Did Bush knowingly lie? I think not, but I believe he did something just as bad. The president wanted justification to go to war and he asked for it. The justification was brought to him. He is not a curious or analytical person, and he accepted what was given him. It was what he wanted to hear. He goofed so badly that he had to retract a statement that he made in the State of the Union Address. But did he knowingly lie? Anyone's guess, but I say no. I say he was just his usual incompetent, incurious self, and allowed those with other agendas to push him into an historic blunder. The president is to blame, but not because he knowingly lied.

Now the vice president is an entirely different story. His battles with the C.I.A. because they would not give him the intelligence he wanted are already legendary. Those battles in fact led almost directly to the Plame affair, and what most likely will be indictments handed down this week. The vice president is both evil and highly competent. Match him up with Bush, and Bush doesn’t stand a chance.

Colin Powell in his address to the U.N., which was really, truly America talking to the world, with the world listening very intently, offered 99% false information. Did he believe it? I think so, especially if you believe the stories that what they WANTED him to say was 1,000% more inflammatory than what he eventually settled on. But, again, intentionally or not, he shamed himself and America.

If you want to understand how these mistakes came to be made, read Col. Lawrence Wilkerson’s remarks last week about the institutional and management shortcomings in the lead-up to and planning for war. I posted the link in another thread.

Yeah, I read that story that you posted. Certainly I agree that mistakes were made. No doubt about it. I wish that the Democrats would give us some idea of what their plan is to move forward instead of looking back all the time. I agree that with the info we know now, going to war probably was a mistake. I certainly think Iraq is better off for it with Hussein gone, but if there were no WMD then we shouldn't have gone to war. Having said that, we are there. It is done. Nothing you can change now. So I think the discussion should be more about what we do NOW to make things better in Iraq both for the Iraqis and Americans. Screaming at each other about what happened 2-3 years ago doesn't change anything that is going on now.

Still waiting for the other libs on the board to state their position on the lying thing.

Doesn't matter, Dad. One of two things is true. Either he lied (and there's plenty of evidence for that), or he's so incompetent that he'd allow himself to be deceived enough to lead my country into war over an information "mistake." If you expect nothing more than this from the President of the United States of America then we have different expectations. Frankly, I expect better performance than this from my administrative assistant, let along the "president."

Back to the lying theory. There was as much evidence against WMD as for it. If you need somebody to go BACK over the litany of information against the presence of WMD, then you're not listening anyway. And then there is the parade of BS excuses for being/staying there. They're not more imaginative than my 8th grade daughter's homework excuses, and not as convincing either. This is why voter opinion against this "president" is approaching 3/4 of the nation.

but hey, some folks here are going to stick to their guns and support an obviously failed strategy right to the ugly end.

This was the overwhelming consensus of popular and leadership opinion around the world at the time Dubya made his decision. The only place where there was anything close to support for his decision was right here.....and we know how that support was deliberately built. Fear is a powerful tool, and it was deliberately used to undermine my nation's national security. I personally think Dubya should be brought to justice. Can't imagine a "president" doing more harm to America than this one has. Another gubmint-hating, corporation-loving Republican president would probably not be my preference, but anyone would be a huge improvement over the current anarchist/idiot in the White House.

**Somewhat off topic**

I’m reading "Assassin’s Gate," only about 60-70 pages into it, but I can tell you that’s it’s an exhaustive piece of reporting. The author is a self-descried "liberal hawk" that supported the war. Early in the book, he takes us through the birth of the "neo-conservative" movement, which was really an intellectual spin-off from the liberal wing of the Democratic party!

I never really realized, but the neo-cons have virtually nothing in common with traditional "conservative" foreign policy thinking, which limits U.S. involvement overseas to vital national interests, and has no tolerance for "humanitarian" use of U.S. force. If you want the dime-store version of this philosophy, listen to Mul rant about our involvement in Bosnia right here on the PP boards. One of my first memories of W, in fact, was him scoffing at the idea of "nation building" at an early debate. He was as far from a neo-con as one could get.

The neo-cons are really an unholy alliance between an activist wing of the Republican Party and a bunch of do-gooder liberals. Put them together with ex-pat Iraqi nationals, and for 15 years before the invasion there developed an intellectual body of work exploring the ways, means and justification of invading a country simply to free it from a home-grown dictator.

