http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ec28,0,7879020.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed -- Chicago Tribune Judging the case for war Published December 28, 2005 Did President Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit him and his policies? If your responses are reflexive and self-assured, read on. On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured--those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war. The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war--based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened. The administration didn't advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq's alleged illicit weapons. The other most prominent assertion in administration speeches and presentations was as accurate as the weapons argument was flawed: that Saddam Hussein had rejected 12 years of United Nations demands that he account for his stores of deadly weapons--and also stop exterminating innocents. Evaluating all nine arguments lets each of us decide which ones we now find persuasive or empty, and whether President Bush tried to mislead us. In measuring risks to this country, the administration relied on the same intelligence agencies, in the U.S. and overseas, that failed to anticipate Sept. 11, 2001. We now know that the White House explained some but not enough of the ambiguities embedded in those agencies' conclusions. By not stressing what wasn't known as much as what was, the White House wound up exaggerating allegations that proved dead wrong. Those flawed assertions are central to the charge that the president lied. Such accusations, though, can unfairly conflate three issues: the strength of the case Bush argued before the war, his refusal to delay its launch in March 2003 and his administration's failure to better anticipate the chaos that would follow. Those three are important, but not to be confused with one another. After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year. Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. We said that every earnest tool of diplomacy with Iraq had failed to improve the world's security, stop the butchery--or rationalize years of UN inaction. We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict. Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now--what this matrix chronicles-- affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs. THE ROAD TO WAR: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S NINE ARGUMENTS Biological and chemical weapons WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID The Bush administration said Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Officials trumpeted reports from U.S. and foreign spy agencies, including an October 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions." WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war. THE VERDICT There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed. Iraq rebuffs the world WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID In a speech that left many diplomats visibly squirming in their chairs, President Bush detailed tandem patterns of failure: Saddam Hussein had refused to obey UN Security Council orders that he disclose his weapons programs--and the UN had refused to enforce its demands of Hussein. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Reasonable minds disagree on whether Iraq's flouting of UN resolutions justified the war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the administration gravely understated the chicanery, both in Baghdad and at the UN. THE VERDICT Hussein had shunted enough lucre to enough profiteers to keep the UN from challenging him. In a dozen years the organization mass-produced 17 resolutions on Iraq, all of them toothless. That in turn enabled Hussein to continue his brutal reign and cost untold thousands of Iraqis their lives. The quest for nukes WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID Intelligence agencies warned the Clinton and Bush administrations that Hussein was reconstituting his once-impressive program to create nuclear weapons. In part that intel reflected embarrassment over U.S. failure before the Persian Gulf war to grasp how close Iraq was to building nukes. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that "If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year." Claims that Iraq sought uranium and special tubes for processing nuclear material appear discredited. THE VERDICT If the White House manipulated or exaggerated the nuclear intelligence before the war in order to paint a more menacing portrait of Hussein, it's difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough. Hussein's rope-a-dope WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID The longer Hussein refuses to obey UN directives to disclose his weapons programs, the greater the risk that he will acquire, or share with terrorists, the weaponry he has used in the past or the even deadlier capabilities his scientists have tried to develop. Thus we need to wage a pre-emptive war. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Hussein didn't have illicit weapons stockpiles to wield or hand to terrorists. Subsequent investigations have concluded he had the means and intent to rekindle those programs as soon as he escaped UN sanctions. THE VERDICT Had Hussein not been deposed, would he have reconstituted deadly weaponry or shared it with terror groups? Of the White House's nine arguments for war, the implications of this warning about Iraq's intentions are treacherous to imagine--yet also the least possible to declare true or false. Waging war on terror WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID Iraq was Afghanistan's likely successor as a haven for terror groups. "Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror ... " the president said. "And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network." WHAT WE KNOW TODAY The White House echoed four years of intel that said Hussein contemplated the use of terror against the U.S. or its allies. But he evidently had not done so on a broad scale. The assertion that Hussein was "harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror" overstated what we know today. THE VERDICT The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated. Reform in the Middle East WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID Supplanting Hussein's reign with self-rule would transform governance in a region dominated by dictators, zealots and kings. The administration wanted to convert populations of subjects into citizens. Mideast democracy would channel energy away from resentments that breed terrorism. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY U.S. pressure has stirred reforms in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and imperiled Syria's regime. "I was cynical about Iraq," said Druze Muslim patriarch Walid Jumblatt. "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting . . . it was the start of a new Arab world... The Berlin Wall has fallen." THE VERDICT The notion that invading Iraq would provoke political tremors in a region long ruled by despots is the Bush administration's most successful prewar prediction to date. A more muscular U.S. diplomacy has advanced democracy and assisted freedom movements in the sclerotic Middle East. Iraq and Al Qaeda WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID President Bush: "... Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.... Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases." WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Two government investigative reports indicate that Al Qaeda and Iraq had long-running if sporadic contacts. Several of the prewar intel conclusions likely are true. But the high-ranking Al Qaeda detainee who said Iraq trained Al Qaeda in bombmaking, poisons and gases later recanted. THE VERDICT No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war. The Butcher of Baghdad WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell: "For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows--intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way." WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Human Rights Watch estimates that Hussein exterminated 300,000 people. Chemical weapons killed Iraqi Kurds and Iranians; Iraqi Shiites also were slaughtered. Tortures included amputation, rape, piercing hands with drills, burning some victims alive and lowering others into acid baths. THE VERDICT In detailing how Hussein tormented his people--and thus mocked the UN Security Council order that he stop--the White House assessments were accurate. Few if any war opponents have challenged this argument, or suggested that an unmolested Hussein would have eased his repression. Iraqis liberated WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID President Bush and his surrogates broached a peculiar notion: that the Arab world was ready to embrace representative government. History said otherwise--and it wasn't as if the Arab street was clamoring for Iraq to show the way. WHAT WE KNOW TODAY The most succinct evaluation comes from Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): "Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them." THE VERDICT The White House was correct in predicting that long subjugated Iraqis would embrace democracy. And while Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites have major differences to reconcile, a year's worth of predictions that Sunni disaffection could doom self-rule have, so far, proven wrong.
Funny article. The "What Bush Said" part is not the complete story of what Bush said. When you take out the lies, then no, he didn't lie. As has been stated so many times even though you refuse to listen, the lies were in the specifics, not in the overall theme of what he said. By the way, is there a reason you attribute story titles to newspapers that didn't actually use them?
Of all the Congressmen, Administration officials, foreign intelligence agencies, domestic intelligence agencies, and military officials that signed off on the intelligence leading up to war, the liberals think only two people were lying. Bush and Cheney. riiiiiight. ....and you wonder why people regard the liberals as being a piece of work....
Um, is this an op-ed piece from The Chicago Tribune? So sorry, but the Tribune is owned by hard-core Bush penis-massagers. Bush lied like you wouldn't believe.
I agree with most of what this piece says and think in general it does a good job on summarizing but I disagree with the overall conclusion and think they are declaring a verdict way too early. This is partially correct but ignores many of the legalities involved. What it does is put the US as the sole interpreter of the UNSC resolution when quite obviously the UNSC is the one to interpret what their resolution is and also what course of action should be taken. The glaring hole in Tribune's agument is that there never was a UN authorization for the invasion so its wrong to argue that the US was fullfilling the will of the UN when technically the invasion was illegal under the UN charter since it wasn't authorized by UN. This isn't a factual verdict but pure speculation. Its true that Saddam harbored ill will towards the US and other countries but their is no evidence that Saddam would've shared them and that is totally ignoring the risk to himself of handing over WMD to groups that would be questionable allies to him at best. I will give the Bush Admin some credit for this but this isn't one that I would say is totally due to the US actions. For instance the Lebanese themselves cited the Ukranian orange revolution far more than the US invasion of Iraq as motivation and democracy in Egypt is now appearing more like window dressing since Mubarak has jailed political opponents. While the US has talked about advancing democracy it has done little to actually advance it and still continues to support repressive regimes in the Middle East. At most the jury is still out. The Butcher of Baghdad WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell: "For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows--intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way." WHAT WE KNOW TODAY Human Rights Watch estimates that Hussein exterminated 300,000 people. Chemical weapons killed Iraqi Kurds and Iranians; Iraqi Shiites also were slaughtered. Tortures included amputation, rape, piercing hands with drills, burning some victims alive and lowering others into acid baths. THE VERDICT In detailing how Hussein tormented his people--and thus mocked the UN Security Council order that he stop--the White House assessments were accurate. Few if any war opponents have challenged this argument, or suggested that an unmolested Hussein would have eased his repression.[/quote] I would agree with this argument and is by far the strongest. The problem is though if this was the only argument would the US people and Congress have agreed to the invasion? My feeling is not. Once again though the jury isn't even back in the courtroom on this one and has barely begun deliberation. Yes the election was a good sign but considering that protests are raging and that the insurgency after taking a break for the election has started going again its way way way too early to say that the Iraqis have peacefully accepted democracy.
