Did the President Lie?

March 20 marked five years since the beginning of the war in Iraq, and yet many Americans still don’t understand it very well. Opinions seem to be driven more by partisan politics than by a balanced consideration of the issues.

Since the beginning of the Iraq War, the public discourse about the conflict has become increasingly wearisome. For me, the revisionist histories of the run-up to the war have been particularly frustrating. The public’s general inability to recall more than a few nanoseconds of the historical record have given the revisions some staying power.

One recurring myth is the idea that President Bush and his administration lied about Iraq’s possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction because he wished to manipulate the American public into support for the war. This narrative is perhaps most succinctly summed up in the bumper sticker slogan, “Bush lied. People died.”

Those who hold to this point of view are not saying that the Bush administration was deceived by faulty intelligence estimates about Iraq’s WMD’s. The “Bush-lied-people-died” people actually think that the Bush administration told lies to the American people.

I am wondering how many people believe the “Bush-lied-people-died” storyline. It ought to be pretty clear where I stand on this question, but I am wondering about you faithful readers who read the commentary on this blog. Do you think the President of the United States lied about Iraq’s WMD’s before the Iraq War?

I constructed a three-question survey that I want you to read and answer. It’s fairly simple and probably won’t take you longer than five minutes to fill-out. The survey includes pre-war quotations from the President about Iraq’s WMD capability. Tomorrow I will post the results of the survey, and then we can start a discussion about the President’s truthfulness (or lack thereof) before the war began.

Here’s a link to the survey: The Case for War with Iraq.”

I will print the survey questions below, but you have to click on the survey link in order to register your answers. It’s important to remember that the President made all of the following statements before the Iraq War began. I look forward to your responses.


1. Do you believe the President was telling the truth when he described Saddam Hussein’s WMD capability in this way?

“Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of . . . his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”


2. Do you believe that the President was telling the truth when he said the following in order to justify military action against Iraq?

“Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”


3. Do you believe that the President was telling the truth when he described the threat posed by Saddam Hussein with the following words?

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.”


89 Responses to Did the President Lie?

  1. brian l. March 31, 2008 at 10:43 am #

    “I am wondering how many people believe the “Bush-lied-people-died” storyline.”

    Who doesn’t buy that one…?

  2. brian l. March 31, 2008 at 10:45 am #

    Seriously, everyone in Bush’s’ cabinet has been wanting to go into Iraq for years and years before Bush even became President. 9-11 was just an excuse, a “new pearl harbor” they needed to get people behind Iraq.

  3. Darius March 31, 2008 at 11:11 am #

    Brian, do you remember a certain thing called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Based on your above comments, I must assume you don’t. Basically, it was a Congressional statement of policy, signed by CLINTON, that made it U.S. policy to promote regime change in Iraq. Now, I might be mistaken, but I assume most of Clinton’s cabinet did not serve in Bush’s cabinet.

  4. Daniel Davis March 31, 2008 at 11:11 am #

    i do not doubt the president’s words from the time he spoke them. i believe he spoke honestly, although mistakenly as it would seem in the years since.

    i find it funny how the vote from congress to affirm the declaration of war was almost unanimous. either the members of congress:
    – believed the lies
    – affirmed what was perceived by all as truth (my personal preference)
    – or they were weak-willed politicians who didn’t want to stand up to a president who had the vast majority of the nation behind him.

  5. Paul March 31, 2008 at 1:47 pm #


    do you not understand the difference between promoting regime change, and drooling over ways to tie 9/11 to Iraq?

  6. Paul March 31, 2008 at 1:48 pm #


    I am actually much more inclined to think that it was the third reason, not the second. We truly do have the government we deserve in America.

  7. Mark Gibson March 31, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    When did Bush ever tie 9/11 to Iraq? It never happened.

  8. Paul March 31, 2008 at 2:53 pm #

    Did Bush ever come out and say it? No.

    Did Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and a few others in the cabinet have an Iraq shaped chip on their shoulder from the second they got into office? Yep.

    Watch Cheney’s War and Bush’s War on Frontline (avaialble at pbs.org, or google it). If you’re not frightened by this government, you’re brain damaged or dead.

  9. Mark Gibson March 31, 2008 at 2:57 pm #

    I’m frightened by people that want to lose this war because of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

  10. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:17 pm #

    Again Paul, you should check your facts before you comment. When did Bush or his administration directly tie Saddam to 9/11? Rather, he CORRECTLY stated on many occasions that Saddam was tied to Middle Eastern terror, and generally promoted a sense of terror within the Middle East, since he could attack anyone at any time unprovoked.

