"yeah....that's the ticket.....Bush lied....yeah.....yeah"
Mark Shields and Nina Tottenberg of PBS, are funded by taxpayers yet they are partisan liars(misleaders) who lie(mislead) about lying(misleading). On PBS talk show, with Charles Krauthammer on panel, Charles refuted the claim that false information in the press is always coming from the new right media and the old left media doesn't distribute false information.
By false information that means using information that is not properly fact checked. Charles raised the issue that the old left media and progressive side of the political spectrum perpetuated the false notion that G. W. Bush intentionally "lied" to get us into the Iraq War. That notion was distributed and repeated on every progressive media outlet for months by both Democrat politicians and left news talking heads. In fact it seemed to be a very coordinated desimination of the same false information, over and over again. According to Mark Shields "I've never heard a Democratic Leader accuse Bush of lying us into war". Then Nina Tottenberg, whose salary I pay, said of course he did since "there were no WMD in Iraq".
I don't know what these progressives are smokin' but I hope California doesn't make it legal. Lets look at the facts, maybe the progressives should write these conditions down:
- UK Intelligence says Iraq has WMD
- French Intelligence says Iraq has WMD
- US Intelligence says Iraq has WMD
- Israeli Intelligence says Iraq has WMD
- On Video the following politicians said Saddam had WMD during congressional sessions and public statements (all available on video if you know where to look). The list is a who's who of democratic political leaders. John Kerry said he had WMD. Bill Clinton said he had WMD. Hillary Clinton said he had WMD. Ted Kennedy said he had WMD. How did these politicians come to that conclusion ? Because they were looking at the same intelligence information that G.W. Bush was looking at. All these politicians came to the same conclusion and agreed, that Saddam was dangerous and had to be stopped. Once we were in Iraq and had not found any WMD, all these democrats started to blame Bush for "lying" us into war. There faces were plastered everywhere saying Bush "lied".
- Saddam Hussein violated 17 or 18 UN resolutions concerned with inspectors and his use of WMD. If he wasn't hiding anything why did he kick inspectors out and not let future inspectors into Iraq.
- Sadam Hussein used WMD on the Kurds, killing 5 thousand. So we know they existed.
- Sadam Hussein used WMD against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, no casualty count available. So we know they existed.
- WMD were found in Iraq. Not the cache we expected but some single soldier chemical weapon back packs were found by U.S troops. So some WMD was really found.
- Sadam Hussein before his execution stated that he intentionally did anything he could to make it appear to everyone that he had WMD. He did this for the following reasons: If Iran thinks I have WMD they won't try to invade Iraq. If US thinks we have WMD they won't invade Iraq. It turned out Saddam made a stupid mistake, because US felt since he had WMD they have to topple his regime.
- G.W. Bush stated from his state of the union speech that UK intelligence confirmed the attempt by Saddam to purchase uranium(yellow cake) from Nigeria to create dirty bomb WMD. That conclusion is stood by UK Intelligence to this day. UK says it had the correct intelligence.
- It was 6 months after the public statement by the Bush Administration, "need to get into Iraq and see what's going on", before actual troops landed on Iraqi soil.
- Since Saddam Hussein had 6 months to cleanup before the US arrives, he could have buried them in the desert (they could still be there), they could have been shipped to Syria in the caravan of 18-wheeler trucks that went from Iraq to Syria a few months before the US arrived (satellite pictures confirm this caravan of trucks, this is the most probable explanation), or they could still be hidden somewhere else.
- As far as Nina's "there were no WMD in Iraq" and that means they didn't exist which implies G.W.Bush was lying. How does Nina know "there were no WMD in Iraq", yet all related intelligence services say there are, I would like to know. Where's her proof that there are no WMD in Iraq or is she just "misleading" us again ? Using her logic than if we did not get the desperately needed intelligence from someone close to the top in Iraqi government, and therefore we never found Saddam, then Saddam never existed ? We know Saddam existed and we know WMD existed (they were used means they existed).
- As far as Mark Shields statement about no Democratic leader saying Bush "lied". Every democratic politician on every left Media network station, multiple times every news hour, were specifically and intentionally accusing G.W. Bush of lying/misleading/not candid/not up front/not explained/not honest about the presence of WMD in Iraq. There is no way Shields could have missed it because it was the number one talking point for the democratic party during the 2004 election. All democratic leaders called Bush a "liar" in one way or another on a daily basis. The most obvious one was Ted Kennedy standing at the podium and displaying some printout yelling "Lies Lies Lies" in reference to the prescription drug plan and also the war in Iraq. He was stating that everything from the administration was "lies" and he said "everything was lies". There were also numerous occasions where a democratic politician or left media news talking head would say things like "I don't think Bush is being candid with the American people", or "I don't think Bush is being completely honest with the American people", or "I don't think Bush is being up front with the American people" or "I don't think Bush has completely explained those issues and reasons to the American people" or "I think Bush has been misleading the American people". Lets not play dumb semantic games. All those phrases are in fact calling Bush a "liar".
By the way the example of bad data or "lying" from the right used by the panel was that everyone was listening and repeating to others that India said "Obama's trip was costing $200 million a day". Nobody was listening to India and everyone I know knew that was a completely wrong figure, buts its still about 5 million a day and that's still too much. But if some outlet reported that "India is saying Obama's trip is costing $200 million dollars a day" then that headline is news and 100% correct. That is what India is saying. Period.
