Dishonesty and the Bush Administration
Posted by
Kevin
Late last month, Joe at Evangelical Outpost questioned liberals’ use of the term “dishonest” in reference to the Bush Administration. It was a telling rant (and, frankly, insulting):
My assessment, however, is completely wrong; it appears that liberals actually don’t view truth as something which is empirically verifiable. Their primary contention that “Bush lied” was founded on claims that Saddam had WMDs and ties to Al Queda. You would expect that when evidence of WMDs was found and Saddam’s ties to Al Queda were established that they would admit that Bush hadn’t lied after all.But that didn’t happen. Instead, their cries of dishonesty grew even louder. It’s almost as if they truly believe that reality is a social construct and that if they repeat the claim often enough it will become “true.”
Let me offer some unsolicited advice to those on the Left: stop claming “Bush is dishonest.” While it may make you and your ilk feel better, no one else is buying it. In fact, it’s hard to take you seriously when those on the Left stood by Clinton as he looked all of us in the eye and lied to our faces.
…snip…
Besides, one of the problems with the truth is that it can be verified. If Bush is a liar then those on the left should be able to prove it. But they can’t. They don’t even believe they have to. While they may not be able to prove that Bush lied, they feel it in their gut. And, for them, feelings are as valid as facts.
Pretty scathing stuff. In the comments, Joe was summarily lambasted (by myself and several others), but never did concede that the word “dishonest” could rightly be applied to Bush and his Administration.
Why do I bring this up now? Because in the wake of the GOP-led, bipartisan 9/11 Commission’s finding that there’s “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, coupled with Bush and Cheney’s continued insistence that there is such a link, I’m wondering if he has reconsidered that opinion yet. And if not, what would it take to get him to reconsider it?
Not to unfairly single out Joe and pick on him; his was the most condescending of the blog posts I’ve read to that effect, but it was far from unique. It really seems that there isn’t anything in this world that could convince certain people on the right that they were sold a bill of goods concerning the war in Iraq as it relates to the war on terror.
UPDATE: Some (including Joe, and SayUncle in the comments) accuse “the Left” of moving the goal posts on the issue of Iraq/al-Qaeda links:
I predict that we will see some goalpost moving on this one. At first the Left claimed there was no link to al Qaeda. Since that has been established, they’ll dismiss it and claim that no significant link has been proven. What comes after that? Will they claim that Bush has failed to establish a family connection between Saddam and bin Laden?
Sorry, but the only goal post moving here has been by the right. Whatevery tenuous “links” have been established — and make no mistake, they’re little more than rumor and innuendo — they don’t even come close to vindicating statements like this:
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Emphasis mine. The President told the American people that Saddam Hussein personally aids and protects members of al-Qaeda. There has to date been zero evidence to back up that claim. If “the Left” has an expectation that the administration will prove a personal relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, it’s because Bush himself set that expecation in January of 2003.
I’m sorry, but you have to drink a lot of Kool-Aid to think that this somehow constitutes the Left wanting to move the goal posts…
Also, never mind the merits of Joe’s repeated insistence that nobody on the Left has conclusively proved Bush lied about anything, because that misses the point. Joe didn’t say just that the Left was wrong about Bush being dishonest. He essentially said that the Left was either unreasonable or themselves dishonest in accusing Bush of dishonesty. That’s a whole different animal. It’s one thing to disagree with someone; it’s quite another to accuse the people with whom you disagree — as a group — of being idiots, intellectually dishonest, or both.
Why do I bring this up now? Because in the wake of the GOP-led, bipartisan 9/11 Commission’s finding that there’s “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, coupled with Bush and Cheney’s continued insistence that there is such a link, I’m wondering if he has reconsidered that opinion yet. And if not, what would it take to get him to reconsider it?
Here is what would cause me to reconsider:
#1 – When they say there is no connection, there should be no connection: The story claims that “there was ‘no credible evidence’ Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida.” Yet just a few paragraphs later it points out that Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994.
