David Corn: Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics

[norml]

Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics
David Corn
1 hour, 48 minutes ago



The Nation -- In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.


snip


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Bush+Rewrites+History+To+Criticize+His+Anti-war+Critics%22&btnG=Search+News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051114/cm_thenation/336405;_ylt=A86.I1kZw3hDKeYAkwL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[Dr Ron]

1. Important point re meaning of IWR vote

Many here have been playing into Bush's hands by spreading the claim that the IWR vote was a vote to go to war, and therefore claim that many Democrats who opposed the war were for it.

I'm happy to see David Corn working to get out the truth on this issue.

[confludemocrat]

8. IWR vote was war vote but IWR was not vote f/ Bush to remove Saddam

as he claims.You have conflated his lying to Congress, enabling him to have a blank check to go to war and his lie that vote was about removing Saddam.

Corn draws this distinction thusly:

"Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate." (emphasis mine).

So, it is not correct to make the characterization you did. It was a vote to go to war, even Edwards called it that in his mea culpa and those who voted no on IWR called it a "blank check".

[DirtyDawg]

10. Oh what a tangled web...

...that has been weaved. They've told so many different stories at so many different times that nobody seems to have the slightest idea of what they were voting for and when. Geedubya had even claimed that Hussein had kicked the inspectors out as part of his rationale for invading. This hair-splitting and parsing of words and evidence is just a bunch of crap. This administration conned everybody into this thing and apparently they even conned themselves.

[dargondogon]

19. Simpler argument: Why so few troops for such a huge threat?

Democrats can say this: Sure the president persuaded me Iraq was a threat. And he persuaded me he would wage a prompt and vigorous war to secure these weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he didn't even send enough troops to the right places to secure Iraq's conventional weapons, and we're facing those weapons now that they've fallen into the hands of terrorists.

[welshTerrier2]

13. the IWR was a vote to "authorize the use of force"

in Kerry's own words:

"The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise."

this does NOT mean Kerry was "FOR" war; it means he gave bush his vote so that bush could go to war if he chose to ...

the problem was NOT that Kerry wanted war; the mistake he made was that he trusted bush ...

[Dr Ron]

24. Not if he chose to

Kerry didn't vote to authorize force "if he chose to"

He voted to authorize force only if we were proven to be threatend by WMD. When Bush failed to provide such evidence, he urged Bush not to rush to war.

[welshTerrier2]

25. "as he determines to be necessary"

this statement is not correct: "He voted to authorize force only if we were proven to be threatend by WMD." ... perhaps that is what Kerry said or what he hoped bush would do, but the resolution he actually voted for did not contain any language that required bush to prove anything ...

bush did NOT have to provide proof before going to war ... he only had to state that it was HIS DETERMINATION that certain conditions existed ... if he wanted to go to war with Kerry's vote and the vote of too many other Democrats, all bush had to do, according to the IWR, was provide a written stated that HE DETERMINED (note that he didn't have to prove his case) the stated conditions had been met ...

here's the wording: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ... if the resolution had required that bush provide proof, and i wish that it had, bush would have had to return to the Congress and Congress would then have had to evaluate the "proof" before giving its authorization for the use of force in Iraq ... unfortunately, the resolution required no such process ... once Congress voted to authorize the use of force, all bush had to do was say that he determined it met the guidelines outlined in the resolution ... and that's exactly what he did ...

a majority of elected Democrats voted against the Resolution ... they were right to do so ... those who either trusted bush or voted based on perceived political expediency enabled one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in the country's history ...

[Dr Ron]

27. Not an ideal resolution--actually a Rove trap

Kerry had preferred a resolution with more restrictions on Bush. He also made it clear in his floor statement at the time that he would oppose Bush if he went into Iraq unilaterally, went into Iraq for regime change as opposed to removing WMD, or if he went into Iraq without proof that we were threatened by WMD.

At the same time Bush was publically stating that the resolution did not mean war was inevitable. Of course he was lying at the time.

This was really a no win situation politically. The resolution was obviously open to misuse as you describe. We also saw how they spun the vote when running against someone who voted yes to falsely claim Kerry had supported the war.

However, if they ran against someone who voted no, they could have taken such statements Bush made to claim that they would not have supported the use of force even if we were proven to be threatened by WMD.

Bush was going to find a way to go to war regardless of how the Democrats voted. The vote had little to do with whether we wound up at war. The tragedy of this vote is that so many Democrats fell for Rove's trap and let it divide the Democrats as many continue to falsely argue that Kerry supported the war.

[welshTerrier2]

29. Democrats should not have voted for the resolution

i agree with you that bush was going to find a way to wage war ...

and i'm afraid that Democrats ultimately made a political choice rather than a policy choice ... it's actually somewhat hard to believe that anyone could have been stupid enough to trust bush ...

the PNAC agenda was hardly a big secret ... the extensive pattern of overstatments (mushroom clouds, allegations about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda and even 9/11, etc) clearly called bush's credibility into question ... just based on this alone, Democrats should not have voted to authorize bush to use force in Iraq ...

but the sad truth is it seems more likely that they chose to vote based on their perceptions of the politics ... the country was still stinging from 9/11 and bush's poll numbers were very high ... i'm afraid that rather than doing the right thing for the country, they chose to protect their careers ...

as for Party unity, am i correctly understanding that you're blaming those who opposed the war and criticize the Democrats who voted for the resolution as falling for Rove's trap? one might suggest that those who voted for war against the wishes of their own constituents have created the problem ... and either way, wherever you choose to place blame, i see virtually nothing being done right now to heal the rift you've observed ...

John Kerry's calls before his vote for the IWR were running 20 - 1 against it ... i know this because i was one of the callers and i asked that specific question ... and today, those of us who want an immediate end to the war have no representation in the Senate ... that is not a good prescription for Party unity ... there is only room for compromise and unity when there is a process to achieve it ... and i don't see any of the Party's "elites" calling for that ...

if the republicans were not simultaneously self-destructing, we would be heading for a disaster next year ... if things continue as they are now, Democrats will NOT achieve anything close to the victories they otherwise should ... bush's weakness will help but it may not be enough to let us regain control ...

[confludemocrat]

33. Correct bottom line: Democrats should not have voted for the resolution

can't wriggle out of it, those who made the mistake need to fess up fully, no hedging, no "outs", no qualifications and no "nuancing".

Thanks for your clear take on it.

If Kerry went back and gave a speech that was simply, entirely free of wholly blaming Bush (the part of the blame he deserves is overwhelming, we know that already) and taking unqualified responsibility, it would make him viable.

To demand that here is to call a shitload of spinners down on one, though.

[zonkra]

21. Let me illustrate the transparent stupidity of the Liar In Chief's

argument with a simple analogy: A "friend" calls you up on the telephone while you're at work in your office and tell you that your wife is by your car down in the parking garage of your office building, being threatened by some strange guy who looks like he's trying to mug her. You immediately rush down to your car to try to save her from the "mugger", and your "friend" jumps out of hiding, hits you over the head, and steals your wallet. When you're picking your "friend" out of the police lineup after his arrest for robbery, he tells the policeman, "It was all his fault. He's the one who came down to the parking garage after I called him, so he was asking for it!" Only a sick bastard would make such a stupid argument as to suggest that you're at fault for believing his lie in the first place.

[jenndar]

2. Thanks for posting.

This is a really important message to be getting out.

[ginnyinWI]

3. kicked and recom'ed n/t

[young_at_heart]

4. Will all the media point this out?

Distortions and lies from DAY 1 have been the pattern of the Bush people. It would be nice if our media wouldn't repeat those things as "fact".

[Kurovski]

5. Bush slips deeper into insanity in order to defend insanity.

More lies to defend the other lies.

Quite a smart plan overall.

[ourbluenation]

6. I'm becoming my 12 year old now...W is a big, fat, liar...pants on fire

Who buys this shit? Who the hell does he think he's fooling? Do my tax monies pay for the services of the nincompoop aids that let him go out there and lie like a damn rug????

jesuschristonacracker

[prescole]

7. I just got an image of Nixon boarding that helicopter, flashing two peace

signs as he left the White House in shame.

Encore! Encore!

[TwentyFive]

20. Bush leaving like Nixon? More like Jim Bakker....

Bush is too disconnected to reality to know when it's over for him.

His impeachment exit will look like PTL Jim Bakker in the 1980's. Dragged out of the oval office by the feds, curled up in a fetal position, crying, and in hand cuffs.

[confludemocrat]

9. "bitter, embattled" prez reveals extent of his lying in telling this lie

Idiot son in so revealing a way shows he thinks most US people are idiots.

[ClintonTyree]

11. The more Bush fights this the deeper they're going to sink........

rather than TRULY accepting responsibility for the clusterfuck in Iraq he keeps attacking those who want transparency and accountability, that will NEVER work for them. They were told by Conservative leaders to clean house, take their lumps and get on with their agenda or risk losing it all. They chose to ignore those leaders and do the only things they know how to do; attack, lie, cheat, deny and finger point.
Bush still hasn't learned the one lesson a true leader needs to learn: humility. There isn't an honest, compassionate bone in his body. He's always been a spoiled, coddled buffoon who's never been allowed to fail. He's always been surrounded by fawning sycophants and has no real connection to ordinary people.
He's a lost little boy and is going to self destruct at any moment. I can feel it and it scares me. There's no telling what these madmen are capable of.

[mwooldri]

12. Ok. Who gave Bush the shovel?

He seems to be digging himself a rather big hole now, doesn't he?

I hope he likes digging - carry on digging Georgie Boy! You might be digging the mass grave for your own party's political fortunes, and if not the party then certainly for all your cronies in the White House.

[GoreDean2008]

14. A Liar Has to Keep Lying to Hide the Truth

That is Bush, period.

[bridgit]

15. i'm glad david has finally come around, early on, in response to corn...

musing, "would the bush admin actually lie causing the deaths of thousands to accomplish their agenda..." hubby suggested in an email to him, "well of course they would silly-kins" it seems it has been a long march since, but keys elements are finally turning round imo as well; or to say it another way...

the bush admin rewrote history no-less than once, what's one more time to a group such as this :shrug:

[drb]

16. This has Rove's fingerprints all over it.....

"Hit them in their strongest point!"

Just like hitting Kerry with the Swift Boaters....

[Stevious]

17. Are there pictures?

Tobyhanna is right around the corner from my parents place. My mom is his #1 fan...

:puke:

[tlsmith1963]

18. Bush Also Thinks...

...that people who have problems with him are just "haters" who go after him because he isn't in their party. In my case at least, there's a bit more to it than that. My problem with Bush isn't that he's a Republican, it's the fact that he's a neocon. And neocon=fascist. I would even take *McCain* over the neocons. I would take Independents over the neocons. Yes I wouldn't mind having Democrats in there, but anyone who can get rid of the neocons is fine with me. So I'm not just a "hater", guys. The problem isn't with me, it's with the neocons.

Tammy

[Kralizec]

22. It's called: "The 1984 Solution." The last-resort for G0P! n/t

[0007]

23. I'm absolutely amazed, and appalled that we have anything to do

with Ahmad Chalabi. This guy is an out right liar, even when he's caught in a lie.

Chalabi is as disgusting as the Republican party.

[JWS]

26. ROFLMAO

:rofl:

Gee, low approval ratings sure make el busho say some strange things!

[Occulus]

28. It's even better than that

I'm reading Wilson's book at the moment, and I've found this little nugget, on page 297-298 of the 2005 printng of the paperback:

By the time I received Baker's letter, President Bush's rhetoric had undergone a decided shift, largely due to the efforts of British Prime minister Tony Blair to reframe the issue as one of disarmament. Gone from the president's (sic) public statements were references to regime change. Instead, he was making statements to the effect that either "he will disarm or we will disarm him." When later asked if the language represent a change in appraoch, senior officials scoffed at the notion. If Saddam disarmed, then the regime had by definition undergone change.

Now, if in fact Bush is now saying that he "made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power," what he is doing is lying.... about a lie..... which he used to cover up the original lie, which was his original and realized desire to remove Saddam from power, period.

He and his are known to have desired this long before even the 2000 election. THEY HAD TO LIE TO EVERYONE TO DO IT.

Is the pResident on record saying this, that disarmament was "by definition" regime chqnge? Leeping in mind what he's now saying about his decision to remove Saddam, I think he may have just nailed himself to the wall on the entire issue if that is the case.

[upi402]

30. He rewrote history, said we went in to oust Saddam -WRONG!

We went in to take away his WMD, and to oust Al Qaeda from Iraq. Then when they were 'found out' in their scheme, they changed to 'freeing Iraqis' 'aiding democracy' 'regime change' and 'ridding the world of Saddam'.

BS

[Occulus]

31. Yes, but they wanted Saddam out long before they were ever in office.

Then, when asked, they dissembled, and said 'regime change' could mean Saddam disarmed (which itself was a lie, to them, in their remove-Saddam frame of reference). I thought that was one of those known and accepted facts... oh, to be sure, they also had many many other reasons, but that was from the beginnig one of them.

[4dsc]

32. Where is the 48 page report by Libby??

I seem to recall a 48 page report that Powell based his UN speech upon that was given to him by Scooter Libby. Nobody in the Senate has seen this report. Why are we not calling to have the White House reveal this document???