    LOL at Mark, amen brotha.

  11. Paul March 31, 2008 at 3:18 pm #



    And I take it that this is your way of saying that you haven’t seen the frontline documentaries.

  12. Paul March 31, 2008 at 3:19 pm #


    check yours.

    The trained chimp is good for a chuckle, and that’s about all.

    Many in his cabinet were trying to immediately tie Saddam to 9/11.

    I know, I know, it wasn’t reported on Fox News, so it didn’t happen…

  13. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:20 pm #

    Ah yes, the completely unbiased PBS??? ha!

    I’m not frightened at all by this government, though a little dismayed that they haven’t kept the American people more in the loop on some matters. Though, considering the bitter and partisan Democrats turning everything into political games, I can’t exactly blame Bush for playing his cards close to the vest.

  14. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:22 pm #

    I do recall that Bush immediately asked his advisors if 9/11 was possibly tied to Iraq, but that is to be expected, since Saddam was basically at war with us and talked the talk in his rhetoric.

  15. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    Oh please, don’t play the “Fox News” card. I don’t watch Fox News, so it doesn’t apply. I also don’t watch PBS, since it’s more biased than any of the networks.

  16. Paul March 31, 2008 at 3:25 pm #


    spoken like a 4 year old.

    Good reporting is good reporting. If you don’t like the target, maybe you’re standing too close?

    I love how those on the right discredit any news source that isn’t Fox News or the National Review. And you call the left delusional?


  17. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:39 pm #

    “Spoken like a 4 year old?” Now you’re reduced to insults, huh? Isn’t it interesting how liberals usually resort to ad hominems so much more quickly than conservatives. Honestly, I have yet to see a comment of yours that isn’t reeking of condensension and verbal abuse (though sometimes it’s more subtle).

    Slanted reporting is slanted reporting. Never showing the other side isn’t “good” reporting.

  18. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    Oops, I mean condescension.

  19. Brett March 31, 2008 at 3:47 pm #


    You are guilty of the same thing you accuse Paul of. Also, both sides have slanted reporting, and all news programs are driven by their own biases. Fox news is a little more obvious than the rest, but none of them are completely “objective” in the slightest. To simply play the “liberal news” or “conservative news” card for any claim mentioned is immature, because it’s a sweeping generalization that all people can play regardless of how true the claim is.

  20. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:51 pm #


    I would be interested in a survey asking something along the lines of “Do you believe President Bush is generally an honest, authentic man who genuinely cares for Americans and our troops?” What I find usually is that the Bush Derangement Syndrome folks (and many other more moderate people) believe Bush is involved in an intentional plot to consolidate power and money as a means to itself. Yet just watching the man tells me that he genuinely cares. His surprise visit to Iraq on Thanksgiving Day a few years ago was one great example. When he addressed the troops in the mess hall, he got quite choked up. He’s like Reagan in this manner: very real.

  21. Brett March 31, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    My problem with this survey is the “Do you believe the President was telling the truth” format of the question. It should rather read “Do you believe the President thought he was telling the truth”, because he makes claims that we don’t know if they would have been true or not. The question I posed that Denny should have asked also fits in better with his claims in his post and goals for conducting this survey.

    I think that he thought he was telling the truth, but I don’t believe he was telling the truth in all instances. There is a big difference there, and I believe the questions should be changed to accommodate that before I can partake in the survey.

  22. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:55 pm #

    Brett, Fox News is only MORE obviously biased to liberals. I see much more slanting in stories on the other liberal networks. And I’m talking about the actual news coverage, not the talk shows like O’Reilly Factor. In actual news coverage, Fox News is way less biased than the rest of the mainstream media. But most people don’t realize this because our media and pop culture is framed in such a way as to make liberal ideas “mainstream” or “moderate.” So anything ACTUALLY moderate appears to be biased.

  23. Brett March 31, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

    Or as Darius said, maybe a rephrase to “Do you believe the President was being honest…” would be much better. The way it is phrased right now has to do more with reality/facts and less with Bush’s intentions, thoughts, and honesty…which seems to be why Denny posted the survey in the first place.