To me, sending one of your cronies to meet with the head of al Qaida is a “connection.”
#2 – When they stop treating al-Qaida as if it were primarily an organization: Al-Qaida, as Foreign Policy, recently pointed out, “is less an organization than an ideology. The Arabic word qaeda can be translated as a ‘base of operation’ or ‘foundation,’ or alternatively as a ‘precept’ or ‘method.’ Islamic militants always understood the term in the latter sense.”
I can understand the partisan “gotcha” games that the Dems want to play with Bush. But trying to downplay connections between two known terrorist- supporting entities just to make political hay is inexcusable. Our nation’s security should be put ahead of all this nonsense about “which Iraqis met with which al-Qaida leaders and can Bush prove it.”
Comment 6/16/2004
Some folks are in denial. The reality that their good ole boy screwed the pooch is just too much to bear, so they mouth the talking points they hear on Fox News. It’s the only explanation I have for seemingly intelligent people refusing to face the cold, hard facts.
Comment 6/16/2004
So let me get this strait. I can brag to some hotty in a bar that I’ve got a foot long johnson, bank a cool mil per year and can crush rocks to fine powder with my mighty pectoral muscles and I’m not being dishonest since I do, in fact, possess a male sexual organ no matter its length, do make at least some money and do indeed have the standard human musculature system if not a well toned one?
Only fully fabricated untruths are dishonest now… if, of course, you can’t pin the blame on your own utter incompitence which is apparently perfectly copecetic to the wingnuts as well.
Comment 6/16/2004
Tuttle,
Here is the standard that is required. When you say that someone is lying you have to show that they did, in fact, lie. It’s really that simple.
I really don’t think the Left realizes how ridiculous they come off when they claim that “Bush lied” yet can’t seem to come up with an example.
Comment 6/16/2004
Joe:
Step away from the Kool-Aid. Seriously. “Partisan Gotcha games?” How is that possible on a bipartisan commission with a GOP chair? Did the GOP chair just lay down and let the evil Dems have their way? Maybe you should pick up a newspaper once in a while…
As for the “connections” themselves, you like to skip important details, don’t you?
But hey, Cheney wasn’t (and isn’t) lying or being misleading; he’s simply wrong. Incompetent or dishonest. Those are your choices; take your pick. But wait, there’s more:
Emphasis mine. Al-Qaeda is known for many things, but lying isn’t one of them. They carry out their attacks specifically to draw attention, not to deflect it. What’s their motive for lying about this? And their statement aligns with everything else we know about the Iraq/al-Qaeda “relationship.”
I can link Kevin Bacon with al-Qaeda about as easily as you can link Hussein with al-Qaeda, and still you deny that there’s any air of dishonesty about the administration.
Tuttle makes a good point, too, about how you’re defining dishonesty. Apparently, to you, a grave exaggeration of the threat posed is in no way dishonest, so long and nothing can be shown to be completely fabricated.
As for the dishonesty of the administration in general, I’ve pointed out (on your site) at least two examples, where the president’s press secretary and defense secretary Rumsfeld both lied about the use of the term “imminent.” You never responded to that either. But I’m sure they weren’t being intentionally misleading; they just have piss-poor memories, apparently.
And I’m sorry, but your semantic games surrounding the word “lie” are just as bad as the Clintonian BS about what the meaning of the word “is” is. You have been the king of Making Excuses for Bush. When Bush told the American people that Iraq tried to buy nuclear material from Africa, he wasn’t lying, he was merely relaying bad intelligence. When Bush touts Iraq/al-Qaeda “connections” that absolutely nobody in the intelligence community considers significant, that’s not lying, he’s just saying stuff that is technically true while not in the least bit relevant.
And by the way, since when did “lying” become a prerequisite for dishonesty? Are you seriously claiming that intentionally misleading people is not in any way dishonest, so long as it doesn’t include any outright lies? That’s absolutely preposterous.
While I’m at it:
“I really don’t think the Left realizes how ridiculous they come off when they claim that “Bush lied” yet can’t seem to come up with an example.”
