Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Vol: 25 Issue: 30 Thursday, October 30, 2003
Campaigning this week in Wisconsin and New Hampshire, General Wesley Clark unleashed a broadside against the Bush administration. President Bush not only exaggerated the Iraq threat, Clark said, but also deceived people about it, pulling a “bait and switch” by using Sept. 11 as a “pretext” for going after Saddam Hussein.
In a speech Tuesday, Clark said Bush’s description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “axis of evil” was “probably the single worst formulation in the last half-century in American foreign policy.”
And he assailed Bush not only over Iraq, but also over Sept. 11 – accusing him of trying to duck responsibility for the attacks – and Afghanistan, saying the United States should have gone through the United Nations and NATO as it struck back at Osama bin Laden.
Blah, blah, blah. The same guy gave a speech last year where he cheered “the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush” — but he wasn’t running for president then.
Hillary Clinton has also stepped up her attacks against the administration, slamming Bush in a speech for what she called ‘excessive secrecy’ (As if it were all still business as usual and we weren’t at war with an invisible enemy we don’t want to share our secrets with).
She hinted that the administration is trying to hide the ‘truth’ about Iraq and 9/11 intelligence failures. She even suggested the administration was trying to hide casualty figures in the Iraq war. (Gee, that’s likely, with embedded reporters present at every battle)
Blah, blah, blah. It took two years and multiple Congressional subpoenas to pry loose the Rose Law firm records from the former First Lady’s hands. For Hillary Clinton to be throwing around accusations of secrecy and deception and get away with it shows how easily history can be revised on the fly.
I used to wonder how the antichrist could get elected, or appointed, or chosen, or however he comes to power. But then Hillary Clinton was elected to the New York Senate and is poised for a run at the White House, and now I see how it could happen.
A ‘lie’ is a misrepresentation of reality with the intent to deceive. The entire ‘Bush lied’ scenario hinges on sixteen words uttered in his State of the Union speech in which Bush said that ‘British intelligence believes that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium from Africa.’ Although the report was discredited after the fact by US intelligence, British intelligence believes to this day that its intelligence was accurate. The report was real. It was represented as it existed. If Bush believed the report, whether accurate or not, then where is the intent to deceive?
Falsely asserting that the Bush administration lied is a misrepresentation with the intent to deceive. Do General Clark or Senator Clinton know something the rest of the world does not?
It would seem sensible for them to produce their evidence, then, since that would pretty much assure their nomination and clinch the White House next year. Half the country is ‘sure’ Bush is lying about something, and they are watching, parsing every word, sifting every nuance, looking for the lie they know is in there somewhere.
You’d think that by now, with all the attention, all the focused anti-Bush animosity, the legions of reporters, pundits, observers and disgruntled ‘formers’, by now, SOMEBODY would have produced some evidence.
Do YOU know what the evidence is? Or is somebody misrepresenting the facts with the intent to deceive by saying they DO and that they know that Bush lied?
And what about the WMD? Did Bush lie about that, as Senator Kennedy said during one of his regular periods of dementia last week?
The whole world knew the WMD was there. They didn’t think so, they KNEW! Saddam USED weapons of mass destruction against Iran, against the Kurds and against his own people. That is a matter of historical record. Claiming otherwise is misrepresenting the facts with the intent to deceive.
Now, the U.S. intelligence community has released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were transferred to neighboring Syria in the weeks prior to the U.S.-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime.
U.S. officials said the assessment was based on satellite images of convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003.
Officials said the briefing yesterday to U.S. defense reporters was based on the assessments of NIMA and the rest of the intelligence community. They have concluded that at least some of the Iraqi WMD, along with Iraqi scientists and technicians, was transferred to Syria.
The U.S. intelligence assessment was discussed publicly for the first time by the director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in a briefing in Washington on Tuesday. James Clapper, a retired air force general and a leading member of the U.S. intelligence community, said he linked the disappearance of Iraqi WMD with the huge number of Iraqi trucks that entered Syria before and during the U.S. military campaign to topple the Saddam regime.
Clapper said Iraqi officials, from below the level of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, feared U.S. discovery of Iraqi biological and chemical weapons and ordered subordinates to conceal and destroy evidence of WMD in early 2003.
He said he was certain that components connected to Iraq’s biological, chemical and nuclear programs were sent to Syria in the weeks prior to and during the war.
The leading agencies in the intelligence community are the CIA, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, NIMA and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. These agencies are responsible for the annual National Intelligence Estimate.
“Based on the evidence we had at the time, I thought the conclusions we reached about the presence of at least a latent WMD program was accurate and balanced,” Clapper said.
It’s not about Republican vs. Democrat or which side one favors. It’s about the application of the Big Lie and how easily it can be swallowed by the masses. The intelligence agencies of the United States are not made up of political partisans. So who lied? Bush? Or those who want you to believe he did so they can seize power?
It is as plain as the nose on Arafat’s face, but at least half the country and most of the world can’t see it.
Behold, the power of propaganda!
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie . . .” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)