Lately in the different news sources that I look at, there have been questions about whether Bushs strategies in Iraq are working.

There have been senators on both sides that have questioned his policies in fighting the different factions in Iraq.

For instance: All of the comments came from this source.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/...tors/index.html

Even Senator McCain,who is campaigning for Bush, made this comment



Also Republican Senator Richard Lugar



Also Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina



But Bushs replies are



In fact each time Bush is asked about Iraq, he gives a rosy situtation and never admits any of the mistakes that these Senators listed above and others have mentioned.

Even his own report from his intelligence agency paints a more pessimist outlook.

Remember all these quotes are from his own party. They don't agree with how he is conducting this war.

So my question is:

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?

I dont know how anyone can answer that. Of course everyone has an opinion and everyone has perception, but nobody can answer that with a definitive yes or no. I mean people over here are talking about how bad it is...but then whenever i see troops on the news or watch war stories with oliver north all the troops say it isnt as bad as people make it seem over here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132741,00.html



Are things as bad as the media makes it out to be? NO. But is it an ideal situation? NO also.

I wouldn't trust Oliver North all that much. After his conviction was rescinded by former President Bush, North doesn't seem to be the pinnacle of objectivity when it comes to the Bush family. He called John Kerry anti-American on Sean Hannity's radio program. This is not a man concerned with the truth, but distorting events to portray what would best benefit the President.

But I do agree... I don't know how to answer this question. I don't have enough insider information to say yes or no. I am concerned about where all the money from the $87 billion appropriations bill went. I'm still hearing about the troops not having the equipment they need. But what should I believe? It's mostly pure speculation.

And you expect what? That most of the troops would get on national television and say that their commander-in-chief is a cretin? Of course they'll say "It's going ok." Most people do not want to even take the chance that Monday morning they will be in their commander's office explaining why they took it on themselves to represent the military on the 7:00 news. Add to that the fact that most people serving (from my experience) believe that it is illegal for military members to criticize the President (it's actually not, the rule only applies to officers).

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?

Popeye, you can add Republican Senator Chuck Hegel to the list.

This was on today’s Meet the Press.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6030941/




Leder I agree with your statement that we can't say yes or no definitively on whether Bush is being dishonest.

Someone on another board once accused me of giving a “Clintonian” response. Believe me, it wasn’t meant as a compliment. Nevertheless, I’m going to give my best “Clintonian” answer. It depends on the definition of "honest." I think Bush did mislead people, but I’m not sure whether or not he really believed what he has said and continues to believe what he is saying or if he’s just plain lying, shading the truth or making the facts fit perception. Is Bush deceiving himself? I think that's a strong possibility.

On the other hand, I question Fox News in general and Oliver North in particular, as your references of choice. Of course FNC in general and the otherwise discredited Oliver North (discredited outside FNC’s inner sanctum) are going to paint a rosy picture. Personally, I question anything that comes from any of Murdoch’s media, including the “hot babes” his organization has scripted to distort the news.

There is a relatively new movie by Robert Greenwald called Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock’s War on Journalism. It’s available only on DVD, but amazon.com has it for a reasonable price. I don’t want to give the whole thing away, but I will provide one example. Bill O’Reilly claims to have told only one person to “shut up,” yet Greenwald and crew show an extended series of clips in which O’Reilly tells numerous people exactly that.

There are far better sources for knowing what is going on in Iraq that the soundbites flung from the mouths of a few Senators to satisfy an often lazy press.

If you want to know about Iraq, I say the only way (short of going, that is...) is to research it form trustworthy news sources (FNC is biased but usually accurate, the coverage is hardly stellar however...) for yourself.

Try Google news, the BBC, ABC, IHT, blah ,blah.

Don't get suckered by ideological sources, reading the" Independent" won't get you anywhere.

Once this advice is followed, the following picture comes out. There are major problems in Iraq, caused by a mixture of poor policy making, unforseen events, and a horrible problem of PR mostly driven by a relentlessly negative press in the area.

That said, these problems can be overcome. I don't believe Bush is being dishonest in anyway about the current situation in Iraq. He (and the Pentagon) simply disagree more troops is the solution. I myself don't really agree with that, but he has a right to come up with his own approach, I'm no expert.