  24. Mark Gibson March 31, 2008 at 3:57 pm #

    I believe that Bush was telling the truth based on the intelligence that he received. So were all of the Democrats that were making the exact same statements as him. The difference is that Bush didn’t turn his back on the troops.

  25. Darius March 31, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

    Agreed with Brett, the wording should be rephrased to be more clear. He was honest in his statements, but much of what he said wasn’t true (though of no or little fault of his own).

  26. Brett March 31, 2008 at 4:00 pm #


    If that were true, then why have the GOP won the last two presidential elections? If Fox were the most unbiased news program, and the mainstream media are all slanted and liberal, then the Democrats should have no problem at all winning elections year after year after year, but this is not the case. This is a very typical argument though, thinking everybody else is liberal besides evangelicals, Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh. People sure aren’t listening to anybody else if this is the case.

  27. Darius March 31, 2008 at 4:03 pm #

    Because mainstream AMERICANS aren’t liberal, and don’t pay attention to the media. Look at the polling, most Americans don’t trust the mainstream media. Plus, Al Gore and John Kerry were pathetic candidates. It was truly amazing that Bush didn’t win by more of a landslide over Kerry. One great example of the liberal media is the whole Swift Boating issue. The mainstream media never addressed the TRUE accusations against Kerry, they just said he was being smeared. Yet the evidence PROVED that Kerry was a liar and that the Swift Boat Vets were correct.

  28. Mark Gibson March 31, 2008 at 4:05 pm #


    Have you forgotten about the Dan Rather (CBS) falsified documents scandal? They tried to influence the 2004 election with falsified documents of Bush’s National Guard service. I believe that is a pretty serious liberal bias.

  29. Darius March 31, 2008 at 4:10 pm #

    OH, great example, Mark. I completely forgot about that one.

    After the last two election cycles, how anyone could deny that the mainstream liberal media is more biased than Fox News is beyond me.

  30. Brett March 31, 2008 at 4:12 pm #

    I am unaware of both instances you guys brought up. I am not denying that news programs lean one way or the other. I am denying the obviousness with which you all claim all other news programs are liberals. Even if they do lean a little toward the left (which I believe many do), it’s not blatantly obvious.

    Also Darius, the media is a huge influence in our culture. To say that mainstream AMERICANS don’t pay attention to it is a completely false claim. If all other news programs are flaming liberals besides Fox, then it would show in the elections because the majority of people don’t watch Fox. I frankly am not favorable towards any news program (at least not in America, I like BBC pretty well) because I think all of them hold vital information and reality from us about what’s going on in the world. They’re more concerned with Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton than they are with the Darfur genocide or the one child law in China.

  31. Darius March 31, 2008 at 4:19 pm #

    You are unaware of the Dan Rather scandal? Where were you in 2004??? I must assume you don’t live (or weren’t living at the time) in the United States.

    Americans pay attention to the media, but poll after poll show that they take their news with a giant grain of salt. Last poll I saw indicated that almost half of Americans don’t trust the news media. Now some of those people are probably referring to Fox News, but a very small minority, since, as you mentioned, most Americans don’t watch Fox News.

  32. Mark Gibson March 31, 2008 at 4:21 pm #


    Check out newsbusters.org. They are a conservative media watch group. The liberals have Media Matters.

  33. Brett March 31, 2008 at 4:28 pm #


    I didn’t start paying attention or caring to these things until recently (I’m 24, even though I still don’t care a great deal).

    I don’t trust the news media, neither Fox nor CBS nor CNN nor fill in the blank. However, I don’t think everything they say is a lie. So if I were a big avid news watcher (which I’m not, I couldn’t tell you the last time I watched it actually), and story after story was about how dirty, evil, hypocritical, and crooked John McCain was, then I would probably be persuaded not to vote for him just because of the consistency of reports and hearing it time and time again. Granted, these stories may not be true, but listening to the media would certainly influence my decision.


    What are the purposes of these sites? What do they “watch” for?

  34. Mark Gibson March 31, 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    They are looking for liberal/conservative bias in the media.

  35. Brett March 31, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    Thanks Mark

  36. Ferg March 31, 2008 at 5:13 pm #

    anyone care about the Irish taoiseach going through a tribunal at the moment to see if he is a liar or not? didn’t think so!!!

  37. brian l. March 31, 2008 at 6:24 pm #

    Have you guys seen this written in 2000:

    “Further, the process of transformation [entering into Iraq],
    even if it brings revolutionary change, is
    likely to be a long one, absent some
    catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
    new Pearl Harbor.”

