Politics: { Tangled Web of Lies }

[Taken from an article by Suzanne Fields] Lies are deadly stuff. Like all poisons, they have to be handled carefully. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave/ When first we practice to deceive," writes the poet and novelist Sir Walter Scott. Mark Twain was practical about it, too: "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

Lies are particularly lethal in politics. They create a cauldron of double toil and trouble, nearly always in unpredictable ways. When a president lies, he's asking for it. "I am not a crook," said Richard Nixon, and he was driven from office. "I did not have relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," said Bill Clinton, and he was impeached. Now we're told, and told and told, that George W. Bush lied to get us into a war in Iraq. That could be impeachable stuff, too. A poll taken for The Wall Street Journal/NBC News suggests that 57 percent of Americans believe that George W. "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq." In Europe, the percentage is even greater, and in the Middle East, nobody ever believes anybody about anything (and with good reason).

Somebody is clearly lying to somebody, proving that "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." But even a casual examination of the public record demonstrates that the president is not the liar.

The lied-about president finally pulled his boots on with a speech on Veterans Day, reproaching not just the liars but those who listen to lies: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." He reminded those with short memories that a bipartisan Senate investigation found that no pressure had been applied to alter the intelligence findings about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Look again, he said, at more than a dozen United Nations resolutions citing Saddam Hussein's possession and development of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction.

John Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cites the record of the Iraqis' own admission that they had developed chemical weapons, and their later assertion that they had destroyed them.

"They were obstructing the inspectors, and it was perfectly reasonable to think that they still had those capabilities," the ambassador told me over lunch (of roast chicken) this week in Washington. "In retrospect we should have done better at probing that assumption." But that doesn't diminish what was once reasonable to believe. He calls attention to the remarks of Chief Inspector Hans Blix in a briefing to the Security Council in 2002, that it was imperative that Iraq furnish strong proof of the claim that there were no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons left in Iraq.

" . . . [I]t would need to provide convincing documentary or other evidence," Mr. Blix said of Iraq at the time. "Production of mustard gas is not exactly the same as production of marmalade." Only months before we went to war against Iraq, Mr. Blix found 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker 105 miles southwest of Baghdad, and wrote that "they could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg." (Icebergs in the desert? But we got his point.)

If, as Mr. Blix now claims, he was only being cautious and that the president "misled himself," Mr. Blix gave the president considerable assistance.

Norman Podhoretz notes in Commentary magazine that the chief of staff for Colin Powell, when he was the secretary of state, said "the consensus of the intelligence services 'was overwhelming' in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981." There was also a credible belief that Iraq would be able to make a nuclear weapon in months to a year after it acquires 'sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.'"

The list of Democrats who believed as the president did, and fell all over themselves saying so, is a long list, and includes Bill Clinton; Madeleine Albright, his secretary of state; Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd; and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the Democrats in the House. If you don't believe me, you can Google 'em.

The warning by William James has a particular resonance for our time: "There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."

~Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

[Taken from an article by Michael Barone] Go back, if we must, to 2002 and 2003. What we knew then was that (a) Saddam Hussein's regime had developed weapons of mass destruction—chemical and biological weapons and the beginnings of a nuclear weapons program—in the past, (b) that regime had used such weapons against its own people, and (c) that regime had refused over a long time to cooperate with the U.N. inspection program. Even apart from the intelligence reports indicating that WMD programs were continuing, it would have been grossly irresponsible for any U.S. government to have assumed that they had stopped. What kind of intelligence could we have obtained, in those circumstances, that would have convinced us that they had stopped? The failure of U.N. inspectors to find WMD programs? But they could easily be hidden, and the actions of regime operatives suggested they were hiding something. Statements by top-level defectors or regime members that the programs were not ongoing? Any intelligence analyst would have to assume that these might be disinformation. Statements by Saddam himself? Come on.

The Democrats are trying to relitigate the prewar intelligence issue in the hopes of delegitimizing this administration. But in delegitimizing the administration, they also tend to delegitimize the efforts of the U.S. government, including military personnel, in Iraq and generally in the war against Islamic terrorism. To the extent they delegitimize the United States, they are hurting the cause of freedom for millions of people. I do not say the Democrats are being unpatriotic, a word they seem fixated on. So far as I am aware, no responsible Republican has charged that they are unpatriotic; John McCain refused Bob Schieffer's invitation to do so. But I do say this: The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of "Bush lied" are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country.

~Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report

Here's a list of actual quotes from a few well-known Democrats. Or watch and listen to the Democrats themselves making these statements here and here.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that what happens in Iraq "matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face - and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Albright's boss, former President Bill Clinton, talks about Saddam seizing opportunities "to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction..."

Former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger says he is "certain" that Saddam will rebuild and use his WMD arsenal again - "as he has ten times since 1983."

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons - there's no question about that," says Nancy Pelosi says in her videotaped remarks.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller says "there's unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons in the next five years." Rockefeller also warns the U.S. not to underestimate the progress that Saddam's been able to make on developing WMD.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) talks about Saddam's attempts to gain access to nuclear capability.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says Saddam has "thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think that the president is approaching this in the right fashion."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) says she supports the president and action against Saddam because "it's in the long-term interests of our national security."

Comments

***typing very gently****

Serious question. In your opinion, do you think victory in Iraq was worth the cost? Victory meaning removal of Iraq as a threat and cost as in human lives and financial resources.

I'm not setting you up since I don't really know what my opinion is on that statement. I'm just curious.

Posted by: Celia | November 27, 2005 at 09:01 PM

I think victory would mean alot more than just the removal of iraq as a threat. I think an example of democracy working in the middle-east could have a huge historical impact in the region and I think the fact that people there no longer in fear of the regime of Saddam would be a victory in itself. I never really bought into the idea that the sole reason we took action was because of the threat of WMD. I think it was bigger than that right from the start. Whether it was sold to the UN on that argument or not is probably a different story but we all know when you're trying to argue something, you go with your strongest selling point. Evidently at the time that was ours in terms of gaining global support.

As far as the lives lost and the financial resources spent, I do believe at this point it's still worth it if we stay the course. What about all the lives lost BEFORE we took action? The thousands upon thousands of iraqi's who lost there lives. Are they less valuable somehow than the lives of Americans? It amazes me that this war has somehow become labeled as a failure in the eyes of the media. Where's Saddam Hussein? Um yeah, he's in PRISON, under trial for all the heinous crimes he committed against his own people. What about the last election? A vastly higher percentage of people turned out to vote than Americans ever have in the history of our country. And that under the fear of being killed for doing so. I found some interesting statistics and an article that I'll probably post shortly. I feel strange saying that I believe it will be worth the lives lost because I'm not over there willing to lose my life but I have a very strong respect for those that do and I think maybe we should be asking THEM whether they think it's worth the cost.

Posted by: Shawn | November 27, 2005 at 09:22 PM