Turnea,

You've lost me here. How can Fox be "biased" and at the same time "accurate?" If their coverage is less than "steller," I don't see how it can be all that accurate. Plese explain. Some examples might help.

A biased news-source can still be accurate. That is to say FNC rarely shows untrue stories. Just stories that are more likely to reflect well on the administration than not. They will be more likely to show a completion of a public works project in Iraq than the latest witty quip from the Kerry camp (here the choice would be affected by ideological bias, but would still reflect and accurate view of events, just different events.)

Their pundits are likely to back the administration, but some do so with facts.

By "less than stellar" and here FNC is hardly alone I mean shallow, sound-bite filled, lazy.

Very few sources can offer you in-depth coverage of Iraq. Even fewer will do it without bias. The New York Times and Washington Post may give you an occasional story that other papers and TV news can't match, but chances are it will be bad news for the administration.

So, if one is trying to figure out whether Bush is being dishonest, he/she has to recognize and wade through the bias, weigh one against the other, seek alternate sources. Staying truly informed, (as opposed to, I just read the latest New Yorker and now I'm up to speed!) is a little more labor-intensive.

Edited to Add: If it sounds like I'm explaining the obvious, sorry, but it is good advice for aspiring Iraq-watchers.

My assertion is that once one does this, it becomes less of a black-and-white issue. Bush does have some points worthy of consideration as do his opponents.

..but clearly Iraq has a shot at stability.

When the Iraqi war started pundits were saying that Bush was betting his presidency on a favorable outcome. Now, with the outcome in doubt, Bush may still win.

You may be right about potential stability, but after watching this thing for months, I have my doubts.

Even if stability is possible, we have to ask questions like, how long is it going to take and at what cost in terms of lives and dollars? Whether Kerry or Bush wins, we must consider at what point the American people, as with Vietnam, will decide that the cost is too high--that it just isn't worth it.

BTW: While FNC may present some accurate "facts" they are not operating as an "honest broker" as some like to say. Ideally journalism, except for editorial comment, should be neutral. That said, even the most idealistic among us would think that an "impossible dream." FNC is not the only guilty source, but overall an incomplete or distorted picture cannot be an accurate picture. In this regard, the media, particularly the 24-hour-per-day cable outlets are doing the country a disservice. I got rather upset earlier today when Wolf Blitzer mentioned Kerry's windsurfing in a negative way. How does "Kerry Bueller's" choice of activities for a day off have anything to do with anything/ Well, it didn't until Joe Scarborough brought it up the first night of the RNC. Now Wolf's picked it up. I blitzed the Wolf's den with an utterly ugly email today.

Since I do family counselling with a large amount of military personel- and I am kind of skirting the edge myself here - I can tell you, every single serviceman knows and talks about the cluster (military word here) that Iraq is- it is quickly spinning out of control. There are 137 SF AK Guardsmen recently ordered there- and quite a few of them will be losing everything, probably going bankrupt, because of the massive pay cut (Alaska cost of living is very high, and wages are high, especially in comparison to thier military ranks and wages) - so there may be some<um> bias in thier assesment of their CNC. In fact- if a serviceman DOES critisize the administration over there publically, he will be harshly disciplined, as we have already seen. THE ONLY public message they are allowed to give to Ollie North is "gee, things are swell".

Remember when the servicemen publically said something about Rumsfeld? I believe they all recieved Article 15s, reduction in pay and rank, and generally punished severly as possible without actually killing them or imprisoning them.

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?

I think he is telling the truth as he perceives it, but frankly, I don't think his understanding extends to the truth as it is on the ground in Iraq. At least, that is my understanding of GW Bush.

As can be read in this article concerning Seymour hersh's latest book, the entire Bush administration may very well be completely ignorant of the truth concerning the war in Iraq.

Is Bush being honest with the American people concerning the Iraq war?

What Iraq war? Mission accomplisherd, remember?

Bush has to be honest with himself before he can decide to be honest with us. That's unlikely in light of past behavior outlined here by Wertz. Old news to some, new news to me, especially the truncated PDBs. That is high on the list of the most disturbing thing about Bush. Good initiative, bad judgment, botched implementation.

