Bush Lied, People Died

Bashing President Bush is all the rage these days. This is especially true if you 1) live in a college town, 2) insist on only buying Fair Trade, or 3) ride a bicycle to work. (I’m sure there are good explanations for the larger number of Bush-bashers in these groups, but I’ll leave it up to you to seek them.)

What is the justification for the wonderful slogan we see in the picture above? Well, according to the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence there isn’t much justification for this claim. What is surprising is that the committee chairman, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va) is one of the individuals leading the “Bush Lied, People Died” crusade.

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post recently wrote a column describing how this catchy phrase is a farce. What I find humorous is that he uses the report that Rockefellar oversaw to make his case. You can link to his article if you’d like to read in more detail, but I’m going to just present some of its highlights. Below you’ll find one of the things that people think Bush lied about, and then see what the committee actually found concerning that allegation.

1) Bush lied about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

2) Bush lied about Iraq’s biological weapons, their production capabilities, and their mobile labarotories.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

3) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

4) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

5) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of ballistic missiles.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by available intelligence.”

6) Bush lied about Iraq’s possession of unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

7) Bush lied about Iraq’s involvement with terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda.

• Committee findings: Bush’s statements were “substantiated by intelligence information.”

There is a big difference between being wrong about something and lying about something. We now know that Bush was wrong about much (if not all) of the above, but so was the intelligence community. Bush relied on the gathered intelligence and made his decision based upon that. That is a far cry from lying about it. So, you may ask, what did the committee chairman think about this intelligence at the time it was gathered? I’m glad you asked.

Hiatt quotes committee chairman Rockefeller as saying in October 2002 “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated… To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

This is from the person now leading the “Bush Lied, People Died” campaign (although he does it less boldly). This is from the committee chairman whose own report just stated that Bush’s claims about Iraq and their intentions were accurate, given the intelligence gathered at the time. Rockefeller had access to the same intelligence that Bush had and came to the same conclusion as Bush. So why isn’t there “Rockefeller Lied, People Died” stickers too? I’d like to think because it’s not as catchy, but I’m pretty sure that’s not it.

I’m sure this report won’t cause the eminent philosopher Peter Singer to retract any of his arguments against Bush in his The President of Good and Evil: the Ethics of George W. Bush. Here is a sample quote from Singer, “There can hardly be a more grave charge against the president of the United States and his administration than that he misled the world, in order to start a war that killed thousands of people, including at least 3,000 civilians, and maimed and wounded, or made homeless, tens of thousands more” (my emphasis). You are correct, Mr. Singer, there is no graver charge against a president. But since we now know he did not intentionally mislead anyone, perhaps that is a charge you should drop.

I know that this report won’t stop any of our bike riding, free trade buying, college student friends from proclaiming from the mountaintops how evil of a person President Bush is. But it will be fun to watch those same people squirm when they realize how weak their case against Bush actually is.

Barack Obama, President Bush, and the War in Iraq

Barak Obama, President Bush, and the Iraq War

Believe it or not, it turns out that Barack Obama’s Iraq war strategy isn’t as different from President Bush’s as you might have thought. This is especially surprising since Obama’s Iraq plan seems to be one of the only things we know about what he would do as president (we’ve yet to figure out what exactly “change” amounts to, even though he wants to do a lot of it).

Listen to Obama speak for a few minutes and sooner or later you’ll hear him mention his plan to begin bringing troops home now. It’s no coincidence that the ubiquitous “We Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” stickers are often placed right next to “Barack Obama ‘08″ stickers. As it turns out though, Obama actually thinks that Bush’s Iraq strategy isn’t such a bad idea. Of course he could never come out and say that because the liberal-left would kill him for it. Before I demonstrate that their plan for Iraq is essentially the same, I need to briefly summarize Bush’s strategy.

When you hear President Bush speak about Iraq he inevitably mentions refusing to fail. Why is not failing so important? There are two main reasons. First, if the U.S. fails in stabilizing Iraq, there will undoubtedly be an increase in the presence of al-Qaeda in that country. This isn’t too surprising since the people we’re fighting in Iraq right now are mostly members of al-Qaeda. They already have one place from which to base their operations and we can’t give them another one, especially one so close to Saudi Arabia. Second, the increased presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq will put the lives of those Iraqis that have fought alongside the United States in serious danger. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that al-Qaeda is going to seek retribution against the Iraqis that have ‘offended their cause’. Abandoning the Iraqis to al-Qaeda is not acceptable.

