WHO is the Liar Again?

by Mike on June 12, 2007

in Politics,The Iraq Front,War on Terror

George W. Bush is a liar because Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no connection to terrorism. How do I know that? Simple. Al Gore said so, over and over and over again. There is a problem with this accusation however.

The problem with Gore’s claim is that the administration he served during sang a different tune back in 1998. Even more problematic is the fact that Al Gore himself sang a different tune back in 1992 when he accused former President Bush of ignoring Saddam Hussein’s involvement with terrorism and desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Ann Coulter once said that liberals cannot seem to grasp the problem Lexis Nexis poses to their incessant lying. This observation is as correct now as it was then but it needs to be expanded. Liberals also can’t seem to grasp the problem Youtube poses to their incessant lying. Regardless of the method used to expose the left, it is becoming increasingly clear that Dan Quayle was right about this crowd. They do have a character problem. The media just can’t hide it anymore.

H/T: Rush Limbaugh

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

tom June 12, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Of course, there is no big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Or between the situation where we were fighting Iraq with a degree of international approval and cooperation that dwarfs the “Coalition of the Willing.” Not to mention that Gore is pointing out the degree to which the elder Bush helped to arm Iraq during AND after Iraq’s war with Iran. Also, when opposing younger Bush’s push for war in 2002 and 2003, Gore didn’t base his argument on whether Iraq had or was seeking WMDs, but on the fact that the war was not garnering international support and a unilateral action would most likely damage our credibility around the world as well as increase the danger of further terrorist acts (not to mention that beating Sadam would be the easy part, the hard part being dealing with the ruins and internal conflict afterwards). He also objected to Bush pushing the vote just before midterm election to help pressure Congress into war. What he called for at the time was an open, honest debate. He called for Bush to show us the evidence of WMDs and the implied link between Iraq and 911. Surely you agree that if we, as a nation, had taken the time to look at the situation soberly we would be on better footing now.

Guess what, Gore was right.

Reply

Ryan June 12, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I suppose we can blame Franklin Roosevelt for the entire Cold War because of his relationship with the Soviet Union before and durng World War II.

Open, honest debate? Algore was one of the Senators that wanted the House to impeach or censure the elder Bush for the Gulf War in the first place. He and (little) Dick Gephardt spearheaded that around the same time Fins Kennedy was calling to order 30,000 body bags.

But, I digress. Let me give you a synopsis of a point reiterated a thousand times on this very site: Saddam had violated 17 UN resolutions, was shooting at American and British planes daily (any of which would have violated the 1991 armistice and legally justified regime change or invasion), was oppressing his own people creating tons of mass graves that we’re still finding, tried to assassinate a former US president (Bush 41), etc.

Planning the vote before the 2002 midterms was a brilliant move liberals hate simply because it put them on record for a change, not giving them any cowardly cover! Libs are just mad they got beat–so they revlive those early days of the war to try to find the moment when that bumbling idiot, George W. Bush, tricked the smartest people in the world into voting for a war they were mostly all cool with in 1998 (at least in principle).

By the way, elder Bush had nothing to do with arming Iraq against Iran during his Administration. We stopped that in 1986 after we got word of Saddam’s Kurdish gassing. Reagan was President until January 1989, a year after the Iran/Iraq War ended. Nice try though.

So, I guess you also admit that the “international test” of John Kerry is one that Gore would adopt. I agree. I also think we should have a President with America’s best interest at heart.

It’s standard operating procedure for libs to relive the reasons for war without coming up with any real solutions for its exit other than unabashed defeat. Algore is one of those wusses, and I agree with Mike about YouTube. Perhaps the “fairness doctrine” will censor YouTube sometime in the future too.

Reply

Gerrit June 13, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Hey – the critical WMD difference is that Saddam’s checmial weapons were functional in 1992 and he had recently used them. After that, they laid buried in the desert until we found them, useless, and republicans claimed “there were WMD’s!” Not exactly.