You have to take into consideration that McCain is doing spin control on Bush's behalf, too, who asserted everything was honky dory in Iraq taking questions over the weekend. Without a Republican to act as a counterbalance checking the president's endless optimism it won't be long before the guy's heady ideas launch him into the stratosphere and Americans will rightly wonder if his religious ruminations have bereft him of all common sense. Some Bush the Infallible fans will shriek that McCain is at it again, when in fact he's being a party loyalist. Unfortunately the campaign matters more at this point than Iraq.

Just remember. As long as you don't vote for Kerry you're not supporting terrorists.

On Sunday, in talks with the interim Iraqi leader Iyad Allawi, Tony Blair has actually said that we face a "new conflict" in Iraq. Here's a link

This is a new departure for Blair, who has previously been keen to stress how well things were going, but the chaos of the last month or so has clearly registered, so he is now, in effect, admitting that he (for one, but by implication including George W Bush & the rest ot his administration) underestimated how difficult the aftermath of the Iraq War would be, and saying that a new phase of "war" - or, if you prefer, "major combat operations" has begun.

While he has suffered a predictable backlash of "we told you so" from people who did, indeed, tell him so before the March 2003 invasion, it is perhaps still easier for Blair to publicly face up to the truth like this than it is for Bush.

After all, he didn't make a big showy broadcast to the listening world from an aircraft carrier in front of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished".

The plain truth is that whether or not the removal of Saddam was justified, the Coalition of the Credulous (I'm there too - I believed Iraq had WMD. Saddam took us all for mugs ) did not make sufficient plans for what happened after Saddam was removed.

Many critics of war based their criticism on this fact alone (it was the public position of France, for goodness' sake!) and are entitled to make hay now.

It should (in the sense of "ought to if there is any justice in the world") cost both Bush and Blair electorally - Bush more than Blair, if GWB can't steel himself very soon to eat some humble pie in public, as Blair has just done.

It's one thing to get suckered in along with everyone else - we all thought Iraq had WMD. It's quite another to be told in detail about a mistake we are about to make and ignore that advice our of sheer bloody-mindedness.

So no, I don't think Bush is being honest with the American public on Iraq. It's not yet unsalvageable, but he needs to make an even bigger show of his humility and willingness to admit mistakes than he did over his hubris on the flight deck.

Do you have a source for this assertion? The only article 15's that I've read about are those against servicement for intimidating / abusing Iraqi prisoners.

As far as how our troops are doing, I believe that it's as slow and challenging as everyone says, but that we just haven't seen enough good news for a variety of reasons. I am especially skeptical about anything in the mainstream media. All of the Western media are holed up in hotels in Bagdad, and buying tapes and footage from Arab stringers. Some of whom are out with the rebels / insurgents / whatever.

While I like to read both sides of the story, I always question the 'truth' from Seymour Hersh - the man who 2 days into the Iraq war wrote an article quoting his military 'sources' that our troops were on the ropes, and that "The only hope is that they (the troops) can hold out until reinforcements arrive". He made similar mis-statements about our battleground success, so innacurate that even Slate had to call him on it. This guy is either not rooting for our side, or he's delusional.

For contrast - Here are a few words from a serviceman who has no reason to lie - in fact he just put in for a purple heart due to a flesh wound in combat. It's from a personal email, not for 'the media' to publicize. My censorship added.

As commander in chief I wouldn’t expect anything from Bush that didn’t paint a positive picture, he has to be concerned with troop morale. If this is his reasoning then even as one of his harshest critics I can side with him here.

If he were to state that things aren’t going well and appear to be getting worse then not only could that impact the ability to lead troops in the field but more importantly to his administration it could undermine his re-election bid. If he is re-elected I hope to see an honest assessment from his camp.

But this does allow me to bring up something I’ve more than casually noticed. A year ago articles on troop morale were a dime a dozen, none of them painting a good picture and even Fox was reporting bad news.. But I can’t find any recent reports on troop moral (hopefully my fellow AD’ers can) and like most I’d like to know how the troops are holding up.

And carlitoswhey – not to undermine your posted email, but I’ve seen one that is the opposite of what you presented, but since the authenticity can’t be verified I won’t post it.