    From: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    Its from a thinktank called “Project for a New American Century” that most of Bush’s cabinet is or was a part of. Cheney and Rummy included, Wolfowitz even signed it. The 90 page document suggests why we need to go into Iraq (before 9-11 ever happened) (yada yada yada) then proceeds to say that without an event like Pearl Harbor (9-11) it won’t happen because there will be no support. Read the whole document…

    Less than one year later Bush gets in, these guys who wrote this document get put into his cabinet, 9-11 happens, and boom, we’re in Iraq…

    Why would anybody trust the government? We’re not supposed to!! That’s why we have a liberal democracy in place.

  38. brian l. March 31, 2008 at 6:27 pm #

    Also, Pat Buchanan wrote a book called, “Where the Right Went Wrong” detailing how Iraq has always been the goal for a long, long, time and Bush just gave the green light after 9-11. Iraq was sitting on the shelf, 9-11 took it off the shelf and put it into action. The whole Sadamm thing, terrorism, weapons, etc. were a bunch of lies. We have always had our eye on Iraq. They just sold America the war.

  39. Darius March 31, 2008 at 6:38 pm #

    You are right, we did have our eyes on Iraq. Like I mentioned above and you deftly ignored, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998.

  40. brian l. March 31, 2008 at 6:43 pm #

    I didn’t ignore it. This post is about Bush.

  41. Paul March 31, 2008 at 7:29 pm #

    Again, Darius, there is a vast difference between promoting regime change (you know, like we’ve tried to do in Cuba for almost 50 years) and violent overthrow because a few neo-cons think that actually being conservative is weird.

  42. brian l. March 31, 2008 at 8:44 pm #

    Amen Paul.

  43. Mark Gibson April 1, 2008 at 11:23 am #


    How did our policy of regime change in Cuba work out? 50 years and nothing. Bush and the United States military accomplished regime change in three weeks.

  44. brian l. April 1, 2008 at 11:26 am #

    So….Bush is still a liar…so is Slick Willy

  45. Paul April 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm #


    yeah, that regime change has gone SWIMMINGLY thus far.

    keep bangin’ them drums…

  46. Mark Gibson April 1, 2008 at 2:32 pm #


    I think that our guys have done a fine job.

  47. Paul April 1, 2008 at 3:11 pm #

    Way to be the super patriot Mark. So much easier to do it from a computer chair.

    I’m not denying that our guys have done as good of a job as they can given the leadership that they had to work with. But the leadership that they’ve had to work with is a disgrace to America.

  48. Darius April 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm #

    Paul, you can deny the HISTORICALLY easy regime change in Iraq all you want, but it doesn’t change the FACTS.

  49. Mark Gibson April 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Paul, quit using the same tactics that several people on this board have called you out on.

    I guess you prefer the leadership that votes for them to go to war, then votes not to fund them, and then tells them that they are losing? It’s pretty sad that you agree with treasonous behavior.

  50. Darius April 1, 2008 at 3:50 pm #

    You know, after WWII, a lot of people complained that the Allies had completely screwed up by invading Germany as they had and whined about what a mess Europe was. Even 5 years later, the Allies were taking heat over the economic mess that was left in Europe because German leadership was competely dismantled. Those critics turned out to be quite foolish after a few more years. A little patience is required with Iraq as well.

    I overheard the other day at a restaurant a some older couples discussing what they had heard from someone returning from Iraq. They said that they hadn’t heard about all the schools and hospitals that we had opened up that previously didn’t exist or weren’t running properly. The media never tells us that stuff.

  51. Paul April 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm #


    since time spent in Iraq is so easy, why aren’t you there?

    Oh, that’s right. Essentially causing anarchy was easy. Actually doing anything with any forethought was the hard part.


    “call me out” all you want, I still state that anyone who is so gung ho about the war but isn’t there is a hypocrite. Tell me you weren’t called to enlist or whatever, you’re still willing to put others’ lives on the line even though you’re too much of a chicken to do it yourself. End of story.

    And, no, I don’t want people in charge that voted for the war in the first place. Unfortunately, though, that’s our only wise choice. McCain’s more of a flip flopper than Kerry could have ever hoped to have been.

  52. Paul April 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm #

    That darned liberal media!

    I don’t think anyone is complaining about the things that our soldiers are doing and helping with. They’re not the problem.

