BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED....The Lie
 |
 |
 |
 |
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! is probably the most memorable slogan of the Bush presidency.
And its genesis is a thing of legend. We believe its first public airing was when Code Pink operative
June Brashares, after weeks of stealth as an imbed, bravely rubbing elbows with real-life baby-
saving Republicans, got a pass to the RNC Convention in September 04 (without any help from
MSNBC, no less!!) where she unfurled a banner that screamed this now infamous epithet for the
first time.
Forget its substance for a moment , and just stand back and marvel at the hutzpah. If there is such a
thing, Ms Brashares gets our vote for Miss Brass Balls of ’04. Bushmills was so impressed he even
said he would have defended her pro bono (she was acquitted anyway)…”but only if I didn’t have to
listen to her.”
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! is an accusation, an indictment. But it is also a curse, only not just the
fist-shaking variety aimed at George W Bush. It also hangs a curse on the speaker as well, for it is
so loaded with exclamation marks as to deny honest reflection or critical thought by its user. It’s the
scream, not the words that are operative, for who could yell, “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED
(in my opinion)” and get away with it? Its claim of total certitude is a line in the sand allowing for no
retreat, no equivocation, no wiggle room. Even Archimedes wouldn’t have stepped into waters this
deep.
It’s not so much an accusation, as a shrill cry at the top of one’s lungs, “If I’m lying, I’m dying”. And
we will oblige, for its tone alone also makes this an irrevocable contract… which is why we’re here.
For you see, we hang liars.
We either have to hang George W Bush or his accusers. Justice demands no less.
So, let’s examine the indictment: What most BLPD bloggers never stop to considered, we’d bet, is
the exact nature of the cause and effect the phrase implies. What people? Where? A Johnny-come-
lately blogger who was only fourteen in 2004 may not know right off-hand. Correct us if we’re wrong,
but we’ll assume BLPD still refers to the US invasion of Iraq (Mar 2003) and the resultant deaths
there.
A tougher assumption, but we’ll try: We’ll also assume those who died are purported to be innocent
in some way, and therefore their deaths are regrettable. It wouldn’t have bothered us in the least if it
was a liar that brought us the head of Abu Musab al-Zirqawi, for instance. But if Bush lied, this
doesn’t diminish the claim of the declarants (Through Bernard Chumm’s Shite-ing Bovine patrols,
we confronted a few BLPD bloggers on this point, i.e, does “people died” included armed
insurgents and terrorists? So far, all the bloggers have demurred. Chumm says that’s one of those
questions that turns their keyboard silent. He calls these “Vanity Terror-Symps”, i.e., if the enemy of
my enemy is my friend, damn the consequences.)
……We also assume the slogan infers a crime, or series of crimes, which deserve punishment.
Fair enough.
And its genesis is a thing of legend. We believe its first public airing was when Code Pink operative
June Brashares, after weeks of stealth as an imbed, bravely rubbing elbows with real-life baby-
saving Republicans, got a pass to the RNC Convention in September 04 (without any help from
MSNBC, no less!!) where she unfurled a banner that screamed this now infamous epithet for the
first time.
Forget its substance for a moment , and just stand back and marvel at the hutzpah. If there is such a
thing, Ms Brashares gets our vote for Miss Brass Balls of ’04. Bushmills was so impressed he even
said he would have defended her pro bono (she was acquitted anyway)…”but only if I didn’t have to
listen to her.”
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! is an accusation, an indictment. But it is also a curse, only not just the
fist-shaking variety aimed at George W Bush. It also hangs a curse on the speaker as well, for it is
so loaded with exclamation marks as to deny honest reflection or critical thought by its user. It’s the
scream, not the words that are operative, for who could yell, “BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED
(in my opinion)” and get away with it? Its claim of total certitude is a line in the sand allowing for no
retreat, no equivocation, no wiggle room. Even Archimedes wouldn’t have stepped into waters this
deep.
It’s not so much an accusation, as a shrill cry at the top of one’s lungs, “If I’m lying, I’m dying”. And
we will oblige, for its tone alone also makes this an irrevocable contract… which is why we’re here.
For you see, we hang liars.
We either have to hang George W Bush or his accusers. Justice demands no less.
So, let’s examine the indictment: What most BLPD bloggers never stop to considered, we’d bet, is
the exact nature of the cause and effect the phrase implies. What people? Where? A Johnny-come-
lately blogger who was only fourteen in 2004 may not know right off-hand. Correct us if we’re wrong,
but we’ll assume BLPD still refers to the US invasion of Iraq (Mar 2003) and the resultant deaths
there.
A tougher assumption, but we’ll try: We’ll also assume those who died are purported to be innocent
in some way, and therefore their deaths are regrettable. It wouldn’t have bothered us in the least if it
was a liar that brought us the head of Abu Musab al-Zirqawi, for instance. But if Bush lied, this
doesn’t diminish the claim of the declarants (Through Bernard Chumm’s Shite-ing Bovine patrols,
we confronted a few BLPD bloggers on this point, i.e, does “people died” included armed
insurgents and terrorists? So far, all the bloggers have demurred. Chumm says that’s one of those
questions that turns their keyboard silent. He calls these “Vanity Terror-Symps”, i.e., if the enemy of
my enemy is my friend, damn the consequences.)
……We also assume the slogan infers a crime, or series of crimes, which deserve punishment.
Fair enough.
The BUSH LIED-PEOPLE DIED Lie
by St George Frederick
by St George Frederick
So what are those lies?
……1) THIS IS THE MAIN LIE that Bush stands charged with, as best we can tell:
If true, both are lies, we agree.
(This approach may sound a little sophomoric, but bear with us, since during our internet search we found ourselves staring
straight down the barrel of at least a thousand 7th graders posing as college students, college professors, even lawyers, so we’re
not really sure who we’re dealing with in tracking the propagation of Bush’s lies. With the internet one never really knows, does
one?
(BLPD is one of those charges one sees all over the anonymous internet, on equally anonymous 1992 Honda Civics’ bumpers,
and on placards held by faceless, nameless soldiers of the cause, marching down Constitution Avenue, sometimes under masks
(so Daddy won’t pull the money).
(A few men and women of rank in Congress and elsewhere have actually strode to the microphone and uttered that phrase or
others like it in public (and we know who they are) but for the most part it’s the battle cry of a mob (or pep rally), not of sober
intercourse, although we do admit, none of us ever have ever gone to any of those west coast cocktail klatches that Cindy
Sheehan might have attended or hostessed. We can't know how loud, or hushed, those might have been.
(But Bush stands charged of bald-faced lying, and bald-faced lies are really easy to understand, when you stop to think
about it. It all comes down to what he knew and when he knew it, and what he said and when he said it. There’s nothing tricky-
dicky about it.)
There were also ancillary lies (other justifications for the invasion):
2 ) That at the time of the invasion, there was an existing Al-Quaida- Saddam Hussein connection;
3) That at the time of the invasion Saddam’s actively support for terrorism;
4) The famous “16 words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had sought a source of uranium in
Africa
In Justice Douglas’ words, all these accusations reveal a “penumbra” of secret supplications of George W Bush’s heart that,
when combined, “proved” he wanted to invade Iraq for as yet uncollected rewards. If true, these are indeed weighty and serious
accusations.
Bet you forgot about the "what's in it for him" requirement. Every crime has to have a motive, so we certainly would appreciate
any input if you come across any. We’ve been searching for years asking "What did Bush hope to gain?" What did he gain (that
no one knows about)? And what rewards have the anti-Bush forces deny him from gaining?
For oil? If so, wouldn’t it be nice if Iraq gave us some? At least as much as Saddam gave the UN. After all, they owe us, big
time. Or maybe the invasion was all about Halliburton getting that big contract running mess halls? Actually they got more, but
we're not going to go into the tedious and difficult subject of UN-style General Service contracts (but we can if you want to) except
to say there was only one other services company in the world who could have provided such a broad scope of services in a short
period of time. And that company is French. Duhh!
And it sure as hell wasn’t for ratings, was it? Bush’s approval ratings began to drop as soon as WMD’s weren’t found in 2004,
although not enough to keep him from being re-elected.
This motive thing is a real mystery. (We’re not being glib here, if you want to provide a plausible and provable motive, feel free to
let us know. We’ll insert it here.< >)
One Final Note on Bush’s Justifications for the Invasion: The Dog That Didn't Bark. There was one other justification that
President Bush used in just about all his speeches leading up to the invasion. It was his stated desire to relieve the suffering of
the people of Iraq under the tyrant Saddam and a desire to liberate them. Sounds almost noble to me. He used “liberty” several
times, a term (and theme) apparently the anti-war/BLPD crowd have had no current association with. As Vassar Bushmills
recently wrote, apparently the "friend of their enemy indeed is their enemy, even if that friend were 'human freedom'". While we
won’t dwell on that point in a website dedicated to liars, the silence is deafening as to the only one tacitly admitted truth in Bush’s
list of justifications. Almost from the beginning, once that shoe-slapping spree was over, Iraqi freedom morphed from an “oh,
yeah but” to an illegal, unwanted invasion to a merciless and unwanted occupation. Moses Sands commented at the time that the
Left’s allegation that the Left's allegation that “the Arabs can’t handle democracy” sounded no different from Jim Crow democrats
in the South sixty years earlier. Indeed.
There were other derivative lies;
5) A Saddam- 9/11 attack connection, witnessed by an alleged secret meetings between 9/11 bomber, Mohammed Atta and an
Iraqi official in Prague before 9/11;
6) Lies used by Bush after the invasion of Iraq, to justify it in hindsight;“WHEN McCLELLAN SQUEALED, BUSH LIED” that sort
of analysis. “Imminent threat” was just such a lie, and if McClellan said it, it must have come direct from Bush’s heart. These post-
invasion justification lies include anything else any member of the Administration said, or wrote, or released, if proven wrong. All
are/were presumed by BLPD’ers to be lies, and lies uttered personally by Pres Bush or on his personal authority. He was behind
them all. Go Figure.
7) Bush invaded Iraq illegally. Commonly linked with the WMD lie, above, Bush is often accused of lying to the UN (through Colin
Powell) and Congress in order to get legal sanction to invade. We’ve shown that to be false, even in the information was wrong.
This derivative retroactive crime is political in nature, but has morphed into a legal cause of action with the help of not a few law
professors posing as 7th graders. It’s design, still in progress as events unfold, is based on the notion that once it was revealed
that Bush lied to and duped Congress into granting him the authority to invade Iraq, that grant was abrogated retroactively, with no
further action required by Congess. (A Congressional privilege heretofore unheard of, and still in dispute, still that’s how the neo-
lawyers try to define it.) Ergo, the invasion was illegal…much like Columbus’ landing in 1492.
8) Bush is occupying Iraq illegally. Another-Bush Retroactive Lie. When you see the BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED banner think of it
like those same people do the Constitution…a living breathing lie that continues to take on new charges here and there, almost
six years after it was first uttered.
These last two charges are applied retroactively, in part to give weight to the founding lie, but also to invite the involvement of
more credible heavyweights in the world of word-smithing and thought, (some, only in their own minds) who are way above the
pay grade of the minions who ploughed the fields with the original BLPD complaint.
These last two charges are the result of the BLPD charge being able to disperse throughout the blogosphere (snappy catch
phrase...gotta give 'em credit) and endure and remain viable as a slogan as events unfolded. For instance, imagine where any of
these charges would be today if WMD's were found in Iraq?
Well, actually they were, but isn't quite the point, is it.
WHAT BUSH ACTUALLY SAID, HIS WORDS (This is the boring part, I admit, and we've attached them to a separate page, with
links, so you can keep them handy. But alas, you have to read them if you’re going to take issue with our findings. For the vast
majority of you, it will be the first time you've ever seen what Bush ever said.
Finished? Good.
We reviewed ALL of President Bush’s public utterances concerning Lies 1 thru 4, above.
The facts of the charge, BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED as they were revealed by the words themselves do
not contain any lies within any legal or culturally acceptable meaning of the word.
This was not hard by the way. Even a cave man could have done it.
ANALYSIS
There will be lies, and rumors of lies:
Imagine how the political world would be today if they had found WMD’s.
When Congress voted in October 2002 to give the President the authority, to take whatever “acts he deemed necessary ..” there
were several voices raised against it. 77-23 in the Senate, 296-133 in the House. None of the dissenters however accused the
President of relying on bad information, misrepresenting it or lying. Give peace and the United Nations a chance was the most
common refrain.
Bush's words started to turn into lies when by May 2003 (when the US announced an end to combat operations on May 1
…about as big an oooppps! as any lie actually told about the war) no WMD’s had yet been found. Slowly, press stories began to
make it seem as if nuclear WMD’s were the only reason for invading Iraq.
Evidence of biological and chemical weapons were indeed found (ISG/David Kay’s Interim Report Oct 2003) even as late as
2006. But by early 2004 the term WMD’s had been morphed into nukes and nuke programs alone. Alas, there were none to be
found. At which time the rumor of a lie became manifest and it took shape and form from the jawbone of an ass. And it would be
named BLPD.
In a fair world the existence of biological and chemical programs, in contravention of prior agreements alone would have
exonerated Bush from any charge of lying as all his public statements about nuclear weapons in Iraq were futuristic, speaking of
what might happen in a year, or five years. (Read the text, children, we won’t spell it out for you.)
In a fair world, George Tenet was right, it was a “slam dunk”. But in the immortal words of George Clooney, “We have bigger fish
to fry”, and for the sake of argument let’s assume Bush was just plain wrong about WMD’s even in the broadest sense. Did he lie,
or was he misinformed?
As you know, being misinformed about a thing is an absolute defense to lying, and an admission (even a tacit one) of error
grants an absolute acquittal. While he steadfastly says he still “believes” (which is not a lie) there were WMD’s in Iraq the
administration has tacitly admitted the intelligence could have been wrong.
For you low-enders in the BLPD crowd this is where it gets kinda dicey as far as lies go, for a mistake in fact, especially if
received from an official or believable source is not as lie. It is a mistake. Most people in their ordinary lives go through those
every day. (We question Bush’s judgment and possibly his naivete here, but on grounds having nothing to do with honesty or
integrity.) He could not have lied unless there is/was some revelation as to what was in his heart at the time.
The CIA was the source of one set “facts” presented to Pres Bush, headed by a Clinton hold-over who resigned more or less in
disgrace not only for the “slam-dunk” comment, but also his role in deferring to Sandy Berger (while Clinton was playing “polish
the knob” or somesuch) when they had a real live chance to kill bin-Laden, and generally for doing nothing to stem the rise of
politically based careerism at Langley.
But there were other sources, such as the State Department , which had its own intelligence sources (sadly among them were
the French, who pounded Colin Powell like a rug)and British Intelligence, who sometimes reported to Bush directly through Tony
Blair rather than through agency-to-agency channels, no doubt ruffling a few territorial feather here and there. It was the Brits who
reported the Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Niger, resulting in Bush’s famous “16 words” at the Jan 2003 State of the Union,
and which caused those ruffled feathers over at Langley to send one of its agent’s very anti-Bush husband over there to debunk
the claim, resulting indirectly in the conviction of Scooter Libby from Cheney’s office. (The Joe Wilson-Valery Plame-Richard
Armitage case is being researched independently and has no bearing on the charges that Bush lied.)
The British still stand by this intelligence, and there is no credible evidence contradicting it, including our own CIA. Even Wilson’s
sworn testimony (versus his infamous op-ed) tended to validate the claim.
Our conclusion on Charge One is that Bush had every reason to believe there were WMD’s in Iraq and that Iraq was pursuing a
nuclear program in the period Sept 2002- March 2003…as did every member of Congress (having been briefed by the same fact-
source, the CIA), as did almost every international intelligence agency, as did the United Nations. (Don’t confuse Hans Blix’s
findings with his recommendations.)
Indeed, Bush’s language about WMD’s was cautious compared to the far more certain language of members of Congress,
running from 1998 to 2002. We rely on Snopes.com as a very good and impartial clearinghouse for facts and they compiled direct
quotes from Congress in the run-up to the vote that sounded much more emphatic than Bush ever proclaimed.
You can also read into their comments some assumptions they may have made up on their own. It seems much of the resulting
rush to rewrite history after the ISG Interim report and David Kay’s report to Congress in Jan 04 was based on these
presumptions that weren’t really in Bush’s words. It could be that Bush asked for congressional authority to act in Iraq based on
one set of criteria and Congress granting it based on a slightly altered set.
We believe this is what set the entire BLPD cavalcade into motion, an attempt to accuse Bush of what they themselves
proclaimed, not him. Once again, they were accusing the Bush Administration of their own conspiracy.
Facts are still unclear whether nuclear WMD’s ever existed at all, or did exist in some less significant form or another, or were
actually destroyed as Saddam sometimes proclaimed, or were spirited away to Syria. Each of these have been alleged by
principals with access to information we do not have. But none have been proved…or disproved…so we warn against anyone
insisting on the truth of any of these possibilities without firsthand knowledge, as that too, would be a lie, and God knows, we
already have a boatload here. Not sure we can handle more.
Besides, if an Arab truck driver stepped forward to say he drove some weapons to Damascus, who would believe him? The first
hand eye witness accounts of front line workers in general, especially if on the other side of a desired end have been debunked
since Maggie Williams first shot down a uniformed Secret Service guard’s testimony (Rose Law firm records/Vince Foster)
because he was contradicting one of his betters, i.e. a lawyer. We can believe what we want to, but hold ourselves up to eternal
damnation, at least at this site and possibly one other. ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Exodus 20:16)
if we decide to proclaim what we believe as fact.