I actually think that e-mails and anecdotes from soldiers on the ground in Iraq are going to be the only true measure of troop morale we can get. Some media sources will interview troops and they will give the standard 'things are fine, hooah' just to get the interview over with and not make waves. Then you will have other sources that will run an interview with a soldier (sometimes unnamed) that will paint a bleak picture. (I usually find these from more biased sources with an agenda)
Now the problem lies in the fact that Fife and Drum brought up, we can't verify the authenticity of these e-mails or personal sources. It's all going to boil down to who you believe. And unfortunately, most people will believe those reports that make the case for their political beliefs.

I am surprised (well, no, I guess not really) that no one hear has mentioned a significant aspect of the Presidents statements. That being that it is his role to maintain the necessary optimism to allow his policy to succeed. Tell me, what objective would be achieved, at this point in time, by constantly detailing any of the woes occurring in Iraq. Would that not serve to aid the cause of those over there opposing reconstruction and creation of a new government, and thereby adversely affecting the security of our soldiers and the US in general? Doing so would, I think, be dereliction of duty. So, he is somewhat hamstrung in what he should say given that role. I will say that I pleased to see many here giving the benefit of the doubt, so am probably being defensive here due to the plethora of 'Bush lied' threads.

That being said, I do think Bush portrays things as rosy a bit too much for my tastes as well. I don't think things are in dire straits yet, as I expected difficulties much like what is occurring. No one relinquishes power easily. However, nethier will I claim things are peachy keen over there, either. Rather than state that, Bush does seem to be on one side of the spectrum or the other, depending on intent...would be nice to see a little middle ground, which I think is both acceptable given the above, and also more accurate.

Hobbes,

I don't think anyone is asking Bush to reveal a state of panic over the situation there. But I do think the situation is more dire than he is willing to admit to the public (who I think could handle the truth and would respect him for it). The message he's delivering though is "stay the course", implying nothing should change in his approach. It is that level of denial that I think is reckless and significant overall.

Doc

Doclutus,

I can't argue with that assessment. I was just trying to add what might be behind it..ie, he feels that doing so is his role as leading from the bully pulpit. This would be more to work against any appearances of success for the terrorists than any public relations here domestically. However, as I said, I myself find the rose-colored-glasses a bit too strong myself, and would be even more concerned if this was the behind-the-scenes demeanor as well.

I honestly do think he is being honest about the situation in Iraq. I just don't think he's doing what some people want him to do and to me that seems like they want him go on TV, pull his hair out and break down into tears saying "it's sooo soo bad I really messed up".

Why isn't he? Beacuse the situation in Iraq, as bad as it seems lately is part of an ongoing process. Right now we're in a down cycle due to recent events and upcoming events like the elections in Iraq. The terrorists are gonna turn up the heat on us and we have to prove that we can take it without waivering. Which is why President Bush postures the way he does.

I read his interview in the TIME Magazine and I was stunned to see the scope of his strategy in Iraq. His plan in Iraq seems (after reading TIME, not a republican product by any means) to be to stop terrorism around the world by freezing the climate in which terror thrives. Spread Democracy in order to evoke mass participation in the governments of the Arab world while proving to terrorists that we are not "paper tigers". Prove that we will stay the course. In doing so this will also create the ability of citizens in Arab nations and the world community to hold accountable these dictators, so that we can minimize large portions of funding to the terrorists.


I think Bush is being very honest, I think that with the withdrawl of major American News organizations in Iraq we get more of our Iraq coverage from foreign news sources which are more likely to talk about what's wrong in Iraq than what's right about Iraq.

Does this mean that we don't have serious problems over there with infrastructure and with instability and with insurgents? No.

Does that mean that the optimists view is wrong? No.

Iraq needs time and as long as I believe President Bush and The United States are going to keep up and persevere for what is right, I will stand by this war. I think it is of the utmost necessity.

Long live a free Iraq, long live America

John I am tickled by your optimism, and horrified by the implications of that same optimism applied on a national level. I wonder, if all signs point to bad, how Bush can still give a "I think things are going to get better in Iraq" and other rosy assessments without being pointed out by his party members as not giving the whole truth... Oh wait... they already have. The dire situation in Iraq has been accepted even by FOX NEWS, Murdoch's pet "news" company that is publicly bent on only giving the conservative side, and being "Fair and Balanced" to Murdoch's Republican friends in DC. If FNC admits its kindof bad, you can expect that it is quite a bit worse.