    The problem is the leadership that got us here in the first place.

  53. Darius April 1, 2008 at 4:04 pm #


    You certainly don’t base any of your opinions in reality, but then again, that became pretty obvious long ago. I’m not saying it’s a piece of cake for the troops who are in Iraq, but that the campaign has been, RELATIVE to ALL other military campaigns in our history, easy and relatively bloodless. This is proved by basic statistical analysis. Have we lost troops? Yes, and each one of those lives was precious and are sorely missed by their loved ones and appreciated more than words can say by the rest of us.

    Ah yes, using the tired ol’ “all people who support the war but aren’t there are hypocrites” line. Are you this intellectually dishonest in all your discussions, or just ones on Iraq? A brilliant discussion (and repudiation) of the whole “chickenhawk” argument can be found here (scroll down to the “Chickenhawk” line). http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.html

    Hopefully after reading it, you see how foolish and pathetic your statement was. I would encourage you to not intellectually surrender on every point if you want to stay relevant to the conversation.

  54. Mark Gibson April 1, 2008 at 4:20 pm #


    You might want to consider that you are a part of an anti-war crowd that has actually made our military’s job in Iraq bloodier. The terrorists know that all they have to do is to keep spilling American blood to get us to quit.

    Also, what are McCain’s flip flops on the war?

  55. Paul April 1, 2008 at 4:48 pm #


    1) I was anti-war before we went to war. Just because certain members of Bush’s cabinet were blood and money hungry doesn’t mean that I should be just so the Fox News crowd can feel better about themselves. I was right then, and I’m right now.

    2) the war is about the only thing that McCain didn’t flip flop on. Domestic policy, social policy, torture, and everything else, however, are up for grabs in McCainland.

  56. Mark Gibson April 1, 2008 at 4:52 pm #


    What were your reasons for being anti-war when it came to Iraq?

    How were Bush’s cabinet members blood and money hungry? Examples please.

  57. Ferg April 1, 2008 at 6:22 pm #

    I’m not so sure everyone would agree with your opinion on Americas role in World War II. Many in the old USSR today hold a negative view in regards to American participation in WWII-Europe, believing the June 1944 invasion and aftermath were more to prevent Soviet domination of Europe post-war than to defeat Germany. The brutal truth is that the Soviets were well on their way to beating the Germans long before the Allies invaded Normandy.

    The war on Germany was stalemated in December 1941 when the USSR stopped the Germans at Moscow and Leningrad. It turned in late 1942 at Stalingrad, and the defeat of Germany became inevitable after the failure of their Kursk offensive in mid-1943.

    They may not have been the very hero’s of the day you wish they were.

  58. Paul April 1, 2008 at 6:27 pm #


    my reasons were legion.

    1) Our job was not even close to being done in Afghanistan yet. Until we had found Bin Laden, we had no right to be doing anything else.

    2) Sadam is a bad man. But that doesn’t give us the right to go around toppling dictators whenever we feel the need.

    2a) it is not our job to be the world’s police force. There are bad men throughout the world. Is it supposed to be some sort of shock that we went after the one who was sitting on huge oil reserves in a strategically adventageous part of the world?

    3) Say what you will, but when the rest of the world (except for Poland and England) is telling you to not do something, you at least need to hear them out. This invasion was the action of a cocky, stubborn and ignorant administration that did not think through their actions before they committed them.

    4) History is a mean, mean, mean old lady. She’ll remind you that every other time we’ve attempted overthrows or regime changes, it’s never done us well in the long run. The Shah? Bad. Pinochet? Bad. Ngo Dinh Diem? Bad. Shall I keep going? Had we not intervened in WWI, there would have been no Hitler and no WWII. Had we supported Ho Chi Minh from the get go, Vietnam would never have gone communist (remember, Minh was a nationalist at heart, and nationalism and communism cannot go hand in hand), and the genocide in Cambodia would likely have not happened either. Again, do I need to keep going?

    And then, to make matters worse, in those times when it was blatantly obvious that we needed to step in, like Germany prior to 1944. We turned away Jews trying to get out of Europe, even though we knew what was going on. In the cases of Rwanda or Sudan, we did or continue to do nothing. As a matter of fact, our government’s foreign policy really should be: do the exact opposite of what you’re thinking.

    As this war unfolded, many more reasons for not invading were added as the incompetence of Bush’s cabinet was more fully fleshed out for all to see.

