Fox's Gibson: Nothing wrong with Bush "picking" WMD as excuse for Iraq war

[sabra]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508170002

Fox's Gibson: What's wrong with Bush administration's "pick" of WMD as "good reason" for Iraq war?



While guest hosting The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Fox News host John Gibson explained that President Bush and his administration had decided that they "wanted to get" Saddam Hussein and so they "picked" weapons of mass destruction as the justification to win world approval for the invasion of Iraq. Following his explanation, Gibson asked, "What was wrong with that thinking?"

From the August 12 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:

GIBSON: I think what happened was Bush said, and I said, "You know what, we have a firm demonstration how vulnerable we are to terrorism, let's look around and see who is it that wants to do things to us. And let's go knock them off -- the guy who did it to us and the guy who is thinking about it," and picked Saddam Hussein. We think he's a bad player, we think he's got a grudge, we think the war in '91 never ended for him. He's going right on doing stuff to us under the radar. And there's a ton of stuff connecting him to terrorists, but if you don't want to believe it, fine.


But let me just say, that we said we're going after Saddam Hussein. That's what was going on in our country. And people said, give us a good reason. We said, OK, fine, let's find one. Let's pick one. What is it you would believe -- what is it you would give an OK for war? What is it? And then the world said, weapons of mass destruction. OK, fine. What's the information out there? French say they got them, Russians say they got them, the U.N.'s past resolutions, Bill Clinton said they got them and you can't trust them.

So we say, OK, fine, that's the reason. We'll pick that one. But when you get right down to it, way before that one ever was offered, we wanted to get him because he's just a bad guy who shouldn't be running that country, and we had good reason to fear. We were vulnerable if left him sitting there. What was wrong with that thinking?

[OrlandoGator]

1. Here's "what's wrong" with it...it was total bullshit.

What a dickhead.

[annabanana]

6. And completely illegal...

And immoral, and stupid and dangerous and reckless..

Dear God Almighty.

[PatrioticLeftie]

2. Wow

Even when it was proved that Bush lied, Fox still defends him, and with the same amount of "evidence" they're infamous for.

[shraby]

3. Because that's called lying....to the

public and to congress and that's a crime.

[Bozita]

4. I'll take door number three

unfuckingbelievable!

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Yup, that's exactly what happened. And EVERYTHING is wrong with it!

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[ewagner]

7. What's wrong with that Thinking?

We for starters it's based on half-truths, distortions and downright lies that the Administration KNEW WERE LIES from the beginning.

Add to that, that we, as American Citizens were never convinced that we should go to war just because Saddam was a bad guy .

There's A LOT WRONG WITH THAT REASONING

"Approval" for the war only went past the 50% mark AFTER our troops were already on the ground IIRC.

[jsamuel]

8. "Instead of Saddam we now have thousands of Saddams"

Thats why you ...

[derby378]

9. I wanna see him tell it to Cindy Sheehan's face

Go ahead. Look her in the eyes if you can keep from flinching.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Gibson looks like Beaker from the Muppets, doesn't he?

I just can never take him seriously because of it.

[annabanana]

19. Have you ever seen them in the same room?

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Cracks me up, everytime.

And you're right. I have NEVER seen them in the same room.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. Because it was NEVER about national security, it was about

political capital
personal self aggrandizement
profit
oil
14 permanent bases
petrodollar hegemony

[JohnyCanuck]

12. The world now knows your President is a damned liar and can't be trusted.

Now, Mr. Gibson, try reading the story about the boy who cried wolf and see if you still can't see anything wrong with the choice to tell lies about non-existent WMDs in order to start an illegal war. Farking Idiot.

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. The problem is that very few would have supported an invasion

and occupation of Iraq on ANY OTHER basis. Furthermore, as it is turning out, the whole thing is a colossal blunder that will be going on for years, perhaps forever.

[Zorra]

14. A shining example of the moral depravity of the republican conscience.

And lack of ethics and morals.

It is perfectly OK to lie to hundreds of millions of people in order to start a war. Geez, what could be wrong with that?

These people make me sick. They are just plain fucking evil, and they flaunt it.
:puke:

[mmonk]

15. What's wrong with it?

It's a lie. On the basis of that lie, people have died and are still dying. Therefore, it's evil as well as a lie and that's what's wrong with it.

[Shoeempress]

16. Because our military exists to protect us, not to be used for vendettas.

[tex-wyo-dem]

17. Does anyone have specific information that supports...

the RW talking point that France, Russia, Bill Clinton, et al. actually believed Hussein had WMDs? I'm not saying they didn't, but I've never actually seen proof this was the case, and for some reason I just don't believe anything the RW says anymore.

P.S. That guys face gives me the creeps...looks like a grown up Hitler youth or something.

[Art_from_Ark]

I don't see how they could have believed it

considering that for the 12 years prior to the invasion, Iraq had been the most bombed, the most sanctioned, the most surveilled country on the planet. There was no way Iraq could have developed all those weapons during that time.

[Ganja Ninja]

18. I've got news for Gibson and FOX viewers.

Bush wasn't "out to get" Saddam. He was out to get Saddam's oil. Terrorism was just a convenient excuse. What does it take for these people to connect the dots fer christsakes!

[BillZBubb]

20. The road to fascism apparently is Gibson's favorite route

It's apparently OK for elected officials to do whatever they want as long as they present a plausible excuse. No facts are required. Goebbels would be proud.

[MrBenchley]

21. "Hey, you imbeciles will swallow anything..."

"....so what does it matter if pResident Weakenstupid lied to you?"

Wow....the wheels have come off Faux Noise completely...

Reminds one of the great line from Animal House, "Hey, you fucked up--you trusted us! So what?"

[kentuck]

22. And nothing wrong with Gibson helping him spread the lies ?

Does he care to answer that question?

[ComerPerro]

23. Gibson might have had a point if Saddam actually HAD WMD

And, I can't help but wonder:

You know what, we have a firm demonstration how vulnerable we are to terrorism, let's look around and see who is it that wants to do things to us. And let's go knock them off -- the guy who did it to us and the guy who is thinking about it," and picked Saddam Hussein. We think he's a bad player, we think he's got a grudge, we think the war in '91 never ended for him. He's going right on doing stuff to us under the radar. And there's a ton of stuff connecting him to terrorists, but if you don't want to believe it, fine.



Just out of curiousity, where is this stuff, and what wasn't that used as a reason?

[zbdent]

24. 86: "Would you believe...

10,000 litres of sarin gas?"

"Would you believe ... a thousand warheads ready to strike the U.S. in 45 minutes?"

"Would you believe ... two cub scouts with a staple remover?"

[tabasco]

25. "What's wrong with that thinking?'

REPUBLICANS SAY "THEY VOLUNTEERED - LET 'EM DIE!"

[sakabatou]

27. lies, lies, lies...

[OneBlueSky]

28. open the dictionary to "fool" . . . you'll find Gibson's picture . . . n/t

.

[RSchewe]

29. Seems like the only people sticking their neck out from the right are...

the usual suspects. There is no way to defend the justification for the war. All they can do at this point is distract, smear, or lie.

The main point in observing all of the attacks is the fact that they are taking the time to do it. That means this whole issue is bothering them, thus it is working.

This is a defensive attack. It may look like an offensive, but it is a defensive front since they cannot defend their positions. They are indefensible.

[Supersedeas]

30. sounds like an admission that WMD's were just a pretext

[spuddonna]

31. Man, they get weirder and weirder...

That's crazy... How can the defend going to war illegally?

I need more coffee to deal with this...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. Wow, between this and 'shedding unreality' Rove must've put out

the word that the paradigm shift is on--the new word is, "Yeah it was bogus lies the whole time. So what? What're you going to do, vote us out of office? Don't make me laugh."

[Mr Rabble]

33. Unreal. And yet not at all surprising.

And people will eat it up.

[JohnyCanuck]

34. Would Jesus lie to start a war? n/t

n/t

[GOPisEvil]

35. How many reasons are there to smack this asshat upside the head?

Let's just pick one and get to the smackdown, shall we?

God, what an amoral prick.

[LSK]

36. when did the French say Saddam had WMD????

Yes Clinton might have said something, but he DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.