I totally understand the idea that the situation in Iraq is a process, and thus as a series of events strung out over a broad timetable it is likely that it will eventually turn out OK for America.

That conceded, my thoughts are: What is OK for America in that long term example certainly won't be good for Iraqi's who continue to die in droves at the hands of the misguided US military. And also, even if we "stay the course" as the sound-bytes remind us, how long will it take, how much more money will it require, and how many more lives (not just Americans) will be lost in the process? If we assess the war on those grounds, especially with consideration for the justifications given for beginning the war, and the likely outcome of Iraqi democracy (i.e. impending civil war), where is there room for optimism? Isn't optimism an optimistic way of saying ignorance?

It is really unfortunate that there is a re-election bid here for Bush, because even if he wanted to, if he were to stand down on anything he'd probably be eaten alive. That's sad, because day by day more and more people will die becuase Bush needs to outdo his daddy and get a second term.

If a person only heard Bushs accounts of the Iraq war you would think that we are having no problems whatsoever.

I understand that he can't say that everything is going to "hell in a bread basket". but as least be a little truthful or treat the American people with a little dignity.

If it wasn't for the press and some Republican Senators and some military Generals we would never know the truth.

The facts are that the attacks have increased from the past few months.

The Generals have told Bush and his adminstration all along that there were not enough troops in Iraq to made any kind of headway or victory. Did Bush listen. Hell no. Do you ever wonder why. That would make him look badly in decision making and hurt the presidental campaign. Which comes first, the welfare of the country or his ego.

There are some cities where the Army or Marines does not even patrol because of the situation.

And the only news that comes out of Bushs mouth is "we are winning the war on terrorist". This in itself is a grave falsehood. America was never ever in grave danger of being terrorized from Iraq.

Iraq invasion was false from the start and continues to build on a false premise. So it is no startling news that Bush is not being honest with us.

Even McCain said "Bush was not being as straight as maybe we'd like to see". And this is from a person that is campaigning for you.

This line from Ollive just had me shaking my head in total disbelief. U.S. soldiers, Marines – and increasing numbers of Iraqi National Guardsmen – are very much engaged

That isn't what took place in Fallujah

As part of the April pullout the Marines created what was called the Fallujah Brigade of mostly Saddam military loyalists who were supposed to keep the Islamists in check. Instead, even military officials now agree that simply left a "vacuum" of authority that allowed the extremist influence to spread to places like Samarra.

How about the "engaged" Fallujah Brigade which was disbanded?, these were even former Baathists who were "owned" by the militants.

From the horse's mouth about Ramadi

We've done everything we agreed to - we've stayed out of the neighborhoods 99 percent of the time," Marine battalion commander Lieut. Col. Paul Kennedy told a meeting of Iraqi security officials
and. . .

"We cannot guarantee that section of road," says provincial police chief Maj. Gen. Jaddan Mohamed Al Doulaymi, a 35-year veteran of the Iraqi police. "We will give orders, but maybe the police and soldiers will not obey them," he says


Did Oliver North report from the heart of Fallujah or Ramadi???


In regards to the debate question, you are correct 100% leder. It's all simply a matter of perception. I honestly believe that the president somehow feels that we are winning and that he is not deceiving us about Iraq, much the same way LBJ and some cabinet hawks thought they were "pacifying" Vietnam and used casualty counts to back it up in their twisted, logic.

To dip just outside of bush, to say being a president, i dont know how many people would be straight with this issue being its most likely their job at stake. Do i think bush is fair and balanced with his iraq claims, no. Forcing a democracy on iraq does not mean it will take and or work, and the inability to persuade the various groups of iraqis that fight against america to turn into political bodies is not going to help either. I overall feel we sent a force not trained and or equipped to deal with its mission off the bat(lack of planning also), and this has not helped over time. I feel that the war itself is really being waged on iraqis, whom to speak are either aiding the terrorists and or the infidels. Infrastructure in iraq is slowly broken by the fighting, and with an economy in the grips of such war, and lack of spending on americas side for something it started, i dont think this overall helps aid in making iraqis favor us. Many iraqis flood into green zone as to what various reports say for safety from the fighting and whats going on over there, and this green zone is attacked also on a regular basis. To come to the middle east, you will find all kinds of wastes of money, such as a fleet of suvs, that serve no real purpose save to give you ac while driving i guess. That is but just the tip of the ice burg. You can say things all day like i am doing, but its the common soldier that interacts with the population every day, and the problems that population faces from medical services to having regular electricity every day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep25.html



This report complied by a private security firm working for the u. s. government,contrasts sharply with assessments by Bush adminstration and Iraq's interim prime minister.