Now you might disagree with Bush about this, but you should take note that Barack Obama doesn’t.

Because you probably think I’m crazy, I’ll now quote from the Obama campaign website. The author of Obama’s position paper on Iraq writes, “Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq… In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safe-haven.”

Now to be fair, prior to that quote Obama says he’ll immediately begin bringing troops home and have everyone home in 16 months. The problem is that he goes on to say residual forces will remain. Well, one might ask, how many residual forces and for how long? What happens if those residual forces aren’t adequate to “protect American diplomatic and military personnel” or to intervene to “provide civilians with a safe-haven”? One might also wonder why he would be willing to leave troops at all, especially since he continually says he’s going to bring all of them home. Essentially, Obama gets that al-Qaeda is going to be a problem and that they’ll be such a problem that we won’t be able to ignore them. Why wouldn’t we be able to ignore them? Because they’ll have a new base to operate from and will retaliate against Iraqis that helped the United States. Sound familiar? He understands what Bush is saying, but he also knows that he’d never get elected by admitting Bush is right. However, Obama is a very smart man and that’s why he provided the “out” clause I quoted above. This clause allows him to preach now about how he’ll bring the troops home, but once elected, can keep things going until the Iraqis can adequately manage things themselves. He can get the political payoff now and keep letting the military do their thing then, all that without ever going back on his word. Smart man.

I should point out one big and important difference between Bush’s plan and Obama’s plan. Obama evidently thinks it is better to wait to act until an outbreak of genocide occurs, whereas Bush thinks it is better act now and ward off an outbreak that would otherwise be certain to occur. I’m not so sure about this strategy.

So, if you’re a big fan of the “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” idea, you might want to push Obama a bit harder on what he would be able to do as president, and stop being satisfied with what he would like to do.

Clinton & Other Dems on Terrorism

I’m not sure if I’ve ever said this before, but I think Senator Clinton is right (well, at least about one thing). In the New York Times there is an article describing the widespread disagreement between Clinton and other Democratic hopefuls about whether or not the United States is safer now than before 9/11. Clinton’s position is basically this, we are safer now than we were before, but because of Bush’s bumblings in Iraq and other places, we’re clearly not safe enough. What appears to be everyone else’s position on the issue, because Bush’s bumbling in Iraq has created more terrorists, we are now less safe than before 9/11.

Now I’m undecided if the lack of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 means we are safer, though I do think our knowledge of foiled attacks does signify something. But what I think is really queer is how many of the Democratic hopefuls jump from the possibility of there being more terrorists to the reality that the U.S. is less safe. I’m convinced it’s just a red herring that the Dems hope will give them another chance to blast another Bush policy. I think their argument for us being less safe would go like this:

1. Terrorists were a threat to the U.S. before 9/11.
2. Since 9/11 Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and in doing so, has created more terrorists.
3. If there are more terrorists in the world, then there are more people with a desire to harm the U.S.
4. More people that desire to harm the U.S. means that the U.S. is less safe now than before 9/11.
5. Therefore, Bush has once again screwed up America and despite all his efforts, we are less safe.

This may not be exactly how their argument goes, but from reading accounts of last night’s debate, it sure seems like it’s the gist of it. So why do I think appealing to the idea that there are more terrorists now than before is a red herring? Well, notice that in the argument above there is no mention about improved methods for thwarting terrorist attacks. Let’s say the rate of inflation continues at about 4-5%. Inflation stinks because if you own a home, if its appreciation rate is not outpacing inflation, then you’re losing money (you know, given insurance, maintenance costs, and interest on the mortgage). But, if the appreciation of your home is outpacing inflation, then it’s not as bad as it could be. I think you see the analogy. If there are more terrorists today, but the U.S.’s efforts at thwarting attacks has ‘outpaced’ the growth of terrorists, then we are safer. Notice this doesn’t mean having more terrorists is a good thing, it just means that having more terrorists doesn’t automatically mean we are less safe. The failure of most of the candidates to even address the fact that most agencies at home and abroad are more effective now is just an attempt to discredit everything Bush does.

I’m not sure if I’ll ever say this again, but, Senator Clinton, I think you’re right.