I'm surprised you take this article as evidence that Bush didn't lie, basso. Right... HUH? How about the far more recent declarations from the CIA that there was no evidence that there was a nuclear program? It was ignored and supressed and other intelligence hyped and exaggerated. Is that "lying", or "misleading?" Yep. Exaggerate and hype weak and/or nonexistent "evidence" to sell the war. We knew that. If? If? Not only did they exaggerate and manipulate (or fabricate, as we may discover in coming investigations) "evidence" for a budding nuclear program, any evidence to the contrary was suppressed and any objections in the CIA and State Dept silenced. "Overstated what we know today." LOL on the kindness of that phrasing right there. Wildly exaggerated, hyped, repeated ad naseum, and still repeated by VP Dick even after the Al Qaeda link had been refuted by 1)the Dept of State 2)the CIA 2)the bipartisan 911 commisssion 4)Rumsfeld and 5)Colin Powell. All done with no strong backing evidence- in order to sell the war. We knew that. So, is exaggerating equal to lying? If not, why? Does context matter? If not, why not? The detainee in question was the only "evidence" used to hype the AQ connection. And it was false.
If you take away the WMDs and ties to 9/11, there was no way this administration could have garnered the support necessary for a preemptive invasion of another country.
so the article itself is a lie.. it made it look like that each of these cases can stand up on its own as justification for the war..
So, to review, out of the nine arguments for war: 1) Biological and chemical weapons Evidence for exaggerated and hyped, evidence against dismissed and suppressed, in order to sell the war to the American public. Misleading, at best. 2) Iraq rebuffs the world Yep. There's a point for warfare. 3) The quest for nukes Evidence for exaggerated and hyped, evidence against dismissed and suppressed, in order to sell the war to the American public. Misleading, at best. 4) Hussein's rope-a-dope This, perhaps the strongest point for military action, was based on already refuted ideas: 1) Iraq's (non-existant) WMD program being distributed to 2) AQ or other terrorist groups to which Iraq had no cooperative link. Iran is a far stronger candidate for invasion on both points- why are the war drums not beating? 5) Waging war on terror Evidence for exaggerated and hyped, evidence against dismissed and suppressed, in order to sell the war to the American public. Misleading, at best. They forgot to mention the irony that Iraq was touted as a hotbed for terrorism, which it was anything but, yet has now become the numero uno training ground for all future hardcore anti-american terrorists. 6) Reform in the Middle East Lebanon's freedom from Syria was predicated by a stupid bomb assassination carried out by Syrian agents and subsequent and continuing international pressure. Egypt has held some elections of laughable credibility. But, at least it's something- can American military strength next door be part of it? Some, but so far this is not a strong supporting point, at all. 7) Iraq and Al Qaeda Evidence for exaggerated and hyped, evidence against dismissed and suppressed, in order to sell the war to the American public. Misleading, at best. 8) The Butcher of Baghdad He was a bad man and it's a good thing he's no longer in power and on trial. 9) Iraqis liberated The two elections held thus far are very promising. We have a long way to go before we can be assured that the Sunnis will turn to democracy and representative government or violence. Way too soon to declare victory or defeat. So, four out of nine are deliberate exaggerations made by the administration to mislead the American public in order to gain support for the war. Hussein's plan to hit America with WMD via a terrorist group is based on two of those four refuted, misleading points. So-called reform in the Middle East is weak at this point but I hold hope for better in the future. That leaves Saddam's defiance of the UN, That he was a murderous tyrant, and democracy for Iraqis as reasons for invasion and war. If Bush was left with these reasons alone (US as harbringer of freedom, international police force, and nation builder), could he have garnered enough support for invasion? Of course not. That's why they mislead us. And this, of course, doesn't even touch on how they handled post-war.