If the press is really LIBERAL, how come Bush is not held accountable for telling us a different story, then what is really happening in Iraq.

It is quite disgusting the way Bush receives a free pass.

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?


He has lied or distorted from the beginning. And it's serious that he lied to Americans, but it's far more serious that he lied to Congress. It's an impeachable offense, in fact.

As for Iraq's current situation: Yes, he's lying to us. Reports released by the CIA and other departments on the situation in Iraq show it is deteriorating, that civil war may be imminent, and I have read reports saying more troops are needed. Meanwhile, Bush does not address these issues except with assurances that all will be well.

Meanwhile, there is a new lie being told, in my opinion: That the CIA will not meddle in Iraq's elections. This, in my opinion, is a lie being told to Congress and America, meanwhile, Iran-Contra style, the administration will do as it pleases.

Another lie is the lie that there will be elections in Iraq in January. With huge numbers of Iraqis in areas hostile to America and America's interim government excluded for security reasons (Rumsfeld's plan), no election can take place. The adminstration might call what takes place an election, but it won't be. It will be a rubber stamp that will put Allawi and most of the interim government permanently in power.

The Abu Ghraib situation has been effectively stonewalled, too, with trials being delayed and further suspects (especially non-military suspects) not being divulged. I think on this one the plan is to stonewall until the American public is no longer interested and lets it go.

The Congress has also betrayed America's trust. Several months ago, the Armed Services Committee voted (along very partisan lines) to not require more information regarding contractors and training practices at Abu Ghraib. So the fault does not lie entirely with this administration.

Further lies involve saying we went to war because Iraq threatened America's security to saying we freed them from a dictator to saying Iraq was a potential threat, to saying Iraq had ties to 9/11 to saying Iraq trained terrorists to saying Saddam needed to go, and back and forth again.

The fact is, Bush has put American in violation of international law because we did not go to war for security reasons. Bush has put himself in violation of America's laws by deceiving Congress.

I agree 110% ralou that the president's facts are dubious at best. At the same time, I truly believe that he doesn't intentionally mislead or lie. I've come to this conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, Hobbes in the "what is the war about?" thread asserted that there were plenty of reasons for invading Iraq, the administration was merely looking for the one that would be the best "sell" to the public. In other words, the administraiton needed a simple justification for complex reasons that unless they were shortened somehow, the public just wouldn't "get it"

Secondly, the president is a religous man. While I don't agree with his social views and theistic-interpretation of life, I do noneoftheless, respect the values that he holds. I believe that his values are evident in all of his speeches. Consider this sentiment expressed when he spoke alongside Allawi:


-White House speech press release

I believe the president is merely misguided and stubborn, much like LBJ.

The problem is that this comes close giving Bush a pass on Iraq, just like he's received on nearly everything in his entire life. When he said "young and irresponsible" in the 2000, that meant until about the age of 38. For crying out loud, how can someone be an adolescent until mid-life and get away with it?

I don't care what Bush's motives were--whether they were pure as driven snow or as sinister and calculated as Richard Nixon's. If Reagan was teflon, Bush has been teflon 2.0 all his life. I'm fed up with hearing people make excuses for him. Now that he's achieved adult hood in middle age, that should mean accountability as an adult. The consequences for the decisions that brought death, maiming and destruction in Iraq demand more than the equivalent of standing in the corner or being grounded.



This sounds like as cynical a motive as I've ever heard. We're not smart enough to "get it?" I guess if the administration thinks the public is a bunch of simpletons, that makes Bush, as the song the British rock group XTC suggests, "The Mayor of Simpleton."