Reply

Mike June 13, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Gerrit:

That would be a good point if the Clinton administration hadn’t been singing that tune until the day they left office, especially in 1998. Moreover, if you look at the 1992 video, it wasn’t only the existence of WMDs but also the program in place to create more and the connections to terrorism. Suddenly, they did a 180 as soon as Bush took office (to Clinton’s credit, it took him longer to flip than Al I didn’t know it was Buddhist temple Gore).

We know there were WMDs before. We know Saddam had to prove they were destroyed and never did. Our own intelligence and others said there were WMDs. Even the Clinton administration said so (which is admittedly the best evidence there were none). We managed to stumble across some stockpiles which you correctly point out were in a deteriorated condition when found, but Saddam had to disclose period. Even the IAEA report most anit-war people relied on admit that Saddam was less than forthcoming during the second round of inspections.

The problem is that Al Gore accused Bush of claiming something he always claimed until he became a sore loser. To make matters worse, he criticized Bush the Elder for ignoring ties to terror despite his later claimes there were no terror connections. Too bad for him he didn’t foresee Youtube and Lexis-Nexis.

Tom:

Was Iraq so different from 1992 and 1998 when Gore was saying the same thing? How about in 2000 when he was saying the same thing? Did Saddam magically cut all ties to terrorists without telling anyone? Why did Zarqawi find a safe harbor in Baghdad prior to the invasion (and well after 1992)? Isn’t doling out $25K per suicide bomber funding terrorism?

I agree with one point. Gore was right. He was right in 1992. He became a liar in 2002. It wasn’t Iraq that changed so radically between 1992 and 2002. It was Al Gore.

Reply

Phil June 14, 2007 at 5:28 pm

We should first be clear that the debate in the run-up to the latest invasion of Iraq centered on these “facts”, as proclaimed by the Bush administration: 1) Saddam had WMD, and 2) He was linked to al-Qaida and therefore responsible for 9/11. These, among others, were the Bush administration’s primary reasons for invading Iraq. And both have been thoroughly discounted.

Secondly, its never been disputed that Saddam was linked to terrorism. His abuses of Kurds, most notably in rural northern Iraq, are well documented. Actually, it can be sufficiently argued that his violent campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s were tantamount to genocide. Saddam was also violent with ordinary Iraqis and practised torture to a great extent.

Its hard to see why Al Gore’s speech is remarkable. Saddam has always used terror tactics. The discrepancy lies in what one thinks “terrorism” should be. Saddam has never successfully committed a terrorist act against the US, but he has committed countless acts of terrorism against his own people, and to Iranian civilians during his war with Iran in the 1980s. Saddam has always been a terrorist, and I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees.

Furthermore, the Reagan administration’s bowing to Saddam during his terrorist campaign against the Kurds is well documented. Al Gore mentions the export of US agro credits to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war, and that much is true. Also true is the Reagan administration’s knowledge of Saddam’s terrorist acts against the Kurds and to Iranian civilians (use of chemical weapons). The Reagan administration (and subsequently the Bush admin) chose not to react in fear that it would jeopardize relations with Iraq, who served as a valuable check on Iranian regional power.

It is also true that Saddam has sought nuclear weapons and other WMD until his capture. This is obvious because he used them before. His problem, however, was that he was unable to acquire them. In the run-up to the second invasion, reports by Hans Blix and the IAEA confirmed as much.

And it is also true that Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions. But now we encounter an entirely separate argument: was the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign state, an appropriate response, given all that we knew then?

In sum, its hard to see how Gore’s speech was anything special or ground-breaking. Maybe I missed something!

Reply

Mike June 14, 2007 at 8:54 pm

” . . .and therefore responsible for 9/11.”

That is completely false. George W. Bush never said that. Left-wing columnists said he said that. Big difference.

First you say:

“We should first be clear that the debate in the run-up to the latest invasion of Iraq centered on these ‘facts’, as proclaimed by the Bush administration: 1) Saddam had WMD,. . .” “And both have been thoroughly discounted.”