    As for your second question, it was and is well known that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were dying to try to figure out a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq, and Mark, I believe it was you that even said that you knew that if Bush got elected that we’d invade Iraq. At which point, see point 2a.

  59. Darius April 1, 2008 at 6:38 pm #

    Ferg, my point was that for a few years after the WWII ended, the infrastructure and political systems were struggling in much of Europe and people were complaining that the Allies had made huge errors in judgment. Things turned out ok as we now know.

    Also, Allies apply to Americans, British, AND the Soviets, nowhere did I say just the Americans get credit. The Soviets would have struggled to win the war by themselves (it probably would have been impossible, since our involvement in France, Southern Europe, and Africa kept Hitler from putting all his forces into the Russian Front). The Americans and British played a huge role in bringing that to pass, especially such military giants as General Patton. And I guess I’m not sure why we should be concerned about what some former Soviets think of our participation in WWII, since it was a legitimate and right reason to enter the war if ONLY to stop the Soviets from dominating things (which was very much in doubt, but a possibility).

  60. Darius April 1, 2008 at 6:39 pm #

    Actually Paul, it was more than Poland and England supporting us… despite what the media wanted you to know, most of the world supported us to some extent or another.

  61. Darius April 1, 2008 at 6:39 pm #

    Some of those countries have turned cowardly since then in the face of political pressure and terror attacks.

  62. Paul April 1, 2008 at 6:50 pm #


    according to you, you’re the only one who gets anything right, and “the media” gets everything wrong. Please. I so tire of your rhetoric on this issue. Especially because you’ve got the media that you voted for (no Republican controlled congress in 1994, no FCC de-reg. And as a member of that mainstream media that you know next to nothing about, I see how it’s gutted news departments around the country, MOSTLY to the RIGHT’S benefit, not the other way around). I promise to not talk about global warming here (something I know not enough about) if you promise to shut your yap about something that you so obviously know little about, okay?

    (sorry, but this one continually chafes me. Especially because I have first hand knowledge of how “the media” works here. We might be liberal as a whole, but we still also have credibility as a whole, too.)

    Yes, I know that many countries “got involved” by sending a couple of hundred troops. Nothing says “we value our ability to have favorable trade agreements with you” like sending a few hundred troops and yanking them the second that any of them get killed (see Spain, Italy and at least a few other nations).

    Who were the other countries that actually acted like they were interested in Iraq? England and Poland. So, thanks for the semi-informed aside, but no thanks.

  63. Paul April 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm #

    turned cowardly?

    I am starting to get a real sense of the “American right wing Christian” as he exists, at least in the blogosphere, and it is a pathetic sight indeed.

  64. Darius April 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm #

    I was referring mostly to Spain, who voted for the anti-war candidate after they got attacked by terrorists. Rather than stand up to the them, they caved.

  65. Darius April 2, 2008 at 7:39 am #

    Regarding the media… for one, I wasn’t old enough to vote in 1994. Two, I don’t see how anyone possibly “voted” for the media outlets of CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS. Three, since you’re in the media, I assume you know about the Dan Rather memos. After that incident, can you really blame anyone for not taking the media very seriously? After all, Rather and his boss (Mapes?) colluded to swing an election.

  66. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 10:51 am #


    1) I guess we shouldn’t have fought a two front war during WWII.

    2) Saddam broke a cease fire. He was also a supporter of Islamic Jihad. That doesn’t seem “secular” to me.

    2a) If we wanted oil so badly then why haven’t we invaded Canada or Mexico. We get most of our oil from them anyways. Hugo Chavez has a lot of oil. Why haven’t we invaded Venezuela? The “blood for oil” arguement is just plainly dishonest.

    3) You’re right, we should have listened to France. We should have listened to the country that was involved in trade embargo violations with Iraq. We should have listened to the country helping Saddam profit off of the oil for food program. We should have just ignored all of the best intelligence agencies around the world.

    4)Too bad your history is inaccurate. The Treaty of Versailles is what helped bring Hitler to power. You can blame the French. The United States Senate never ratified the treaty. The blame cannot be put on us. Ho Chi Minh became a communist while living in France. The genocide in Cambodia would have never happened if it weren’t for Democrats.

    We declared war on Germany in 1941, not 1944. Why wouldn’t the Jews try to cross the English Channel instead of the Atlantic?