I would agree with you BoF someone has to be held accountable and if he does not want to hold anyone accountable he needs to be held accountable. What is even worse with your last statement nebraska29 is that you think that he is misguided that is a very dangerous position is has put us in and to not hold him accountable is just not going to do it. As some have said if Clinton can be impeached for lying about sex where is the outrage that he doesn't have to answer for the mistakes under his watch.

I'm not certain that we should get personal with the guy-I think it's great that he turned his life around at 38-some people never do and die of alcoholism shortly after that in their mid 40s. He had a problem and he solved it, even if someone is a Republican, I think we need to give people their due and acknowledge their success in the face of a terrible problem. Some people could never acknowledge anything good about Clinton, how do we solve the same problem when some of us on the left act in a similar manner towrads the president?

Cadman:



You could make the case that intelligence was "sexed" up as the Brits would say, but that he outright lied? If I may ask-where is the smoking gun on that? We have Clinton's on tape during the Jones deposition, where is Bush's statement and/or other evidence that suggests he knowingly led us into this by lying? I'm not talking about speeches, I'm talking about perhaps a tape where he, Dick, and Karl get together and agree to conduct a real live "wag the dog" attack? I'm just curious-post links if you can.

Nebraska,

What we are saying is that Bush must be held accountable for the bad decisions he's made in Iraq.

Sure, we can be happy that he sobered up, but that hasn't solved all the problems. We can retire him to Crawford next month as a non-drinking former president and that's fine with me. Let him get about the business of writing his memoirs, opening a library and enjoying life free of alcohol. That's fine. May he live out his days in peace and hamony.

Bush refused to take responsibility for 38 years He wasn't even a public official, let alone President of the United States, when he straightened up. However much Bush celebrates sobriety or we celebrate with him, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for the disaster he's created in Iraq and some don't seem to want to hold him accountable. His unwillingness to accept responsibility isn't something Bush has changed. This pattern has to stop somewhere--no more hall passes. I hope November 3rd draws the curtain on his political career.

Perhaps Bush thinks he is being honest with the American people. But a President who surrounds himself with people who always agree with him will not have the most accurate picture of the war. Remember the way he dismissed out of hand the latest CIA reports: best case scenario--things will stay the way they are, worst case scenario--civil war?

It is an election year. If Bush does not portray the occupation and the struggle of the pro-democracy Iraqis to 1) not get killed and 2) establish a legitimately Iraqi government and hold elections, he runs the risk of losing this election. Under these circumstances, the progress in Iraq is embellished and the conflicts and tragedies minimized by the administration to put as good a face on Bush's War as possible.

I don't trust this administration to be honest with the American people any more than I trusted Nixon when he said he was not "a crook." This administration has been far too secretive, and downright obstructive regarding any investigations Congress wanted to undertake regarding the attacks of 9/11. Only time will tell whether Bush has been honest with us about Iraq.

I believe at worst, what we have here is a case of "group-think" mentality that has become entrenched after 911. Senator Pat Roberts believed it to be the case and said so according to a news report. One of the interesting items about group-think is how those who don't conform to the view of the dominant group are treated by members of it. Colin Powell's treatment by Rumsfeld and co. fits this description in a classic way.




I believe that no matter who is president, they would be fearful that any investigation would become too political and try to make sure that it doesn't. Common sense observation if you ask me. At the same time, I do agree that they are way too obstructive and have made a total mockery out of the freedom of information act. They evidently come from a school of thought were if we have hard times, that the constitution can be "bent" in order to not be "broken" in their logic.

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?

Pulitzer prize winning columnist, Leonard Pitts Jr., put forth an interesting argument in today's column, Bush's view of Iraq is lost in space, where he argues that there must be two Iraqs:

His column is worth reading. His argument is that if George W. Bush is not lying to American voters, he is completely out of touch with reality.

Then again, Bush supporters are working very hard to insulate him from dissenting opinions. Perhaps no one has told him the truth about Iraq. (And he has claimed he doesn't like to read newspapers. Wow! What a qualification for a Presidential candidate!)

(source)

It was interesting to note in the Free Press story that National Bush Campaign HQ said that these events should be open to anyone with a ticket. In Michigan at least, tickets to hear Bush speak have been given only to large contributors, and the impression is that George is only coming to Michigan in attempts to reach the undecided Republican voter...

His column is worth reading. His argument is that if George W. Bush is not lying to American voters, he is completely out of touch with reality.

