Bill W
Jul 17 2003, 07:46 AM
While *sitting next to Kofi Annan* on Monday, the Shrub uttered the following:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he [Saddam Hussein] wouldn't let them in."
(text here, official White House site) Joe Conason of Slate writes:
QUOTE
\"Now a presidential statement so frontally at variance with the universally acknowledged facts obviously presents a problem for the White House press corps. He wasn't joking, and he didn't sound disoriented or unwell. Although Dana Priest and Dana Milbank [of the Washington Post] wrote the story as delicately as they possibly could, they couldn't make it seem less weird:
'The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.'
Appeared to contradict the events leading up to war? Indeed, that's an exceedingly mild description of what Bush said. There's no plausible explanation, unless the president suddenly flashed back to his Yale sophomore philosophy seminar, grappling with the argument that everything we perceive is mere illusion.
For the moment, however, let's just assume reality does exist. What possessed the president to make an assertion that everyone on the planet knows to be untrue? And who is going to take the responsibility for this one? Did George Tenet vet Bush's statement?... Will Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld show up on Fox News next weekend to explain why Bush's statement is 'technically accurate,' even though he shouldn't have said it?\"
Isn't it strange how, since the self-destruction of Richard Nixon, the US press has been incapable of reporting "The president lied" -- except in the case of Bill Clinton's blowjob denials?
It's clear the Resident's statements never have any intended relationship to the truth. His defenders should no longer expect to be taken seriously by sentient adults.
CPT_Doom
Jul 17 2003, 09:03 AM
The question is, did he lie - that is, deliberately make a statement he knew to be false, with the express purpose of misleading the crowd - or is he so wrapped up in his own justification for the war that he really believes this?
I find it impossible to believe, for as much as I and others have insulted the man's intelligence, that Bush would really try to mislead the crowd on whether inspectors were inside Iraq when we began the war. The whole world knows the inspectors were there, and were pulled out just before the strart of the invasion.
I am more concerned that Bush is so blinded by his own belief that the war was necessary at any cost that he has convinced himself what he said is the truth.
fantomas
Jul 17 2003, 09:32 AM
About a month and a half ago, when he was visiting Poland, he also asserted, let's not forget, that we had conclusively found weapons of mass destruction! Commentators at the time were somewhat aghast at what was a best a major leap of faith, and at worst and outright lie; and since Bush's declaration, US military and non-military inspectors have found no--ZERO, zilchilla, keine--WMDs. So what was the deal? Was he just lying? Fantasizing? So wrapped up in his justifications? I mean, come on, folks, isn't this more than a bit disturbing? The man is not some loony on a NYC streetcorner, he's the president of the USA!
p2insdca
Jul 17 2003, 10:03 AM
I for one am very concerned. As much as I dislike Mr. Bush's positions on most issues, I did believe him to be honest.
IMO he is loyal to those whom are loyal to him. Perhaps some are taking advantage of this trust to push their own agenda?
hockeyTom
Jul 17 2003, 10:10 AM
As far as I am concerned the Dems should be investigating this to the very end. If we went to war under false pretenses, Shrub is in deep doo doo.
Bill W
Jul 17 2003, 10:16 AM
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
...did he lie ...or is he so wrapped up in his own justification for the war that he really believes this?
That would mean he's delusional, since he himself commented on the nature of the inspections while they were ongoing last winter. Somehow that'd be even more distressing.
But he's lied plenty before, where ya been?
p2insdca
Jul 17 2003, 10:20 AM
sportinlife
Jul 17 2003, 03:04 PM
I am perfectly willing to assume that George W. Bush does not have a very good memory about his shortcomings. That is not as worrisome as the fact that when he makes mistakes or misstatements he is unwilling to admit them and try to make corrections or, where apprpriate, amends. That I believe is a trait he shares with all of us as human beings. Also of greater concern is his constant insensitivity to others in most of his views. Being focused and consistent can be positive attributes but only if you can change focus when it is obvious that you're wrong.
fantomas
Jul 18 2003, 12:11 AM
QUOTE
sportinlife:
I am perfectly willing to assume that George W. Bush does not have a very good memory about his shortcomings.