So when WMDs didn’t pan out, three was ready and waiting a fully flushed-out justification for war, with proponents ready, able and willing to carry their dream of bringing freedom to Iraq a reality. That Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld had scoffed at these ideas (to the extent they thought about them at all) for virtually their entire lives became unimportant.

Oh ... and what to do from here? Wilkerson says we have to stick it out, we have no choice. Most people say that as far as I can tell. The only real debate seems to be whether our commitment should be open-ended or limited by some timetable. I see the merits of both sides of that argument. I wish I had a president I coud trust to make that decision but I don't. I'm inclined, in fact, to listen very carefully to what this administration has to say, then do the precise opposite.

Rick, the evidence was faked. The images of WMD facilities that Colin Powell held up at the UN were artist's renderings. The suspicious aluminum tubes were not suited for the work ascribed to them. The Niger letter was an obvious fake, revealed publicly to be so months before the invasion. Any weapons analyst would know that it's a long distance from uranium ore to enriched uranium to making a working weapon and ultimately having a platform to deliver it. Best estimates were that Saddam was up to 10/12 years from having an atomic weapon.

Since Bush publicly spoke of regime change in Iraq in 1999, it was clear that the administration wanted to take the anger following 9/11 and direct it to their pre-existing goals.

Have you heard about the Downing Street Memo?

It's very instructive to read it, because it makes clear that 'regime change' was the reason for the Iraq invasion and that there was an effort underway to stack up "thin" evidence to engneder public support for it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

I'm gonna disagree with Tech. One of the most maddening things about this war is that NOBODY can tell you the true reason it was waged. Yep, we know that the WMD stuff was for the most part cooked up, but that does not answer the question WHY.

And when you have a big gaping hole in the record like that, it lends itself to all sorts of wild theories. Keep the Republicans in power. Distract the country from the tax and corporate free-for-all that was planned. Avenge the attempt on H.W.'s life. Generate business for Mr. Cheney's old company. An on and on and on.

But the truth is, no one really knows. And that's the most damming indictment possible.

Rodeo,
There's probably no one reason. I'd say any of the above are valid (and more) based on a number of books I've read on GW's family history and their/his administration's military/corporate relationships.

Sherwood

So who's "industry" is not listed here?: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A

Ok, thanks for the honesty guys. I'm surprised that Rodeo and I are pretty much of the same opinion on this topic. I think that there certainly has been some political scrambling and spin put on the war after the whole WMD thing didn't pan out to be true. I also agree that leaving Iraq anytime in the near future would be disastrous (and by near future I mean 2-3 years at least). As the Iraqi army comes on line more and more we can start some limited troop pullouts (this is already somewhat in progress as many of the patrols are being done by Iraqi troops. But if you look at a historical perspective, we still have troops in Korea some 50 years later, we have troops in Germany and Japan 60 years after the end of WWII. I think it is certainly reasonable to think that in an unstable area like the middle east we would have some sort of troop presence in Iraq for the next few years.

This is what I wish the Democrats would talk about, and what I think they MUST talk about if they are to have any chance in 08. People want to hear about their plans for the future, how they would do things differently NOW instead of "Wrong war, Wrong time." Ok, we get that. You think the war was a mistake. Gotcha. What now?

Well, I do this because it interests me. I was a history major, and I think you learn a lot from examining the past. So for me its not simply "we made a mistake." I want to know why, and what kind of process can be put in place to avoid that mistake again.

One thing we know for certain about this war, beginning with Bernstein's book (endorsed by the Bush campaign) and right through the recent Wilkerson speech and "Assassin’s Gate," there are probably two or three people IN THE CONTRY that actually participated in the decision to go to war. There were hundreds, maybe thousands, of administration, Pentagon, and State Department officials that were prepared to engage in the analysis, make the debate on both sides, and let the president choose. But it never happened. There was no debate. There was no consideration of the pros and cons. One day, it just became "understood" that the war was on. Instead of talking to his advisors, Bush talked to God, and maybe Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Almost the same thing happened with post-war "planning" (if you could even call it that).

So what can I (we) do going forward? Make the president stop taking direction God? Make him curious about the world in which he lives? Force him to make considered, intelligent decisions? Give him a few extra I.Q points (or Cheney a few less)?

