July 01, 2005

The Real Bush Lie

From David Limbaugh's column today:

In the same breath [the Democrats] say he lied to get us into war — an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes — thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes — isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake? But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles. This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack. President Bush believed — and the evidence confirms — that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings. But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior. As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.


The Democrats have rather conveniently forgotten (or at least would like the voters to forget) that the Iraq war was authorized by a Congressional resolution and that resolution was supported by a large number of Democrats. This Congressional resolution specifically stated that Sadaam was believed to have WMD's and that the WMD's were a threat to our national security. The Democrats saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. Yet, because no WMD's were found, they somehow believe that means that "Bush lied". If Bush lied, then didn't the Democrats who voted in favor of the Congressional authorization for war do so as well? This annoys me to no end. In reality, neither Bush nor the Democrats lied. If anything, they relied on mistaken intelligence. Given that everyone in the world thought Sadaam had WMD's - including England, Germany, France and Russia - it evidently was an easy enough mistake to make.
As I have said before, Bush could only have lied if he knew that Iraq had no WMD's and still continued to tell the American people that Sadaam had WMD's. There is no proof that Bush actually knew that there were no WMD's.
| |

<< Home