    “Mark, I believe it was you that even said that you knew that if Bush got elected that we’d invade Iraq.” When did I say this?

    “It was and is well known that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were dying to try to figure out a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq.” I think that you meant that is was well known by moronic liberal conspiracy theorist.

  67. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 10:53 am #


    No one in America trusts the media. That is because it is run by liberals.

  68. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 11:23 am #

    Ed Rendell on Fox News:

    “Well, I said that I think during this entire campaign coverage starting in Iowa and up to the present, Fox has done the fairest job, has remained the most objective of all the cable networks: you hate both of our candidates. No, I’m only kidding. But, you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news. And, you know, some of the other stations are just caught up with the, Senator Obama who’s a great guy. But Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right.”

  69. Darius April 2, 2008 at 11:47 am #

    That’s a money quote, considering Rendell is a liberal.

  70. Paul April 2, 2008 at 11:49 am #


    your ignorance is painful. Your partisanship is hilarious, and I am biting my tongue to ensure that I don’t say something truly cruel in the midst of what should be a fairly civil discussion. Please forgive me if I cross any lines here.

    1) You’re comparing Afghanistan and Iraq to WWII? I’m speechless.

    2) Saddam broke a cease fire, but caused us no harm. All Saddam was to us was a minor pain in the butt. And considering that public enemy #1 is hiding in the roughest terrain on the planet, it’s pretty obvious where our focus needed to be.

    2a) I’ve heard this yammering garbage from people before. “Why don’t we invade Canada, blah, blah, blah?” It completely ignores the strategic element of setting up shop in Iraq. And if you do a horrible enough job, you can stay there forever, keeping paying Haliburton the whole time, etc, etc, etc.

    3) I hope you don’t spend this much time missing the point at whatever you do for a living. Since you mention France, let’s look at the real issue here: how much experience have WE had dealing with arab and muslim terrorists, and how much have they? That’s right, France has had more experience. And more winning experience than you might know. Which is bound to happen when loads of angry north africans move to your country. They knew full well what we would be getting into, and sure enough, they called it. I know, I know, they’re Europeans, and they can’t possibly know as much as BRILLIANT conservatives who can’t get their facts straight.

    4) uhhh, no America entering WWI and helping to end a stalemate, no treaty of Versailles.

    Ho Chi Minh hung with communists while living in France. He attempted to procure Eisenhower’s help on numerous occasions, and Eisenhower wouldn’t even read the correspondence. Ho Chi Minh was essentially available to the highest bidder. Instead of spending billions on military might, we could have easily spent millions on propping up a guy who really just wanted what was best for his country. We wouldn’t help, and the Soviets stepped in. American ingenuity wins again.

    “The genocide in Cambodia would have never happened if it weren’t for Democrats.”

    Democrats named Nixon who called for bombing in Cambodia and Laos? Crazy. Your partisan yammering again is so laughable that I don’t know what to say.

    “We declared war on Germany in 1941, not 1944. Why wouldn’t the Jews try to cross the English Channel instead of the Atlantic?”

    They did and were turned away there too. So much concern for the Iraqis that Fox News tells you to love, so little concern for anyone else.

    Mark, I will find the comment re: knowing about the Iraq invasion at some point. If it wasn’t you, it was one of the right wingers around these parts for sure (I know, plenty to pick from).

    ““It was and is well known that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were dying to try to figure out a way to tie 9/11 to Iraq.” I think that you meant that is was well known by moronic liberal conspiracy theorist.”

    Watch Bush’s War and Cheney’s War on Frontline’s website. And no, these aren’t partisan hackjobs. They actually handle the situation with a fair amount of class (especially considering how this makes tempers flare).

    But well before I’d seen those, I’d read quotes about Wolfowitz having a love affair with an Iraq invasion since day one.

    When you can have a conversation without stooping to “conservatives good, liberals bad” come talk to me. Until then, just re-enroll in any community college history class for a brush up. You obviously need it.

  71. Darius April 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm #

    Mark, don’t waste another breath dialoging with him, it isn’t worth it. Proverbs 26:4

  72. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm #


    Thanks for that verse. It doesn’t matter what I say to him. I’m just a stupid conservative that has no clue about history, and Bush is stupid.

  73. Darius April 2, 2008 at 2:13 pm #

    Yeah, you made great point after great point (especially about France being an untrustworthy ally considering their corruption and conflicts of interest), and they all flew right over his head.