Then you say:

“Also true is the Reagan administration’s knowledge of Saddam’s terrorist acts against the Kurds and to Iranian civilians (use of chemical weapons).”

Which is it? Chemical weapons are WMDs. Like Al Gore, you need to get your story straight.

Reply

Mike June 14, 2007 at 9:05 pm

In terms of Reagan, you are correct that the U.S. supplied Iraq with military assistance during the Iran-Iraq War, but he did so becasue Iraq at the time was seen as a lesser of two evils. In military struggles, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. It was true when FDR allied with Stalin (who was responsible for more deaths than Adolph Hitler). It was true in mid 1980s. It was unfortuante that we gave arms to Iraq, but you have to account for context. T

The issue is Saddam had WMD, he used them against his own people, and he never showed they were dismantled as required under the cease fire. Al Gore was singing the same tune in 1992, 1998, 2000 but changed only after the man who beat him took action on what the Clintons only talked about.

Also interesting is the fact that Al Gore only voted to take action against the horrors he described in the video when the pro-war side offered him more air time. If the anti-War crowd gave him more time to speak, he would have voted the other way.

What you missed is that Al Gore doesn’t grasp the problem Youtube and Lexis-Nexis poses to his incessant lying.

Reply

Phil June 14, 2007 at 11:10 pm

You are correct that the Bush Administration never stated that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But that isn’t what approximately 60% of Americans believe, in polls by the Washington Post and other newspapers. Why would they believe a falsehood? Because the Bush Administration successfully convinced the American people that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, the folks who were responsible for 9/11.

And this isn’t a left-wing conspiracy, unless you consider George W. Bush a leftist: “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” (NY Times, 6/18/04, Section A, Column 5, pg. 1)

This despite the finding of the bipartisan 9/11 comission that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Secondly, you misquoted me. Saddam did have WMD, in the form of chemical weapons, and he used them against Kurds and Iranian civilians and soldiers in the 1980s. But in the run-up to the second invasion of Iraq, it was well documented that Saddam did not possess the WMD capabilities as described by the Bush administration.

Saddam Hussein never ‘conclusively’ demonstrated that he had totally dismantled any WMD program he had, or might have had. Nevertheless, Hans Blix’s conclusions in his report on Iraq’s WMD capabilities discounted many of the Bush Administration’s assertions that Saddam had a nuclear and chemical weapons program. Mohammed al-Baradei of the IAEA concurred.

And while I’m aware of the constraints geopolitics can pose on international diplomacy, your “lesser of two evils” argument is concerning. It seems as if your defending Saddam’s violent behavior of the 1980s, although I’m sure you’re not. That argument is hardly a defense for the Reagan administration’s inaction while Saddam implemented genocide against the Kurds.

Finally, the article you cited in your response is an op-ed written by a Republican. No wonder why it was negative of Al Gore.

Reply

Mike June 15, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Your response is misguided on so many levels.

There were connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda even if there was no direct relationship between Saddam Hussein and the specific attack in question. Like I mentioned before, Al Zarqawi was in Baghdad prior to the invasion. Al Qaeda itself was in Iraq throughout the 1990s. ABC news documented this in 1999. The translated documents recovered in Iraq after the war also suggested this to be the case. What changed to make the liberal media and Al Gore changed their minds? The party in power.

You cite Hans Blix and pay lip service to the IAEA report to claim there were no WMDs in Iraq. What you fail to mention is the Oil for Food scandal which tarnished the UN credibility in Blix’s case. In the case of the IAEA report, it is obvious you haven’t read it. That report which relied on reports from Blix and others does make some of the claims you mention; however, they also made clear that Saddam’s Iraq was not providing timely access to some of the sites. The fact is, the inspectors weren’t inspecting. The U.N. and the IAEA had an agenda against the war and even they admitted the inspections weren’t serious.

We know Saddam had WMD at one point, even you admitted that. We also know he didn’t show that he destroyed what he had. And we also know that the inspections were never real inspections. Even the IAEA admits that. It’s remarkable that you made no mention of the agenda which may have tainted the UN and IAEA.