Here you go:
He said this, and it wasn’t true. Oh wait, but that’s not lying, because when he was called on it, he claimed that he thought it was true when he said it. Turns out he lied about that, too:
I’m sure you’ll find a way to jump through hoops and excuse that exchange, too. Nope, no dishonesty here.
Really, your credibility on this issue is suffering mightily.
Here, Joe, have more. Oh wait, a lot of those aren’t really lies so much as they’re flip-flops. Wait, why are flip-flops evil when Kerry does it, but A-OK when Bush does it? Oh yeah, it’s the letter after their respective names that makes all the difference in the world.
Comment 6/16/2004
When is a Connection Not a Connection?
In 1995, Texas governor George Bush held a meeting with Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian Coalition. During the discussion, Bush mentioned that he was planning to make a run for the Presidency after his second term in office….
Trackback 6/16/2004
To me it appears to be the old goal post moving partisanship:
First claim: iraq had no connection to terror. Oh, it does?
Revised claim: iraq had no connection with al qaeda, they’re secular, ya know. Oh, they do?
Last revision, we promise: Saddam had no connection with al qaeda. Oh, except that one time.
Ok really we mean it now, last revision: Saddam had no significant connection with al qaeda.
Comment 6/16/2004
As for the “connections” themselves, you like to skip important details, don’t you?
The panel report said that meeting never happened.
I’m not sure where you got this source but it is inaccurate. The panel never concluded that the meeting never happened:
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Again, do you subscribe to the notion that in fact Mohammad Atta met with Mr. al-Ani in Prague in the spring of 2001?
MS. MYLROIE: I think it’s an open question. I don’t have the information that allows me to make a clear judgment one way or another.
Al-Qaeda is known for many things, but lying isn’t one of them.
I can’t believe you just said that. Are you sure you want to stick by that statement?
I can link Kevin Bacon with al-Qaeda about as easily as you can link Hussein with al-Qaeda, and still you deny that there’s any air of dishonesty about the administration.
I can link Bin Laden to a senior Iraqi intelligence officer. Let’s see how many connections it takes to link him to Kevin Bacon. Or are you being “dishonest?”
Apparently, to you, a grave exaggeration of the threat posed is in no way dishonest, so long and nothing can be shown to be completely fabricated.
Show me an example of a “grave exaggeration.”
When Bush touts Iraq/al-Qaeda “connections” that absolutely nobody in the intelligence community considers significant, that’s not lying, he’s just saying stuff that is technically true while not in the least bit relevant.
Why are you always moving the goalposts? First, you claim that there is no connection. Now you are saying there is no significant connection. What’s next? Are you going to claim that Bush hasn’t established a family connection with bin Laden?
Are you seriously claiming that intentionally misleading people is not in any way dishonest, so long as it doesn’t include any outright lies? That’s absolutely preposterous.
Prove that Bush “intentionally mislead” the American public. You are doing just what I claimed that the Left does repeatedly. Makes base assertions without proving it. Just because you think Bush is misleading does not make it so. You have to actually prove it.
I’m sure you’ll find a way to jump through hoops and excuse that exchange, too. Nope, no dishonesty here.
No, there’s not. Did Bush not credit it to the British intel? Perhaps your claim is that the CIA is infallible and that by not agreeing with their assessment, the President was being intentionally dishonest? So if the President goes along with the CIA and it turns out that he’s wrong, then he’s dishonest. And if the President does not go along with the CIA and it turns out he’s wrong he’s also being dishonest, right?
Seriously, if that’s the best example you can come up with its no wonder no one takes the “Bush lied” crowd seriously.
Comment 6/16/2004
Uncle:
To me it appears to be the old goal post moving partisanship
Sorry, but you’re way too intelligent to be that full of shit. Sorry if that’s harsh, but I can’t think of a polite way to put it. The only people moving any goal posts have been the Bush Administration and their proponents. It wasn’t the Democrats who gave doom-and-gloom forecasts about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. And it wasn’t the democrats who said, point blank, that Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked, it was Bush himself who put the goal posts there:
Yet this constitues me moving the goal posts. That’s beautiful. A GOP-controlled bi-partisan committee backs up what I’ve been arguing all along, thank you very much, and somehow we’re the ones being partisan.
Seriously, stop and think about this. Leave your prejudices at the door and look at the evidence, or lack thereof. Defending the administration on this is a losing cause.
Joe:
*Sigh* I can’t believe how firmly you have the blinders strapped on here.
I can link Bin Laden to a senior Iraqi intelligence officer.
How? Through a “credible but unconfirmed” intelligence report? That hardly constitutes a solid link. By the way, I bet there are several senior US intelligence officers who can be similarly “linked” to bin Laden. Hardly a smoking gun. You haven’t even got a decent circumstantial case.
Prove that Bush “intentionally mislead” [sic] the American public.
What, short of Bush himself admitting it openly, would constitute “proof?” I give examples of Bush knowingly presenting questionable intelligence as though it were not so questionable, and you ignore this, or explain it away, or excuse it for some other incomprehensible reason. I give examples of Bush promising to do one thing and doing another, and those somehow fail to qualify, too. I suspect Jesus himself could appear before you, tell you that Bush is lying now and has been for some time, and you would still take Bush’s word over that of Jesus.
Did Bush not credit it to the British intel? Perhaps your claim is that the CIA is infallible and that by not agreeing with their assessment, the President was being intentionally dishonest?
You’re missing the forest for the trees here. He knew the Intel was questionable, and by your own admission included it on the technicality that if it proved false he could pass the buck, so included it anyway, and this doesn’t strike you as the least bit dishonest or misleading? And you think the Democrats are slimy? Wow… I’m speechless.
Seriously, if that’s the best example you can come up with its no wonder no one takes the “Bush lied” crowd seriously.
Again, pick up the paper. Look at Bush’s plummeting approval rating. Look at the ever-increasing allegations of malfeasance against the administration. Your claim that “no one takes the ‘Bush lied’ crowd seriously” has little basis in fact. Maybe no one on the hard-core right takes it seriously, but the rest of the country happens to be paying attention.
Oh, and:
Why are you always moving the goalposts? First, you claim that there is no connection. Now you are saying there is no significant connection. What’s next? Are you going to claim that Bush hasn’t established a family connection with bin Laden?
Good golly, I’m sorry I didn’t use the word “significant” at every possible opportunity. What’s the practical difference, I wonder, between no link at all, and no link deemed significant by the intelligence community? Don’t you see how this make you look as if you’re grasping at straws?
How’s this: there’s no credible evidence that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda were ever cooperating in any meaningful sense. The administration has had a year and a half to come up with something to back up their oft-given claims to the contrary, upon which (coupled with WMDs) they based their case for this war, and rumor and innuendo is still the best they can do. And somehow I’m moving the goal posts. That’s just lovely.
I suppose Bush’s contradictory statements concerning Chalabi don’t register on your dishonesty-o-meter, either.
Comment 6/16/2004
Yet this constitues me moving the goal posts.
not you specifically. And you’re way too smart to read that report, that mentions a link, and then say there’s not one. Whether or not the link was overstated, less relevant than the bush admin lead us to believe, or justified the war are separate and debatable issues.
Comment 6/16/2004
Uncle:
not you specifically.
You did accuse me specifically of moving the goal posts, on this specific issue, in the comments here:
.
And you’re way too smart to read that report, that mentions a link, and then say there’s not one.
My above apology to Joe for not universally using the words “important” or “significant” apply here; and my question to him then also is addressed to you: What’s the practical difference between no link, and no significant link. In making that sort of argument, you’re conceding that what links do exist are insignificant, at least on the surface.
Whether or not the link was overstated, less relevant than the bush admin lead us to believe, or justified the war are separate and debatable issues.
Here we mostly agree, although I think it’s pretty obvious that the link was overstated.
Comment 6/16/2004
I stand corrected, you did move them :^)
Comment 6/16/2004
Uncle:
Yep, I admit it. There may be one or two insignificant links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Terribly sorry I didn’t allow for that in my initial statements.
If I moved the goal posts a millimeter, the Right has moved them a mile.
Comment 6/16/2004
The standard Joe seems to be applying is not “empirically verifiable,” but “empirically verifiable and consistent with my prejudices.” The committee says there’s no connection, and Joe trots out a congressional report, which provides no real connection, but a meeting between some people for some unknown reason. There’s also that famous “nonaggresssion pact” between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but that certainly doesn’t imply that they were working together. Oh, and there was an Al Qaeda-associated group in Iraq, but that was Kurdish/U.S. controlled northern Iraq, an area over which Saddam had no control.
Anyway, arguing with Joe on this one is pointless. He’s going to say, “It’s not a lie, because I see a connection,” and you’re going to say, “It is a lie, because the people who know more than you don’t,” and then he’ll blame you of just being a liberal with a silly definition of lying.
Comment 6/16/2004
It all depends on what the definition of “is” was, right?
Comment 6/16/2004
Here is the standard that is required. When you say that someone is lying you have to show that they did, in fact, lie.
Strait up, no weasle words about ‘intllegence sources claiming’ or ‘the British government learning’:
“We gave [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in” - GWB 7/14/03
“It was [Saddam’s] choice to make, and he did not let [the inspectors] in.” - GWB 1/27/04
Even if Bush had thought that statement was true in July of 03 it was pointed out to be untrue long before he repeated the claim the next year.
He lied.
Comment 6/17/2004
Tuttle,
Would you mind providing links to those quotes so we can see their context?
Comment 6/17/2004
July 14, 2003 Press Conference, last question:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
” The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.”
January 27, 2004 Press conference, towards the end:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-3.html
“And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution — 1441 — unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.
I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger, that’s what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now. And as Mr. Kay said, that Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we’re vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security.”
Comment 6/17/2004
People like George Bush and Dick Cheney have been in politics quite a long time. They know how public discourse works. It is simply ridiculous to claim that the statements they made about 9/11, al Qaeda and Saddam were made without a clear understanding of how those statements would be reported and understood by the average (and below-average) American. Similarly, their failure to educate and inform Americans about the LACK of any significant connections between Iraq and al Qaeda (especially compared to the connections which can be found between AQ and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.) can not be ignored, for the same reason.
As to Cheney and Bush’s continued perpetuation of the Iraq/Qaeda connection, it must be recognized that at this point they have NOTHING to lose. Bush’s approval ratings are so low that they are stuck with their usual strategy of sticking to their story. This approach will satisfy, at least, their hardest core of supporters and wingnuts and asinine pundits like Sean Hannity and drug-addicted marriage-desanctifying hypocritical lying skum like Rush Limbaugh.
Finally, the other diseased chicken which is finally coming home to roost is the Administration’s desperate efforts to keep Bush from making ANY factual statements which are remotely contestable. This Administration has gone to great lengths to shield Chimpy from having to deal with facts by giving the dirty work to folks like Cheney (a human pig if ever there was one), Condi Rice (still mysteriously absent following her perjuring before the 9/11 commision), Powell (no credibility left) and Ashcroft (less than no credibility left — the man has single-handedly proven why fundamentalist Christians can not be trusted in high government positions) and Rumsfeld (if he doesn’t resign, he’ll be criminally charged, which he should be regardless of whether he resigns or not). At some point, we knew the world would wake up and say: who the fuck is in charge here? And that has finally happened “big time.” It all started when these arrogant self-righteous and blind retards declared Mission Accomplished in a made-for-TV farce while our troops in Iraq were getting their limbs blown off on a daily basis.
No giant welcome mat for the troops. No WMDs. No qaeda connection. Outrageous underestimations of the cost. Geneva Conventions out the door. Our intelligence and Army disgraces us. Who’s in charge? George W. Bush. Worst. President. Ever.
Comment 6/17/2004