  74. Darius April 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    You know, The Hatemonger’s Quarterly had a great little post on liberal bias in the media last week and it’s ironic effects on national politics.


  75. Paul April 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm #


    how funny you use that verse against me when Mark doesn’t even know history well enough to understand how America’s actions have impacted the rest of the world. You two are both classic examples of what happens when politics trumps religion.

    Great job, guys!

  76. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 2:48 pm #


    Just because you announce to everyone on this thread that you know history, it doesn’t mean that you do. When you get challenged, you just change the subject followed by an insult. You are a great example of the immaturity on the left.

    Also, quit with the internet tough guy talk. No one fears the jazz hands.

  77. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm #


    I couldn’t access the hatemongers site. I usually read newsbusters. Only bad news in Iraq interests the left (see http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/02/28/fewer-u-s-dead-less-tv-coverage-iraq). The fallen troops are just numbers they can use to advance their political agendas. It is sad that they don’t care to know the political views of the fallen.

  78. Darius April 2, 2008 at 3:03 pm #


    Your whole conversation has become an exercise in missing (and ignoring) the point.

  79. Darius April 2, 2008 at 3:04 pm #

    Well, they care, Mark… when they can find the token liberal in the military.

  80. Paul April 2, 2008 at 3:11 pm #

    No change of subject Mark. The Proverbs verse was used as a shot, and I responded in kind. And I did respond to every point that you raised. I just didn’t respond with answers that you liked. Sorry for that.

    I DO know my history. And just because real history doesn’t equal “America is nifty all the time!” doesn’t mean that it’s not right.

    In all of your talking points, you basically told half truths. And ones that, honestly, on the surface, look about right. But read deeper beyond a 5th grade history class, and you’ll see that there was much more to the story every time. But then, America is no longer nifty all the time. And that’s bound to make the flag waving bunch pretty upset. And when flag waving trumps truth, then politics has trumped the gospel. Sorry.

    See, I guess the thing that irks me about you, Darius, and others around here is that you tend to think that the left is pure evil, and that the right is God’s gift to politics. And you’re wrong on both counts. I can think of a number of issues on which I veer to the right. Can you think of any in which you veer to the left? Even Buckley was pro drug legalization, and even Goldwater was pro gay rights (which are both essentially truly right wing causes at the end of the day, but that’s another discussion).

    Prove me wrong, but in all of our discussions here, I’ve never once seen anything to the contrary.

  81. Darius April 2, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    Nowhere did I ever say (or would I ever say) that the left is pure evil. What they represent is mostly evil, but in your defense, you generally do it out of care for people and society. However, you do so while all evidence from the last century proves that liberalism is bunk and actually hurts people, especially those whom it is designed to supposedly help. Welfare, check. Affirmative action, check. Abortion rights, triple check. I could go on forever listing issues where liberalism has been a glorious failure.

  82. Mark Gibson April 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm #


    You don’t know how to have a civil conversation. Everything is usually civil until you post a comment. It is impossible for you to leave a comment without insulting someone. You are a typical blame America first liberal. In a previous post, you even blamed America for the rise of Hitler. Do you really wonder why Darius finds you foolish?

  83. Paul April 2, 2008 at 6:58 pm #


    It’s not being a “blame America first” liberal to state the truth.

    I could care less who finds me foolish, especially if it’s people who walk around with their blinders on putting their country before their God.

  84. Mark Gibson April 3, 2008 at 9:09 am #


    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

  85. Paul April 3, 2008 at 1:03 pm #

    so is simply putting forth a pithy quote because you’ve got blinders on and are unable to connect dots.

  86. Paul April 3, 2008 at 1:24 pm #

    Far more enlightened than a war drum bangin’ Love it Or Leave It “patriot.”

  87. Darius April 3, 2008 at 3:49 pm #

    Wow, I’m gone all day and the kids have ransacked the house… dang brothas.


  1. Denny Burk » Did the President Lie? (April fooled you!) - April 1, 2008

    […] fools! I confess. I used a little bit of misdirection in the survey that I posted yesterday. Yes, it was tricky. But it was an April Fool’s gag with a […]

  2. Denny Burk » Did the President Lie? (April fooled you!) - April 1, 2008

    […] fools! I confess. I used a little bit of misdirection in the survey that I posted yesterday. Yes, it was tricky. But it was an April Fool’s gag with a […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes