1.09.2006

Bush Lied! Don't blame me, I voted 4 Kerry.

Bumper stickers like the one above really show a lack of mental capacity. Especially the use of the word "lied". I can handle "Bush was wrong". After all, it is a free country and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But using the word "lied" . . . come on! One would have to think that the left would have gotten over it 15 months after the election. Wikipedia defines a "lie" as:
"A statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it."
So in order for someone to lie, they must believe or strongly suspect that their statement is false. I would assume that the bumper stickers proclaiming "Bush Lied" refer to his allegations of WMDs by Iraq. This, they say, was the reason we went to war and subsequently Bush lied to get us into war. Actually, we had ample reason to declare war on Iraq ever since they fired on our planes after the Gulf War. But since the liberals would never listen to that, I will meet them on their own grounds: the infamous WMDs. It is debatable whether there were actually WMDs in Iraq and in Saddam's power. Remember that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, especially when Saddam was warned repeatedly by France that the U.N. weapons inspection was coming. By going through the U.N., our inspectors waved a flag at the Iraqis advertising our intent to end their schemes long before we actually did any inspecting. And we did find "weapons of mass destruction", no matter what the media would have us to believe. Not only were many of Saddam's missiles too large for the range imposed by U.N. sanctions after the Gulf War, but our military also found warheads used to transport chemical weapons and chemical weapons factories. But again, the issue of whether there were any WMDs is irrelevant. The question is whether Bush thought there were any WMDs or not. And the answer to that question is an emphatic "YES!" Every intelligence force on the planet firmly believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." (John Kerry, March 2003) "Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts chides the administration for waiting too long to make the case for invasion and do "the hard diplomatic work" of enlisting allies. But he says leaving Saddam Hussein "unfettered with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable." (USA Today quoting John Kerry, February 2003) "Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling." (John Kerry, February 2003) "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." (John Kerry, January 2003)
Senator Kerry was on the U.S. intelligence committee investigating the possibility of Saddam having WMDs. Kerry had access to the same information that President Bush had.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." (John Edwards, October 2002, emphasis mine) "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (Bill Clinton) "We 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." (Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton. Emphasis mine.)
Need I say more? In Him, David S. MacMillan III

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bush said he "knows saddam has weapons of mass destruction", he didnt say "I think saddam has WMD's". He said he knew it! Well if he knows it, that means he has some reason to be very certain. But he has never been able explain why hes was so certain, and yet can not find the evidence he knew existed.

I don't know if Bush lied, it's very possible Bush doesn't understand his own words. But I do know that trying to claim the Senate Intelligence Committe had access to as much information as President Bush is just ridiculous.

I also do know that the White House was so threatened by former Diplomat Joseph Wilson claims that Bush Lied, that the White House accidentally blew the cover of secret agent Valerie Plame in a pathetic attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson.

Chet said...

Well I think the stupid thing is we've found the gas, we've found the mass graves, we've got the witnesses, and recently we've discovered there were
Al-Queda training camps in Iraq. Just because there isn't a massive pile of enriched uranium in the center of Baghdad doesn't mean there aren't WMDs.

Tash said...

Great post!!!

David S. MacMillan III said...

Thanks for the comments, folks!

Bush said he "knows saddam has weapons of mass destruction", he didnt say "I think Saddam has WMD's". He said he knew it!

He knew it. Saddam practically waved flags declaring it! As commenter Chet pointed out, enough nerve gas to wipe out New York City definitely classifies as WMDs.

Well if he knows it, that means he has some reason to be very certain. But he has never been able explain why hes was so certain, and yet can not find the evidence he knew existed.

Yes, he has explained why he was certain. As I pointed out, every intelligence force on the planet was certain that Saddam's regime possessed WMDs. The dictator's repeated declarations of willingness to use nukes and other WMDs, coupled with the reports of all the intelligence agencies in the world, would make any president certain that Saddam had WMDs. And as I said, he did have WMDs so your argument is moot anyway.

I don't know if Bush lied, it's very possible Bush doesn't understand his own words.

Please replace the word "Bush" above with the names of every person I quoted in my article and read it aloud.

But I do know that trying to claim the Senate Intelligence Committe had access to as much information as President Bush is just ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? The SIC was the primary group responsible for investigating the threat of Iraqi WMDs. Your assertion is tantamount to saying that "It is ridiculous to assume that the officer who pulled Mr. Gore over for speeding had more information than the judge who made the decision on the ticket."

Anonymous said...

Bushest Biggest Lie was "I will only use force as a last resort in Iraq". If he wasn't satsified with how the inspections were going he should have done more to get the inspections to be effective.

Probably all we would have needed to do was interview the Iraqi scientist in a safe location for them. It's obvious to any unbiased observer that Bush Lied when he claimed that force was only being used as a last resort.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Bush's Biggest Lie was "I will only use force as a last resort in Iraq". If he wasn't satsified with how the inspections were going he should have done more to get the inspections to be effective.

To start with, he is the commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces, not God. He does not have the power nor the ability to fix everything to the exact liking of everybody on the planet.

It is rather difficult to "fix" the inspection process when:

+ They are U.N. inspectors, not U.S. inspectors;
+ Every move you try to make through the bogged-down U.N. is blocked by France or another regime friendly to Saddam;
+ The media announces where you will be inspecting hours before you arrive;
+ And the Iraqis have many very easy ways to move their dirty weapons out of the way.

Force was his last resort. And he was forced to take it by the ineptitude of the U.N. inspectors and the uncooperative attitude of the U.N. and the Iraqis. Besides, now that we have found WMDs, what are you worried about?

Probably all we would have needed to do was interview the Iraqi scientist in a safe location for them.

We have a Monday quarterback among us!

Easy for you to say. Hard for the scientists to say. Knowing that your family is likely to be boiled in acid if you talk would make one tend to clam up.

Anonymous said...

I am not a monday morning quarterback. I was saying this at the time we invaded. I actually felt quite betrayed by the President at the time, because I really thought he was goin to use force only as a last resort. My mistake for trusting him.

And I am sorry but if you really believe the President used force as a last resort, you have a lack creativity. Anybody who was watching the news back then understood how afraid Saddam was of us, afraid enough that we could have successfully disarmed him by using threats alone. And in fact some people would argue we did successfully disarm him by using threats. Certainly it seems that way..cause otherwise he probably would have tried to use his WMD's on us when we invaded, cause he had nothing to lose.

Random_Arm said...

did you use photoshp for your header graphics or did someone make this for you??

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey RandomA,

Yes, I use Adobe Photoshop for all of my graphics. And I checked out your blog; it really looks great!

I can make graphics for any websites free but I cannot guarantee a timeframe. . . .

In Him,

David

Collatine said...

The sad state of the Democrat Party is that they marginalize themselves with stupid slogans like "Bush Lied, Kids Died" or "No Blood for Oil" and so on. How about something of substance, like, "Balance the budget!" or "Fiscal Responsibility!" After all, Republicans act like the very worst, most fiscally irresponsible Democrats of yore.

The Democrat Party should stand up with a reasonable plan to balance the budget (even with tax increases), reform American health care (the world's most expensive, but one of the modern world's least effective), remake the American economy so it stops exporting its wealth to China, and encourage Americans to stop using credit and start saving money.

They should agree with Dubya's stance on the war of terror, and in fact, should offer a more aggressive "nation-building" agenda, to take that issue away from the "finance the war with credit" Republicans. I mean, nation-building is a Democrat platform anyway... every major 20th Century war was started by a Democrat looking to nation-build and spread "liberty."

Instead, they just take everything Dubya says, amplify it into a "he's a Nazi/racist/dicator" spin, and sound just stupid.

As for the "last resort" comment, we had a military build-up, we gave an ultimatum. Saddam ignored it. So, unless you really want to make Bush a lier, he had to invade, which was the last resort. The other "resort" wasn't an option: sustain a huge army poised to invade impetuity, or ignore Saddam and just go home. So strictly speaking, it was the last VIABLE resort.

I'm not suggesting a global war of democratic imperialism is a great choice for the US, particularly one financed with debt and hemorraging its wealth to China and India, (consider the fall of the Roman Empire). But making a poor choice doesn't make one a liar.

By the way, loved the article on Answers in Genesis.

Chris said...

"absence of evidence is never evidence of absence"??????

Great reasoning, sounds like something Soviet courts would use.

At the State of the Union Address last week, Bush stated that Iraq is a strategic country, perhaps you didn't catch that. Iraq having or not having nukes does not make it a strategic country. Its location does.

As for Iraq having nukes, the US would never have attacked Iraq had they actually believed that Hussein had nukes, it does not take a genius to realize that. US military force was gathering for months in the area around Iraq and had Hussein nukes what better reason and opportunity would there be than to use them against the growing American military presence that was about to take him out? Had Iraq nukes as they should have they would not have been attacked.

IF Iran gets nuclear weapons as well, there will be stability in the Middle East just as there was stability between the Soviet butchers and American butchers during the Cold War, when both feared mutual destruction. As in the case of North Korea, who is strongly believed to have nuclear weapons and which serves as an excellent deterrent against the US government, who is now reduced to talk, fruitless at that.

Also, chemical and biological weapons (both of which the US has ample amounts of and provided precursors for these to Iraq during its war with Iran, which was basically a US proxy war against Iran) are NOT WMD. Whatever weapons Iraq had they did NOT have the means to deliver them to the US, which would be idiotic as Iraq would be immediately wiped out by the US in return. That the US government claimed that Iraq could launch an attack against the US mainland with remote controlled drones shows how stupid they are or how stupid they think the typical American is.

