Bush Admits He Lied To Americans About Iraq In Lead-Up To Midterm Elections
Bush Admits He Lied To Americans About Iraq In Lead-Up To Midterm Elections
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, President Bush acknowledged that as early as “September/October” 2006, he realized a major change was needed in Iraq:
WSJ: Was there a moment in the war when you said we have to make a major change in the way we’re doing things in Iraq?
GWB: Yes, there was.
WSJ: When was that?
GWB: September/October.
But even after Bush realized that a major change was needed — in the weeks just prior to the midterm elections — he continued to knowingly mislead the American public and claim U.S. was “winning” in Iraq and that the strategy was “working”:
QUESTION: Are we winning?
BUSH: Absolutely we’re winning. … We’re winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle, right now, is Iraq. [10/25/06]BUSH: But I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work. That’s what I believe. [10/25/06]
QUESTION: But just to be clear: When the commanders on the ground tell the president, in the large picture, we are stepping closer to chaos, he believes that can also be a picture of winning?
SNOW: Yes. [11/1/06]BUSH: We’ve got a lot going for us. We got a strategy that helps us achieve victory, and we got a military that is the finest military any country has ever assembled. [11/3/06]
Previously, Bush acknowledged lying about Rumsfeld’s resignation for political purposes in the lead-up to the elections.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush doesn’t pay attention to things like ‘details.’ He would prefer it if the rest of you follow suit.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:00 amBush is a compulsive liar. It’s not his first lie that he’s admitted to. Remember he said that Rumsfeld is doing a fine job and that he would remain Sec. Defense as long as he’s President. He admitted that he lied then also. The list goes on and on.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:05 amI just added that to the post Trizza. We were thinking alike.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:07 amSome may view bush’s inconsistent remarks as merely political hyperbole during an election cycle. However, as Commander-in-Chief he is not afforded political hyperbole when reporting the results of war regardless of the intended audience. Therefore, I would believe his was a lie (what’s new) and this lie constitutes a violation of the Constitution.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:09 amIf ever there was a sitting president more impeachable. What is with this weak-kneed congress of ours?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:11 amMSMedia please take note of this post. Cut through the hype and do some research. It’s called fact checking. Ever heard of such a thing? That’s what the Google on the Internets are for.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:15 amGood reporting, Faiz.
As with the entire term of “It’s” office: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. Tell me something that I don’t know already and don’t insult my intelligence.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:15 amP.S. Are you ready for your trial?
Another day another lie. When the hell is Congress going to call this guy on the carpet for all his lies?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:18 amGDumbya realized that the war was a quagmire in September/October but he had to wait until his next conversation with God in order to confirm it. Then he had to sober up enough to do something about it. That’s why he didn’t get “on task” until December.
Right now, he just can’t wait until the “surge” happens so that he can return to his normal state — blind, stinking drunk. I have seen him in recent interviews; I think he’s well on his way!
February 1st, 2007 at 11:18 amWhen do the lies and misleading statements reach the level of impeachable offenses? When are the Democrats we put in power to address these issues going to address the clear mandate they have been given? Do we really have to go into open revolt to save our country and the principals that made us what we were 6 years ago? The Democrats had 6 years to figure out how to save our country. They had better act quickly before we sink further into the abyss (think Iran). It looks like the only ones who care about our country are us, the citizens.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:20 amHey Trolls! Where are you on this?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:20 amThe entire Iraq invasion was justified by intelligence Chimpy & Co. knew to be false. Does this latest revelation really come as a shock?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:23 amIt’s not enough for President Bush to say he lied about us “winning” in the war and about his reasons for canning Rumsfeld. We need someone to lead us properly and solve the issues that really matter to us. If President Bush or any other president really wants to protect our country from future terrorists, he or she should combat global poverty which is at the root of the problem. We don’t need to be in a war that benefits the businesses of Americans. We need to be helping the rest of the world in order to help ourselves which would really benefit the economy. We could actually be doing businesses with the past “poor” countries of this world. Just imagine that.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:23 amm3vega sez:
About four years ago.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:25 amBoy who cried wolf? How does this man or anything coming out of the White House have any credibility??? Why does the press continue to treat it as if it does???? What does this man have to do to be impeached???
February 1st, 2007 at 11:29 amWould someone, anyone PULEEZE give that SOB a BJ so the Democracks would have a reason good enough in the USA to impeach the little bush.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:30 amJust another example of:
February 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am“Bush on Iraq: That Was Then, This is Now.”
It’s just more of their standard SOP. A whole lot more parsing. Look at the three statements:
-The WSJ learns that Bush realized a “major change in the way we’re doing things in Iraq” was necessary in September/October 2006.
-Bush said “we’re winning” in late October 2006
-Bush said “we’ve got a strategy that helps us achieve victory.
Now, really do some parsing here.
**’Major change needed’ is not necessarily an admission that we’re not winning. In Bushworld, it only means “we’re constantly adjusting our tactics.”
**Major change does not necessarily mean “we” don’t have a strategy to help us acjhieve victory. You see. strategy #1 allowed us to achieve what we needed to; now that we’ve achieved that, ‘major change’ represents strategy #2, that will continue to propel “us” along the trajectory of following STRATEGIES that will help us achive victory. Strategy #1 helped a little. Strategy #2 will help more.
Talking so much and doing and saying nothing. Heckua job.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:34 amwhere’s the public outrage!?
oh, wait….let me get back to you when American Idol is over.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:36 amBush is a sociopathic liar. It must require a toxic combination of stupidity, ignorance, and denial for his supporters to let this pass.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am#13- Renee, great post!
February 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am“Bush Admits He Lied To Americans About Iraq In Lead-Up To Midterm Elections”
The question is not whether Bush has lied. The question is whether this administration has ever told the truth.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:39 amRemind me which side is politicizing the war?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:39 amLiar Liar Pants on Thermite!
February 1st, 2007 at 11:40 amIt’s not a lie if Jesus tells you to do it.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:42 amAnd someone is shocked that Bush lied?
February 1st, 2007 at 11:42 amThis war was about repubs staying in office and big political payoffs to those industries who got Bush elected. Its always been politics from day one.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:43 am70 percent against the war. A defunct Republican Administration. A Congress defunct and wasting time on a non-binding bill on the war. There has to be enough concerned citizens to form a new party that actually represents the people.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:48 amTaking Rumsfeld’s language, it’s not the “known” lies that BushCo has spoken, it’s the “unknown” lies that concern me the most.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:50 amIt is Frank Rich’s contention that Bush cynically started the war as a political tactic to win the first midterms, in 2002.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:55 amActually the strategy didn’t really change. It used to be “lie to the people that we’re winning the war.” Now it’s “lie to the people that there’s a new strategy.”
February 1st, 2007 at 11:57 amAnd someone is shocked that Bush lied?
Comment by Mike Hunt
Yeah, I was, but that shock wore off 4 years ago. =P
February 1st, 2007 at 11:58 amWSJ has the interview up as a free link
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009607
February 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pmBy lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.
The Lies to convince Congress to let him have war.
Lie #1 – Uranium from Niger –
Lie #2 – Iraq and 9/11 – Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
Lie #3 – Congress Knew – Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress.
Lie #4 – Aluminum Tubes – Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
Lie #5 – Iraq and Al Qaeda – Bush still insists that there was a “relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no “collaborative relationship” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
Lie #6 – Weapons of Mass Destruction – Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his “evidence” consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Lie #7 – Mobile Weapons Labs – Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq’s bio-weapons program. The expert’s report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost]
February 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pmCan the Congress impeach Bush yet? This is the final nail for him to resign!
February 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe chimp is a scumsucking skin-covered sack of shit – what’s new?
February 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pmAnd how many people died in this time frame when Bush was busy lying to us about how swell things were going in Iraq?
Theresa
February 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pmGWB Iraq War Plan: Get busy lying so they can get busy dying.
GWB hates you and wants you dead.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pmWell, at least he didnt lie about getting a blow job.
So, you see, that makes it okay . . . . .
February 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pmGet with the program, folks. There’s nothing wrong with lying. I have learned this basic fact from watching cable news.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pmBush is a festering pustule on Cheney’s butt.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pmDoug, it would take too much time to list all the lies, but one that’s relevant to what’s going on today would be: “If anyone in my administration were involved in this, they won’t be in my administration anymore.” Or, how about this little diddy: “I’ve seen the Social Security fund. It’s just worthless pieces of paper.” By lying about Treasury Bills, Bush lied and broke the terms of the 14th Amendment at the same time. That’s quite a trick.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pm#
(Boy who cried wolf? How does this man or anything coming out of the White House have any credibility??? Why does the press continue to treat it as if it does???? What does this man have to do to be impeached???
Comment by jp — February 1, 2007 @ 11:29 am)
EAT LIVE BABIES SMOTHERED IN TABASCO SAUCE WHILE BEING BUGGERED BY CONDI ON LIVE TV .BUT WITH THE DIMINISHING BRAIN POWER OF AMERICANS AT LARGE THAT PROBALLY WOULD BE EXCUSED AND UTUBED INTO MORE MEANINGLESS DRIVEL. ALL HAIL THE KING,KING GEORGE ! DUMBASS AMERICANS,GEEZ.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmLet’s not forget Bush also announcing that no surveillance was being done without a warrant. Or in the recent State of the Union address, literally fabricating terrorist plots that his administration had foiled. IMPEACH THEM NOW!!!!
February 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmAll the reason anyone should need for an impeachment is this: Bush is a chronic liar.
He cannot be trusted in any of his communications. Congress cannot count on him to be truthful. There is no value to his utterances. It’s just that simple. If you can’t believe what he says, there’s no way you can leave him in charge of our military, or anything else.
And no, trolls, this doesn’t come under the heading of “all politicians lie”. It’s completely different when the lying is a threat to our national defenses. This has to come to a screeching halt right now.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmMore lies about size of troop “surge”:
Breaking: Double the Troops in “Surge”
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html
“President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would “surge” an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 — more than double the number the President initially said…”
How can we conrinue to put up with these lies, the death, the destruction, the economic implications for the country and the future, etc etc etc
February 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmMr. Bush is a toy balloon animal, twisting himself into any shape to appear to be in control.
“I didn’t change my mind because I lost an election. I had always planned to change it; I just didn’t want anyone to think it was politically motivated. So I waited until after the election. SEE. I AM the Decider, aren’t I Dick?”
I bet the cat ate the homework Shrub never turned in, too.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pmGuy, Secret Service and FBI records show that Jeff Gannon, aka Jeff Guckert visited the Whitehouse over 200 times. Their records show that there were at least 15 visits which happened at night when there was no press gaggle and no record of him checking out. If there really were a “liberal media” in America, most Americans would be aware of this.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pmImpeach.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pmImpeachment is a non-starter until there are enough votes in the Senate to convict. No Republican not up for re-election in 2008 would support it. Not all Democratic senators would vote for it, starting with that pseudo-Independent toady Lieberman. The vote to impeach would be close in the House, too.
The best hope to hold these men accountable is for Congressional committees to get off their backsides and pursue those investigations, fight the executive privilege claims, and establish the facts. Predictably, Bush and Cheney will by then be out of office. But they could still be subject to indictment for felonies. And they would be facing a Democratic White House and Congress, and their US Attorneys and special prosecutors.
We need the details this administration is holding secret. Among other things, that means that the next president must immediately rescind Bush’s sleight of hand EO that gutted the Presidential Records Law, and Congress must make clear that those records are the people’s and not the President’s personal property. ExxonMobil’s CEO doesn’t retire and take the chairman’s records with him; neither should a president. Congress must then fund the archivists and prosecutors and let them get at them. Mr. Bush cannot be allowed to hide his records at SMU until his ancestors decide to release them, which will be long after they release daddy’s records about his role in the illegal drugs-for-guns Iran-Contra scheme.
If they do nothing else, Rove and Cheney think ahead. They are preparing for this. Time for Congress to get cracking.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pm#55 troll alert
You are so full of crap. “You civilians.” Gimme a f*ckin’ break!
February 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pmtroll alert=escaped mental patient
sarcasm/OFF
February 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm#56
We need the details this administration is holding secret. Among other things, that means that the next president must immediately rescind Bush’s sleight of hand EO that gutted the Presidential Records Law, and Congress must make clear that those records are the people’s and not the President’s personal property.
Excellent point. There are a lot of things that can be undone by the next president. Bush has been busy since the day he took office trying to hide things, but once he’s out, there’s nothing to stop those things from being dug up again.
Right now, Congress needs to make an effort to prevent paper-shredding parties and other efforts to destroy evidence. Missing documents should be treated as a felony, at the very least, and the “I forget” defense needs to be dealt with, too.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:14 pmWhat does Bush have to do to get impeached? How about if I go to Washington and give him a BJ . That might work.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pmand what ,you’re assumming that king george will actually give up his feudal turf because of anything as trivial as an election?really? you think that? the next election will be as meaningless and as toothless as the last one. and, after the supreme court and alberto gonzales declares it null and void, will be just as humorous. and the action figures that the american populace has turned into will be quite content to continue to sit on their hands and , probally by then, to take fun trips into the country wearing hoods and funredjumpsuits to perform the much needed labor tasks of turning bigs rocks into small ones in fun daycamps off in the hills and assist in the training of a much needed homeland security american civilian gulag guard detail. “don’t mind the shackles lads,they only hurt in the morning!”
February 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pmoops was #60, Annie… argh, sorry
February 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pmWait a minute… Bush is a liar?!
February 1st, 2007 at 8:13 pmWhere is there a lie?
How are you backing up your libelous claims?
* You can still be “winning,” and realize that change is needed to guarantee success.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm* You can refine an already working plan.
IMPEACH.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pmIf I may quoteth Patrick, from Spongebob Squarepants:
“Hurray for lying!”
February 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pmKnowingly mislead? Well, here looks like another case of “knowingly mislead”.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249403,00.html
I know it is Fox News, but it is well worth the read.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pmThe sociopathic Bush cultist speaks: “People die. Relax.”
February 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pmThe Bush cultist’s question: “Where is the lie?”
A sane person’s answer: Bush told the American people his surge was going to be 21,500 troops.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmI have to let the enormity of this sink in for a moment. Are you saying that Bush actually lied? Do you think he told other lies? You know, lies other than this? I think you have to at least consider the possibility.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pmWhat does Bush have to do to get impeached? How about if I go to Washington and give him a BJ . That might work.
Comment by Annie
Thanks so much for taking one for the team.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pmMessage to Annie:
Look, mom, how many times do I have to tell you to stay off the internet. Quit offering free bj’s.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pmAnnie, what makes you think Bush wants a bj from a woman? What was that male whore doing on those whitehouse sleepovers?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pmAdmitted Liar-in-Chief
February 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pmCan someone in your brain dead media ask Bush to define winning and how this can be accomplished when American troops inherently cause instability?
or better yet about the 14 bases being built (I suggest, How are they going? When they’re done will the troops come home?), or about the 250 million dollar embassy in Baghdad, or why the only government building not bombed was the Ministry of Oil.
No shit he’s lied. This is a big revelation? Let someone with balls to ask him questions I’m sure he could be caught in hundreds more.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 amI did a quick look through the comments and didn’t see anyone saying this yet.
He lied to hand control of the house over to the democrats. If the democrats are in control of something then they can be blamed for things not going well. I don’t think the administration anticipated that the senate would flip as well. I mean look at his actions leading up to the election, he refused to fire Rumsfeld and he refused to change course. Maybe even the ethics problems were coordinated by some republicans to help out the democrats.
I think that the administration made a decision to hand congress over to the democrats to have a better chance of holding on to the presidency in 2008.
Of course, I could just be paranoid.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 amOk, no one is surprised that Bush lied. Is anyone surprised that his lies affected his parties election chances? I am, and so are a lot of Republican voters. And those guys in Congress that don’t work there anymore. Oh, don’t forget about the GOP donor base.
Why would he bother with these lies? I don’t think Patrick has quite the right answer. Handing the election to the Democrats to create a scapegoat seems too convaluted. But his reason for lying about Sec. Rumsfeld is just weird, “I did it to move on to the next question”?
I think President Bush is simply not connected to reality as we understand it. And that’s scary.
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pmWhen the plan to “help Iraq” not invade the country was given to congress the administration asked to invade the middle east. Some key congressional leaders took the proposal and only allowed the government to go to intercede in Iraq and then with further congressional approval, congress would decide if further funding and troops would be needed. Bush was not given a rubber stamp to invade a country.
February 4th, 2007 at 7:42 amwhat could be more ignorant than this whole mentality that its’s not losing if you don’t leave before the job is done
any idiot can sit around and not leave before the job is done
“can’t have your war and win it too”
February 18th, 2007 at 12:44 am