I'm really not concerned about W's memory or his personal shortcomings. He is the president of the USA, and has an entire administration that can function as his "memory," so to speak. I--and I hope more Americans--am far more concerned about his conduct and performance as president. The latter behavior has repercussions not only for the United States, our democracy, and our entire political and judicial system, but for the rest of the world. If it turns out that Cheney mapped out carving out Iraq in advance with energy lobby companies, and if it turns out that W and the administration lied or sexed up the intelligence, and if it turns out that the DIA and CIA lied or put forward spurious or grossly mistaken intelligence, so that W could have this war, then we really need hearings, we need thorough investigations, and we need people to be held accountable. The seriousness of W's apparent lies and misstatements goes beyond "shortcomings" to encompass what would, in another president, be viewed as ethical trangressions of a very high order.
[ July 18, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
sportinlife
Jul 18 2003, 04:23 AM
QUOTE
fantomas:
I'm really not concerned about W's memor or his personal shortcomings. He is the president of the USA, and has an entire administration that can function as his \"memory,\" so to speak.
He still has to remember what they tell him to say. You may be letting him get away with blaming his "entire administration".
Bill W
Jul 18 2003, 11:17 AM
So he's like the Wizard of Oz, only deadlier?
The silence of a couple wingnut provocateurs in this thread is deafening, eh?
charliecstl
Jul 18 2003, 07:08 PM
Yes, we only get the chiming in when it is something they can sidestep with a quip or a quick attack to deflect the real point. These items where the President just shows who he really is as a man get completely bypassed, because in the end how do you refute the man acts like a total idiot when he does something like this.
As many people have posted over the past couple of years -- when it comes to personal integrity, the current administration isn't showing any. And this is just yet another example of how true that is.
DC-Buckeye
Jul 19 2003, 07:13 PM
Pat Buchanan, not exactly a left wing whacko, said on the McLaughlin Group tonight about Bush's lies that "the press and the Dems are going to pull this thread until the whole sweater unravels." We can only hope, Pat, we can only hope.
Tim
Jul 19 2003, 10:11 PM
QUOTE
DC-Buckeye:
Pat Buchanan, not exactly a left wing whacko, said on the McLaughlin Group tonight about Bush's lies that \"the press and the Dems are going to pull this thread until the whole sweater unravels.\" We can only hope, Pat, we can only hope.
Pat seems to be standing pretty tall on this one.I've noticed that he has consistantly called for the Administration to come clean this past week on his Faux show.
I think most liberal commentators have been bending over backwards to give the Prez "wiggle room".Imo, it would be EXTREMELY unlikely that Bush was unaware of the disagreement between various camps regarding the accuracy of his assertions. :confused:
Expounding on some of the analysis provided by the Capt in his brilliant post initiating the thread on Bush and his SOU controversy,here is a piece from John Dean.Dean,who has significant first-hand experience with Executive Branch chicanery,could never be mistaken for a "liberal partisan hack".
So his discussion of the legal issues involved,and his conclusion that a thorough investigation headed up by a (outside) special prosecutor is not only warranted but ESSENTIAL,is particularly illuminating.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html :cool:
Apologies if this post seems off topic,mistakenly posted it here instead of the more appropriate discussion of the SOU controversy itself.I have no idea how to move it,and to try and rewrite it is more trouble than you can imagine.
[ July 19, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Tim ]
ung
Jul 20 2003, 09:05 PM
sveral of the sunday morning talking head news shows discussed this event. (Bush saying the war started because Iraq would not admit inspectors)
One of them said, "This has no connection with reality."
homr33
Jul 20 2003, 10:11 PM
I'm not surprised that the spin placed on Bush's statements has already started. Hmmm, let me guess, it will be something along the lines of 'he misspoke, but obviously he doesn't believe that...', followed closely by an attempted comparison to Al Gore inventing the internet or some other (in)famous utterance. Apparently, as Bill W mentioned, as long as you aren't lying about somebody giving you head, a lie spoken by the president just isn't newsworthy. I wish I had access to a reliable news source in this country. Thank God for NPR!
[ July 20, 2003, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: homr33 ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.