From dictionary.com: noun: lie 1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. verb: lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies 1) To present false information with the intention of deceiving. 2) To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie. To my knowledge, there isn't evidence that the administration flat-out fabricated or made up evidence for invasion. Thus, I don't think the accusation of lying fits under this first definition of the word. There is strong argument, however, for the second definition- to give a wrong or false impression. WMD, Nuke program, Mushroom clouds, war on terror, Al Qaeda link... all of these were dead wrong. The administrations' defense is that the fault lies upon our intelligence gathering community. This is not the complete picture. There were many in the intelligence community who had conflicting evidence, evidence to the contrary, lack of evidence, objections to the use of evidence from questionable sources... all of these were ignored, suppressed, or vilified. All evidence supporting WMD/nukes/AQ link, no matter how weak, unsupported, or old, was hyped, exaggerated and repeated and repeated and repeated. The result was a picture presented to us Americans of an out-of-control Saddam armed to the teeth with WMD, possibly nukes, and a strong working relationship with AQ, ready to strike us through them at any moment. That's why we couldn't wait- that's why diplomacy was no longer reasonable. That's why we had to pull out inspectors long before they were done. That's why invasion and war had to happen now now now and not later. Americans were given a false impression of the reality of the time, a reality the administration would not present to the public. I will not join the choruses saying that the administration "lied," though, beacuse we'll be inevitably caught up in a war of semantics while the real issue fades to the background. If conservatives prefer I use the word "misled," or "deceived" I may settle for that. The seriousness of the context weighs heavily on their unjust actions against us. mis·lead Function: verb Inflected Forms: -led /-'led/; -lead·ing transitive verb : to lead into a mistaken action or belief : to cause to have a false impression intransitive verb : to create a false impression de·ceive v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives v. tr. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare. v. intr. To practice deceit. To give a false impression
Hypothetical scenario and open question: Liberal journalists both here in America and embedded in Iraq have all kinds of stories that they can tell, and access to all kinds of information. They have an agenda, however: to discredit the Bush administration. To that end, they focus on any bad news they can find in Iraq, and, just as importantly, de-emphasize or outright ignore any good news. Even if this harms the morale of American troops, and gives comfort and psychological aid to the enemy, and hurts the overal objective on the ground in Iraq, this is justified because it is the conscious agenda of these journalists to embarrass and discredit the administration at any cost. How would you describe these actions? Lying? Misleading? Deceitful? Why or why not? Does it make you angry? Does it seem unfair? Why?
but didn't Bush during a debate with Gore for the 2000 campaign say that he does not plan for the US to be involved in nation building? either way he still lied..
So far, no hypotheticals. So, the "liberal" journalists have an "agenda?" Who are the "liberal" journalists? Does this label apply to anyone who disagrees at all with the Bush administration? This is definitely a hypothetical. I see both good and bad news coming out of Iraq. Here is where your assumptions jump in. I have not seen a single credible source that claims that news, good or bad, being reported in the US in any way "harms the morale of American troops, and gives comfort and psychological aid to the enemy, and hurts the overal objective on the ground in Iraq." This seems to be the standing talking point from conservative talk radio, but has not been backed up at all. It seems to me that anyone who would accuse their fellow Americans of "harm[ing] the morale of American troops, and giv[ing] comfort and psychological aid to the enemy, and hurt[ing] the overal objective on the ground in Iraq" by reporting FACTUAL INFORMATION is engaging in McCarthy-like tactics. These tactics are disgusting and wrong. How about "reporting the news." Some people will be more likely to report good news, some bad, and others will report both with equal emphasis. However, reporting FACTUAL INFORMATION could never be described as "Lying? Misleading? [or] Deceitful?" It does seem unfair that anyone who reports on or talks about news that the administration doesn't want to discuss reasonably is simply written off and accused of supporting Saddam or the terrorists. When I am accused of such, it makes me angry because such statements are a return to McCarthyism and are beneath all of us.
Glad to see you around Andy! Hope you had a great Christmas. You've got a lot of threads to get through. I recommend the "Has Bin Laden won" thread for comic relief and epic TJ meltdown. Grab some popcorn, it's better than TV.