It’s also remarkable that you made no mention of the agenda of the 9-11 commission. Jaime Gorelick was the person responsible for erecting the wall of separation between law enforcement and the intelligence community. Since the commission was looking for what went wrong before 9-11 and one if its members was responsible for thing among many that in fact wrong, the agenda is obvious but somehow you don’t mention that either.

The agenda you did mention was the “op-ed written by a Republican.” That is true but you only told half of the story. The op-ed was an op-ed but it was also an eye witness account of a person who was in the room when Al Gore based his vote on the amount of speaking time he had. And the Republican was more than just some Republican. It was former Senator Alan Simpson, a man well-respected on both sides of the aisle. Back in the day, he was even a frequent guest on Bill Maher’s show. So yes it was an op-ed written by a Republican, but also an eye witness account of a widely-respected Republican. You only told half the story.

So Alan Simpson had an agenda though you didn’t dispute what he said. But Blix and the IAEA (even that report doesn’t fully adopt your position) do not. You might want to try watching something other than Olbermann and read things with a little more depth than the Nation.

In terms of misquoting, I did no such thing. I did omit irrelevant portions of your quote but I did quote accurately. In the first paragraph of comment 6 you said

“We should first be clear that the debate in the run-up to the latest invasion of Iraq centered on these “facts”, as proclaimed by the Bush administration: 1) Saddam had WMD, and 2) He was linked to al-Qaida and therefore responsible for 9/11. These, among others, were the Bush administration’s primary reasons for invading Iraq. And both have been thoroughly discounted.”

Since we were discussing WMD and not Al Qaeda at that point, I omitted point 2 and only quoted point 1, but you were in fact making the point that Saddam had WMD.

In paragraph 4 you said:

“Furthermore, the Reagan administration’s bowing to Saddam during his terrorist campaign against the Kurds is well documented. Al Gore mentions the export of US agro credits to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war, and that much is true. Also true is the Reagan administration’s knowledge of Saddam’s terrorist acts against the Kurds and to Iranian civilians (use of chemical weapons). The Reagan administration (and subsequently the Bush admin) chose not to react in fear that it would jeopardize relations with Iraq, who served as a valuable check on Iranian regional power.”

Again since the point was regarding WMDs I omitted the other topics but you did indeed admit in this paragraph that Saddam had chemical weapons, three paragraphs after you claimed he did no have WMD. You clarified your point later that they were there before but not later (even though Saddam never proved he destroyed them and the inspections were a joke), but that isn’t my fault. You should have been clearer. I did not misquote you.

Finally, you gave us this little gem. “It seems as if your defending Saddam’s violent behavior of the 1980s, although I’m sure you’re not.” Then why did you say it? This comment is inaccurate, disgraceful, and cowardly.

It’s inaccurate because I specifically said it was unfortunate that we supplied Saddam. Unlike you, I placed in context, but I clearly did not support his violence. In fact, I supported the war which took him out. You were supporting lunatics like Gore.

The slander point should be obvious.

The cowardly point comes in because you made the comment to throw it out there, but then you immediately refused to own your comment. You probably said what you did to change the subject away from Gore. I’d probably do the same if I was defending your position, but accusing the people on this site of defending Saddam’s violent behavior isn’t going to fly.

Reply

Phil June 16, 2007 at 10:54 am

Alright, I’m definitely not accusing you of having supported Saddam’s ugliness. Unfortunately, there are lots of apologists for Saddam’s behavior in the 80s who also say he was the “lesser of two evils.” And no, I’m not accusing you of being an apologist either.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion and the immigration one too. Although in the latest immigration reply I was accused of watching too much Olbermann and reading too much Nation. I don’t do neither. And I’ve never been a big supporter of Gore, although he is making more sense now than he did before. I do, however, lean left. But this blog leans right, so fair as square.

I look forward to future posts!

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: