Who woulda thunk it? A MSM rag actually comes out and admits that Bush did not lie:
Did President Bush intentionally mislead this nation and its allies into war? Or is it his critics who have misled Americans, recasting history to discredit him and his policies? If your responses are reflexive and self-assured, read on.
On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration’s arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. We predicted that this exercise would distress the smug and self-assured–those who have unquestioningly supported, or opposed, this war.
The matrix below summarizes findings from the resulting nine editorials. We have tried to bring order to a national debate that has flared for almost three years. Our intent was to help Tribune readers judge the case for war–based not on who shouts loudest, but on what actually was said and what happened.
The administration didn’t advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq’s alleged illicit weapons. The other most prominent assertion in administration speeches and presentations was as accurate as the weapons argument was flawed: that Saddam Hussein had rejected 12 years of United Nations demands that he account for his stores of deadly weapons–and also stop exterminating innocents. Evaluating all nine arguments lets each of us decide which ones we now find persuasive or empty, and whether President Bush tried to mislead us.[…]After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.
They then go through 9 arguments for war made by the Administration (weird, but the left only believes he made one argument, WMD’s)
Their analysis shows where Bush was wrong and where he was right. But nothing in it shows he lied to go to war. Of course the lefties will call this piece a propaganda piece, as they always do, but still nice to see a MSM paper coming to grips with shrill cries from the left.
Still, the article comes across as pretentious. They print a verdict after every argument but leave out many things.
At one point they have a short blurb about Saddam having the programs in place to start up the WMD program, but make no mention that Bush was right when he said it would have been dangerous to our country to let that capability continue. No big deal right? But that fact conveniently left out shows that if the status quo had been maintained then Iraq would have been a much greater threat.
How about this part from the article
No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein’s regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.
:doh_tb: Um, hello? Bush NEVER said that Saddam was tied to 9/11. He DID say that there were links to Al-Qaeda which is a fact. I suppose the MSM just can’t help itself, even when they try to be objective their true bias can’t help but peek through.
I suppose the MSM just can’t help itself, even when they try to be objective their true bias can’t help but peek through.