That's why I'm a "liberal," as you said a page or so back. Because I don't see any possibility of rehabilitating this administration. All we can do is let others know how badly they have bungled their jobs, and watch them like hawks.

Well you were going great guns for a while there Rodeo and then fell back into the comfy armchair of Bush bashing. Again, I am asking about what ideas the Democrats have about the war and how to make things better in Iraq. Telling Bush to stop talking to God doesn't cut it (although being a Christian myself I think talking to God is a-ok). What should we be doing differently than we are now? This is what I don't get. I watch Democrat leaders on television and they all talk about how horrible the war is and what a mistake it was but you ask them what their ideas are and they say things like: "Train more Iraqi troops "....ummm, already doing that. "Try to get our boys home ASAP"....ummm, working on that one too. See what I mean? Just seems like the Democrats don't have any ideas for Iraq except what Bush is already doing so they spend all their time talking about what happened 3 years ago.

I'm not advocating for the Democrats, that's why I haven't answered. And I think that's why you're confused about my motives. I'd like to see more Demorcats elected, sure, to bring some balance back to Washington. But I'm not all that interested in crafting a Democratice message.

Saying I have no faith in the president I guess sounds like a partisan message to you, but its not.

And talking with God is fine. Making historic decisions for our country based solely upon your interaction with God is what I have a problem with.

No it wasn't...In fact David Kay agreed, France, Germany, Russia and the UN agreed...Bill Clinton agreed including the document thief in chief Sandy Berger.

Here is Jay Rockefeller (ex-robber-baron party) before he saw more merit in attacking the President, regarding Saddam's ties with international terrorism:

"He could make those weapons [WMD] available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

He added:

"Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.

"If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq, that his principal legacy to the Arab world would be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it so irrational. And if he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it so irrational."

WeeklyStandard

Before Jay "Robber-Baron" Rockefeller became a key liar for the Democrat strategy of undermining Bush and Iraqis, he said this:

"The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."

When did Rockfeller become the authority on WMD and terrorism?

Thanks for the open and honest discussion, Rodeo. I understand that you don't have faith in the President and to be honest with you, my support for him is getting thin. I voted for him and if I had to do it again, given the choice of Bush or Kerry, I would vote Bush again. I have voted for Democrats in the past and would do so again, if I felt there was a Democrat candidate who was anywhere near my personal position. The problem is I seem to be the "enemy" as far as the Democrats are concerned. I am a white Christian man who is apparently one of the rich people who benefitted from the Bush tax cut. I don't think gay marriage is in the best interests of our country, although I would support some sort of civil union to get equal rights for gay couples. I think we should stay in Iraq until the job is done. I don't believe in affirmative action, at least not as it is currently practiced. I think the economy is doing just fine, thank you. I am making more money than I used to and my investments are doing well. Yes, we are starting to see inflation, but inflation comes with economic growth. These are my personal positions and it seems the Democrats are 180 degrees from me on most issues.

"Just seems like the Democrats don't have any ideas for Iraq except what Bush is already doing so they spend all their time talking about what happened 3 years ago."

That's the definition of the word, "quagmire". There aren't many options when you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. So why blame the Dems because there's no easy extraction plan? There were more options posed 3 years ago, but we had too many rabid fans for the grand plans of Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and company. Pinpoint laser guided missiles, fast-strike forces, unprecedented firepower, mission accomplished - oft-repeated buzz words (good vs evil) and quick-victory slogans. A majority jumped on the home team bandwagon as if this war against flesh and blood were an Indiana high school football game. Rah-Rah, kick em' in the a$$. Who cared then if flesh and blood would eventually spill on both sides and for this long?

Is it any wonder there aren't any workable solutions that anybody can muster? So please don't blame the opposition for not having the answer. The hawks of our country lobbied for and justified the black and white solution in their '03 march into Baghdad, but as many should realize by now, there are seldom black and white solutions to world problems.

MHO,
Sherwood

Ok Sherwood, I buy that. But if that's the case, can the Dems please stop talking about how horrible the management of the war currently is and just say "Hey, they are doing the best they can and we don't have any ideas either." Seems they want both sides of the coin...they blast Bush on his plans but don't have any of their own except for what is already being done. If it's a quagmire, then fine...say so and quit acting like you would do something different if you were the President.