[/quote]

How about this reality? The one where Iraq had WMD and moved them to Syria. The one where Ira used OFF money to bribe the Security Council. How about the ISG report – Read it yet? Maybe its your source that is deluded.

Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs
By Bill Gertz
Washington Times | October 29, 2003
Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=10547
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1237364/posts

. "Senior Iraqis—several of them from the Regime’s inner circle—told ISG they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended."
2. "Another element of this strategy involved circumventing UN sanctions and the OFF program by means of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements. Protocols allowed Saddam to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. The successful implementation of the Protocols, continued oil smuggling efforts, and the manipulation of UN OFF contracts emboldened Saddam to pursue his military reconstitution efforts starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001. These efforts covered conventional arms, dual-use goods acquisition, and some WMD-related programs."
3. "The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW [chemical weapons] program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions."
4. "ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations."

This report is a full year old as of this Friday. I do believe other information has come forth during this time.

Yes like the ISG report I gave a link to. Like the bribery scandal.

All relevant and all supporting the Bush view of a dangerous Iraq that was not going to be delt with by the UN.

The snippets of the report placed on the Free Republic website to which you link state only that had Saddam been given the opportunity he could have restarted a WMD program at some point in the nebulous future. Only with the most disingenuous misreading of the report could one ascertain that he was an imminent threat. The report confirms that he wasn't even a remote threat unless and until he had reconstituted his WMD capability and then proceeded to manufacture said WMD. Moreover, while the report discusses delivery systems (only one of which made it past the design phase), very little is mentioned as to his capability (or future capability) of even deploying those WMD had he ever the opportunity to produce them.

The simple fact is: desire != reality. It is clear that while he desired WMD and WMD programs, he simply was unable to bring those into fruition due largely to the containment strategy for the previous 12 years. There are many dictators in the world who "desire" WMD but are curtailed in one form or another from producing them.

As for the bribery scandal, I hope justice is served (though I am highly skeptical if it will ever be). But, corruption seems par for the course when a lot of money is involved (need I mention Halliburton).

But, to get back on topic:

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?

I am convinced at this point that Dubya believes what he says which tends to change depending on the audience or poll numbers. Thus, he is being honest in the sense that he is not willfully misleading anyone. If one is the type of person who "doesn't do nuance" or freely admits to not reading, then it is easy to be honest because there is no contradictory data from which to base one's positions. One can go with "gut feelings" and be comfortable in doing so because there is no perspective derived from analyzing the consequences of a given decision. Such perspective almost always requires reading and deep introspection: something which I believe Dubya does not do.

[quote=logophage,Oct 27 2004, 03:25 PM]
[quote=Ted,Oct 27 2004, 11:50 AM]Yes like the ISG report I gave a link to.  Like the bribery scandal.


The simple fact is: desire != reality. It is clear that while he desired WMD and WMD programs, he simply was unable to bring those into fruition due largely to the containment strategy for the previous 12 years. There are many dictators in the world who "desire" WMD but are curtailed in one form or another from producing them.

As for the bribery scandal, I hope justice is served (though I am highly skeptical if it will ever be). But, corruption seems par for the course when a lot of money is involved (need I mention Halliburton).

But, to get back on topic:

IS BUSH BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE IRAQ WAR?

I am convinced at this point that Dubya believes what he says which tends to change depending on the audience or poll numbers. Thus, he is being honest in the sense that he is not willfully misleading anyone. If one is the type of person who "doesn't do nuance" or freely admits to not reading, then it is easy to be honest because there is no contradictory data from which to base one's positions. One can go with "gut feelings" and be comfortable in doing so because there is no perspective derived from analyzing the consequences of a given decision. Such perspective almost always requires reading and deep introspection: something which I believe Dubya does not do.

[/quote]


Wrong. The ISG report said the programs were alive and well and when sanctions ended production would resume AND lets remember we would then have no way to get inspectors into Iraq. And if the threat was a year away is it any less deadly?

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions.


Is Bush being honest with the American people.

Yes. He said attacks would increase as we approached the election and they have. He said the effort would not be an easy one and he did not give a “pull-out” date.

I am sure Kerry, if elected, will cut and run leaving Iraq open to takeover by another Saddam.