and factions.
General Casey can be known as “Diversity” casey, because of what he said during Ft. Hood’s incident and what he failed to do with Iraq.
So no performance, but big on Democrat ideological loyalties. So he gets promoted, even if he shouldn’t be. Thus he determines who else gets promoted. In a hierarchical system, the Left requires patience such as with the infiltration of the Catholic Church. The corruption isn’t discovered until decades later and then blamed on worthy enemies.
Pingback:News and Commentary for December 7 | Palo Verde Republican Women
Pingback:News and Commentary for December 7 | The Joke's On Us
On the tangential subject of the failure of effective RINO opposition; an article from NRO by Michael Walsh: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/365573/notes-underground-michael-walsh
That pretty well sums up my thinking about the establishment Republicans.
His Infantile Majesty lies constantly for all the reasons written by N-Neocon. And, in the easiest prediction I’ve ever made, he will continue to Lie Big Time until his end-of-days. Malignant. Pathological. Easily delivered. Like breathing. And, he’s worn millions of us out. I seem incapable of ‘Getting’ that the black population(By Far) gives him a Forever Write-Off”. And we who state the truth over and over are racists, homophobes, Christian nutters and facists. 50-years of the Great Society carnage and the black family is history and their values have largely vaporized. Thank You, Demof***s.
Demoncrats, rule for and by demons. Simple system.
Everybody knows this one: You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. – Abraham Lincoln
“It is wise to remember that you are one of those who can be fooled some of the time.” – Laurence Peter (The Peter Principle)
Someone above spoke of Althouse being fooled. Don’t forget even Peggy Noonan was as well. I have not been back to Noonan’s column since (before the first election). I am clueless to understand how a former speechwriter for Reagan could but into Obama.
Noonan is one of those people who likes authorities and man made gods. She saw Reagan as a rising star, wrote for him, because she wanted to be in the shadow of this divinity, in her eyes.
Without Reagan, Noonan is a person cast adrift, looking for a new God to serve. And in that, Obama appeared.
Noonan never thought for herself. She was never an independent thinker. She was always enthrall to power and authority figures. If the authority is good, like Reagan, then she is good as a mirror reflects the user. If the authority is Obama…
br549,
Your answer is Noonan is a “former speechwriter for Reagan”, emphasis on her occupation, not on her affiliation with Reagan. She’s not a technocrat nor manager nor leader. She’s a PR person.
Noonan’s perspective on political affairs is guided by her stock in trade, therefore she values most the words, the flash, and the image. And as a textbook Max-Weberian charismatic authority, Obama specializes in those aspects that Noonan is predisposed to value the most in a presidential candidate.
Ymarsakar,
My point being, the ‘Bush lied, thousands died’ meme that Democrats rely upon to excuse any transgression by Obama is based on a false premise.
If the assertion that Saddam hid his proscribed weapons in Syria is ever proven, that’s different, but it’s not. As is, attempting to counter the ‘Bush lied, thousands died’ meme on its terms with an unproven assertion only serves to reinforce the Democrats’ false premise and false narrative on the Iraq enforcement.
To defeat the strawman meme, and reform the zeitgeist, a direct countering of the meme is insufficient. It’s necessary to reframe the issue. The best way to do so is emphasizing the accurate context in the public history of the Iraq enforcement.
Americans can’t even reframe the accurate context in the public history of why and how the Democrats started the 1st US Civil War or how President Johnson the Democrat sabotaged Reconstruction in the South to make people suffer and give Democrats more political power.
The immediate way to get rid of enemy propaganda is to kill the propagandists. The information war in the battlespace can support that, but it alone cannot kill the idea because it keeps being propagated.
It’s pointless trying to rehabilitate zombies and people who cannot think for themselves. It makes little difference if they believe our side of things vs the enemy’s. They aren’t permanently converted or strong allies. If they lack the will to fight for themselves and their own goals, information control doesn’t do much except equal the playing field.
Add: Even Neo, who knows the truth, makes the mistake of reinforcing the Democrats’ false premise on the Iraq enforcement, thereby aiding the ‘Bush lied, thousands died’ meme used to excuse Obama.
Neo: “They also make errors: Bush on WMDs would be a good example”
Bush did not make an error regarding Iraq’s guilt on WMDs because Iraq’s guilt on WMD was a fact established in the ceasefire and resolutions, and by subsequent events in Iraq.
The issue at bar that defined the scope of the Iraq enforcement was whether Iraq had, in addition to complying with the non-weapons resolutions, sufficiently accounted for its proscribed weapons – *not* whether Iraq demonstrably possessed proscribed weapons.
On the issue at bar, Bush was entirely correct that Saddam had not sufficiently accounted for Iraq’s proscribed weapons.
Where Bush went wrong was neither the substance nor execution of the Iraq enforcement but rather his presentation of the public case where Bush deviated from Clinton’s public case.
As Clinton (essentially) pointed out, Bush shouldn’t have claimed new affirmative knowledge of Iraqi WMD in the public case because it was not an element of the charges against Saddam. In doing so, Bush confused the issue at bar in the public political discourse (the jury).
It became a mistake that was maximally exploited in propaganda by the Democrats and America’s opponents.
The Harvard MBA was right on the substance, ie, “Bush on WMDs”, but made a presentation mistake in oral arguments that his predecessor, the Yale JD, knew to avoid.
Eric:
You are making an error about what I’m saying.
If you go back and read old posts of mine about Iraq (and particularly the Duelfer Report) I have been quite clear and consistent that the invasion of Iraq rested on a host of things other than the actual finding of WMDs there.
However, Bush also said that Saddam had WMDs ready and waiting to go. Either Saddam transferred them somewhere in a timely fashion (for which the evidence is weak at this point) or he hadn’t quite gotten to the point of having the weaponry. I believe the latter was true, and that that was Bush’s error.
Do a search for “Duelfer” on this blog and start reading. There are plenty of other posts about it, too.
I am of the opinion Saddam used up many of his weapons of mass destruction, and sent the bit that was left to Syria. I am also of the opinion the U.S. sold most of those weapons, or the technology, to him, in the first place. The claim of the left about them never being there – just like with Kennedy and Nixon in the debates – Bush knew things he could not say, the democrats knew that, and used it against him.
The population of the world, not totally buried in tribal society, has a standard of living built from standing on the shoulders of giants. White ones, for the most part. However, human nature itself has not changed, and I doubt it ever will. “Entropy” fully explains where our nation is at this time. If not for entropy, wouldn’t the Muslims be ruling the world? The Chinese? Greeks? Hell, take your pick.
Neo,
That’s why I said “Neo, who knows the truth” and pointed out your statement in this post.
“Bush also said …”
As I said, Bush’s error was in how he presented his public case. He presented it both ways: we have intel that Iraq’s programs are active, and we don’t know for sure the current status, which means the imputed danger of a noncompliant Saddam is controlling with the added consideration of post-9/11 threat.
Intel indicators that Saddam had revived his WMD ops weren’t new in 2002. Those indicators existed before the close of the Clinton admin. Moreover, setting aside latter-day development of WMD by Iraq, Clinton admitted we didn’t know what, if any, Iraqi WMD capability was actually degraded by Op Desert Fox.
When I did my school research on the subject, the key to understanding the significance of the intel to the Iraq enforcement was the realization that Clinton’s intel on Iraq’s WMD was no more reliable than Bush’s intel. Although meaningful in real terms – eg, the possibility that unaccounted Iraqi weapons would be used by terrorists – the reliability of our intel was irrelevant to the Iraq enforcement.
Iraq’s guilt on WMD was established from the outset as fact. The CIA and other intel agencies weren’t responsible for demonstrating Iraq had WMD because the burden of proof was entirely on Iraq.
Bush acted on Iraq based on the same substantive bases and procedure as formulated by Clinton. The change to the Iraq policy from Clinton to Bush was the added urgency to resolve the Iraq problem expeditiously due to the threat considerations added from 9/11.
So, was Bush “wrong on WMDs”?
Bush was correct that there was intel on Iraqi WMD. Bush was correct that Iraq had not sufficiently accounted for its WMD and was noncompliant on the range of resolutions, which was the relevant element for the Iraq enforcement. Bush was correct that in the absence of knowledge of Iraq’s compliance, then the presumption of guilt and imputed danger of noncompliant Saddam was controlling. Bush was correct that 9/11 changed the threat assessment of a noncompliant Saddam.
Where Bush went wrong was the over-statement of the relevance of intel in the Iraq enforcement. As Clinton said, Bush should have just left it out of his public case. It wasn’t necessary. By emphasizing the intel inapposite to the actual Iraq enforcement, Bush deviated from the substantive bases and procedure of the Iraq enforcement, and confused the public. It was a mistake that Clinton carefully did not make in his public case as President and then in his (initial) support of Bush.
The Left, Democrats, and our enemies twisted Bush’s error of presentation in their propaganda as dispositive evidence that ‘Bush lied, thousands died’. Their inference is that but for Bush’s presentation of the intel on Iraq’s WMD, there would have had been no conflict with Iraq.
In fact, the Iraq problem, and the bases and procedure to resolve the problem, matured during the Clinton administration.
As you’ve noted, OIF was triggered by Iraq’s failure to comply on multiple fronts, not limited to proscribed weapons.
The relevance of Bush’s presentation of the intel is further attenuated by the fact that if Bush had rested his case on ignorance of the status of Iraq’s WMD – as Clinton had set the precedent with his public case for Op Desert Fox – then the effect would have been the same:
The imputed danger of a noncompliant Saddam, heightened by post-9/11 threat considerations, Iraq’s failure to comply with the range of resolutions, and Iraq’s failure to sufficiently account for its WMD vis-a-vis UNMOVIC, thus triggering OIF, as Op Desert Fox had been triggered.
Add: The Duelfer report does show that Iraq was guilty, but as far as using it to justify the Iraq enforcement after the fact, the Duelfer report doesn’t move me much.
It’s informative in real terms, but the investigation that the report is based on was made under different, post-war conditions than the conditions for the pre-OIF Iraq enforcement.
I’m satisfied the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC reports verify that Iraq failed to meet the mandated standard for compliance within the scope of the Iraq enforcement.
Colin Powell, Tony Blair, and probably even Condi Rice played an important part in adjusting Bush’s gut reflexes.
Remember how they would propagandize and blaster the line that X number of Americans have died in Iraq on every cable and local news network every single day of the Iraq conflict under Bush’s two terms?
When’s the last time anyone heard the daily news talk about bombings and casualties in Afghanistan?
Ymarsakar,
I don’t know why Bush went off message. If Powell, Blair, and Rice instigated Bush to deviate from Clinton’s public case on Iraq regarding the presentation of the intel, then they’re responsible for a lot of damage.
It didn’t take a genius to get it right.
The unreliability of the intel on Iraq’s WMD was not a new phenomenon in 2002. In fact, from early in the Iraq enforcement, the unreliability of the intel and Saddam’s evolving ability to evade our intel were main, constant, interlocking themes of the Iraq problem, well covered by the media.
It was known from inception that the Iraq enforcement would not be effective if the burden of proof was on the enforcers. Therefore, the procedure was constructed with the presumption of guilt and burden of proof placed on Iraq.
The role of the intel agencies was assisting in the compliance verification, not investigation. It was not the CIA’s job to find WMD in Iraq.
As such, Clinton stayed within the lines of the procedure when he made his public case on Iraq. When Clinton supported Bush on Iraq, Clinton cited to his own public case on Iraq, not Bush’s public case.
Clinton handed to Bush a fully formed Iraq enforcement playbook with public case, laws, policies, and precedents. Bush followed the rest of the playbook faithfully. Bush did not need to, and should not have, deviated from Clinton’s public case on Iraq other than adding the urgency to resolve the Iraq problem expeditiously due to post-9/11 threat considerations.
Again, I don’t know why Bush made such an obvious error on the presentation of the intel when the unreliability of the intel had been a prominent theme of the Iraq enforcement from the beginning. And when the procedure had been programmed to de-emphasize the role of intel. And when Clinton had given Bush the way to work around the intel deficiency in the public case.
br549 Says:
December 8th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
“I am of the opinion Saddam used up many of his weapons of mass destruction, and sent the bit that was left to Syria. I am also of the opinion the U.S. sold most of those weapons, or the technology, to him, in the first place.”
In reverse order: the chemical weapons tech came from France and Germany. No ifs ands or buts.
Despite his pleadings, Saddam NEVER was able to get America on board with his ‘project.’ To think otherwise is entirely deluded.
Saddam’s No. 1 Western Supply was FRANCE. No-one else is even close in the standings. Saddam’s power grid is based entirely upon French-German technical standards.
This is why, after 2003, America found that she had to import FRENCH electrical gear to re-establish the Iraqi power grid.
(Square D is owned by the French, BTW. It’s a MAJOR supplier to the DoD/ Federal Government.)
Debriefed Iraqi technical experts ALL told the same story: that Saddam — at the last minute — destroyed his incriminating stocks of chemical munitions. He DIDN’T use them — certainly not on the coalition. We would’ve known.
I’ve heard rumors that Saddam called up chemical missile strikes on the coalition. His generals rebelled — passively. No missiles were launched.
We had the ability to phone directly to his critical generals — the price of using cell phones / sat phones — and warn them off. This capability was re-demonstrated during the Libyan campaign: Commando Solo.
Google the term.
If Bush was another Obama, I’m sure he would have used his predecessor’s case, then blamed it all on the last President when things went South.
blert:
Thanks for the clarifications. Don’t leave the russkies out. Tanks, scuds, AK 47’s, sams. But hell, all god’s chillin’ gots AK47’s.
From what I remember, some of what WAS found, did have U.S, markings on them. However, this was from articles and photographs seen in U.S. msm – that I do not trust as far as I can throw.
My sources tell me satellite imagery had various supply trucks in a convoy from Iraq sites to Libya, before OIF commenced. This was probably NSA type sig int, so pretty good tech for the day. They probably heard too much criticism that US intel was too sigint based and thus turned to those “cellphone” taps as a way to compensate for human intel.
Also, US soldiers found various materials in Iraq they considered WMDs, but the MSM covered it up and few to nobody knew about it. It wasn’t enough quantity or enough quality, even though Hollywood Leftist version of quality is ObamaCare and minimum wage for conservative businesses but not liberal ones.
Correction, from Iraq to Syria.
Ymarsakar,
That’s the thing. In most respects, certainly the substantive ones, Bush used the case components he inherited from Clinton. The 2002 US statute and UNSC resolution on Iraq rehashed the prior statutes and resolutions. Bush did not alter the procedure to make intel – in other words, demonstrable possession of WMD by Iraq – an element of the Iraq enforcement. So why Bush deviated from Clinton to emphasize intel in the public case is a mystery.
Clinton’s public case on Op Desert Fox properly explained that the enforcement was triggered by Saddam’s demonstrated behavior per compliance on weapons and non-weapons resolutions, not intel speculation on Iraq’s possession of weapons.
OIF was also triggered by Saddam’s demonstrated behavior, not intel speculation on possession.
Yet, as exemplified in this thread including by Neo, the popular discourse gets it backward and judges the Iraq enforcement according to speculation on possession, not Saddam’s demonstrated behavior.
Again, trying to justify OIF with an assertion of Iraqi possession of WMD only serves to reinforce the false premise in the Left and Democrats’ propaganda.
The better response is to counter the false premise and say intel speculation didn’t – and couldn’t by design – trigger OIF. Saddam’s demonstrated behavior triggered OIF just as it triggered Op Desert Fox.
Correction – I meant to say: Again, trying to justify OIF with an UNPROVEN assertion of Iraqi possession of WMD only serves to reinforce the false premise in the Left and Democrats’ propaganda.
One more point for the record:
What constituted the primary threat that was addressed by the Iraq enforcement?
Was it Iraq’s WMD. Or was it the noncompliant – ie, unreformed – dangerous nature of Saddam’s regime.
The answer is the primary threat of Iraq was the noncompliant nature of Saddam’s regime.
That’s why the resolutions covered such a broad range of issues. That’s why Saddam was held to such a high standard of compliance and accountability on those issues. That’s why the lack of demonstrable, affirmative intel-evidence of WMD in Iraq could not substitute for a resolution of the Iraq problem.
Saddam was only to be allowed to rejoin the international community in good standing once he reformed the nature of his regime. But as long as Saddam did not prove his rehabilitation to the mandated standard, he remained a threat.
As such, the status of Iraqi WMD was an indicator and a metric, but not the central issue. The anti-Bush, anti-American propagandists made the status of Iraqi WMD the central issue in the popular political discourse – true, with the assist of Bush’s error in the presentation of the intel.
But the Iraq enforcement procedure was designed to ensure that the whole threat of Saddam was conclusively solved, not limited to Iraq’s possession of WMD stocks and activities.
This fundamental mischaracterization of the Iraq enforcement, boosted by OIF supporters here, as primarily about Iraqi WMD, rather than the dangerous nature of Saddam, has warped the history of the Iraq enforcement as well as our foreign policy moving forward, such as Obama’s handling of Syria and Iran that focuses on WMD while ignoring the essential danger of the regimes.