This whole conflict is not about nukes or terror (though nukes held by adversaries would severely limit US options, just like Soviet Russia limited US global aspirations), which are used as a smokescreen for the real reason, namely to secure and maintain US world supremacy for decades to come by preventing the greatest potential challengers, Russia, China and India (and the EU), from becoming too powerful and placing a constraint on US aspirations like Soviet Russia did. By controlling Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran the US would have its hand on the oil tap of the world and have the ability to control access to oil, the most important commodity on the planet, which is required to run the world economy, especially the economies of the US' greatest potential challengers. As anyone who has some knowledge of geo-politics understands, and as has been admitted by US leaders in the past, he who controls the Middle East controls the world, due to it containing most of the commodity that is absolutely required for modern economies.

Also, Iran wants to open up another oil market, priced in Euros, as opposed to the other two American owned markets in NYC and London which are in USD. Saddam priced his oil in Euros, which the US reverted immediately back to USD upon invasion. At the moment most countries have their currency reserves in USD as it is required for purchasing oil, a currency that most would rather not deal in, a currency that is almost worthless, whose value holds because it is used to purchase oil. This was assured in the 70's ('Energy Crisis') when the US agreed to tolerate OPEC as long as oil was priced in USD, which had been removed from the gold standard. If another option is given, such as the Euro which belongs to the EU whose main interest is trade with the entire world, then most countries indeed will change to the Euro (slowly, as nobody would want its currency reserve to crash in value), unless the US has something to say about it. The Iranian Euro bourse is set to open next month, just when the US and Israel are supposedly planning to attack Iran, which would most likely result in Iran's oil fields being seized, 90% of which are right near the Iraq border.

Anyway, you are only 16 years old, you are definitely smarter than a typical adult but you are limited in years and must realize that there are many things you do not understand. You are too young to have your views set in stone. An intelligent person realizes that he/she is ignorant of the vast part of knowledge that there is. At 16 you have not had enough time to acquire a "sufficient" amount of knowledge. I'm 27 and realized that long ago about myself. I'm definitely much more knowledgeable than the typical person but I also realize (painfully) how inadequate my knowledge and understanding of most things is. Geo-politics is not "clear-cut" like the veracity of Christianity or the falsehood of Evolution, as there are 6 billion people in the world, each having varying degrees of influence on world affairs, and each new day brings new knowledge and machinations, unlike the Bible which is complete and can be demonstrated to be true beyond doubt.

Don't confuse the state (government) with the nation (the people). American Christians have this unsettling regard and admiration for their government, which in its history has been responsible for much suffering and death in the world. Governments in general have been the main perpetrator of death and destruction throughout all history, they are best to be wary of and regarded as a necessary evil that must be restrained.

Kristoff Plasun, Bible-thumping, slightly-radical, fundamentalist, non-Dispensationalist, partial-preterist, evangelical, Baptist, Christian
Vancouver, BC

Anonymous said...

As for the "last resort" comment, we had a military build-up, we gave an ultimatum. Saddam ignored it. So, unless you really want to make Bush a lier, he had to invade, which was the last resort. The other "resort" wasn't an option: sustain a huge army poised to invade impetuity, or ignore Saddam and just go home. So strictly speaking, it was the last VIABLE resort.

Well maybe your blind, but currently we are sustaining a hugh army for impetuity in the Middle East, so you are clearly wrong when you claim that wasn't an option.

Collatine said...

Nice post from our friend in Canada. Spot on about American Christians and their (our) view of the government.

About the last Anonymous comment about me being blind, and our army being there still... Like so many things with our Bush White House, the post-war effort didn't go according to plan (if they had a plan). I've no doubt that the US didn't expect on keeping a vast army so long in Iraq, and it's rediculous they're still there en masse.

Hindsight is 20-20. At the time, 4 years ago, invasion was the best option.

Remember, Clinton advocated invasion 4 years earlier, but the Republicans so distracted the nation with Lewinsky that he felt he couldn't lead the US to war.

For those who compare our army being there for years and years with our military in post-ww2 Europe, there's a crucial difference. During WW2, Americans were expected to make sacrifices, our dollar was tagged to gold, and a vast communist army was close by.

None of those elements exist today. We're funding this war with paper money, Americans are spending more than ever before (with debt), taxes are low, and there's no horde the US needs to keep back. (Israeli nukes will offset Iranian nukes). The sooner we withdraw, the better.

Anonymous said...

Collatine....

Interesting, I agree with some of your last comment, and disagree with some of your last comment. But I just thought I point out there are many people who would read your comment and immaturely accuse you of wanting to "cut and run" (I imagine thats what George W Bush would say if he read your comment)