So, in these days eye witness accounts are of no use, even if under oath, unless accompanied by physical evidence, such as
photos, films, or testimony from Gil Grissom. And even photos can be shopped, as we found out in the Haditha Lie.
Analyzing the ancillary lies (other justifications for the invasion):
2) That at the time of the invasion, there was an existing Al-Quaida- Saddam Hussein connection; Bush didn’t claim that. On
one occasion he lumped Al Qaida in with terrorists Saddam may have been “harboring” (his words) which it turns out was true (al-
Zirqawi). The term “operational”, still in use today, is one that was applied derivatively, not by Bush or his administration, but by
his accusers, then used as time progressed as if Bush had been the generator of the term in the first place.
3) That at the time of the invasion Saddam’s actively support for terrorism; He did, but it was inconsequential, sending money
to the families of the 9/11 terrorists, stuff like that. The extent of his active support is unknown, even today, since the investigators
got sidetracked looking into all the money he sent UN officials and British MP’s.
4) The famous “16 words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had sought a source of uranium in Africa,
already discussed above.
The political progress of the BLPD lie and the liars:
We've already mentioned the derivative lies attached to the original BLPD (above) which really have no bearing on our
determination that Bush did not lie....and those who claim he did...did.
But events have time-lines, and we're big believers in using them, for politics follow those time-lines, so must also the lies
attached to the politics. (We recommend the factual and impartial Iraq Timeline for an event by event account of the war up the
current time.) By early-2004 the Bush lie had become political. It was an election year. So proving or at least establishing the lies
in the minds of the electorate were as crucial this political end as it was in satisfying whatever inner need belief in the lies fueled
among the bloggers. (We like fighting them at the Shite-ing Bovine, but figuring them out is another thing. Bernard Chumm has
few speculations.)
Many members of Congress needed "annulments" for their hasty votes in 2002 once the first stage of the war was won...and
contained some 8000 miles away. History can always be re-written, but only by the winners. And there was the issue of money.
Thew was supposed to over by 2004, and all those billions coming back to Congress' treasure chest.
The term "Bush Lied, People Died" wouldn't surface until he '04 campaign, but in our view, every negative event that arose in Iraq,
beginning with David Kay's testimony to Congress, was linked to Bush's foundational lies. Abu Ghraib went from mistreatment of
prisoners to torture because of the Bush lies. The failure to pacify the Sadr army, and the resulting talk of civil war, which persists
today, was magnified by the Bush lies. Every military failure, as the war bogged down 2004-2006, was a result of the lies. Every
Iraqi political success...and they were phenomenal if you stop to think about...were minimized because of the Bush lies. Even the
Surge's success has been filtered.
Domestically new Bush-lied campaigns arose with each political season. By late 2004 the term was all over the internet (you can
start counting them next week at our dailyCUSS page) and had become a part of the language, thanks to bumper-stickers , t-
shirts, and free media advertising every time there was an international conference.
In 2007 Sidney Blumenthal reprised the what-Bush-knew-and-when-he-knew-it theme by citing two unnamed CIA sources who
stated the Iraqi Foreign Minister, then in the hire of both CIA and the French, had reported there weren't any WMD's. It's a great
story, we can always rely on Sid for a good read, but goes nowhere, as the info is third hand, even more stretched out as to
whether Bush was actually briefed. We're not even sure CIA bought it.
It's a lie that won't go away because it covers a lies, mistakes, agenda and policies that have to remain from public view.
There are true-believers out there...we've spoken a lot about the bottom feeders, and we've spoken a lot about the facilitators, the
handlers, although with well-financed sites such as dailyKos, we suspect a little bit of both. But how do you explain the action of
academe, college professors, law professors, entire city councils? Even a few members of Congress have gone round the bend.
Cannon fodder or cannon? We're not sure, but by 2010 we'll have compiled volumes about them.
The bottom layer of players in the BLPD lie mostly move according to their own nature, yet almost always in lock step with one
another. This proves certain kinds of marketing works on certain kinds of impressionable, angry, un-inquisitive narcissistic
minds. One object of modern Left politics is to get them into a receptive state. Bushmills called this “cultural conspiracy”, i.e.
individuals thousands of miles apart acting identically to the same stimulus. We’re almost there now, after two generations, and
it's not really that different from the 76 Virgins hustle terror-handlers use on horny kids in Palestine and Lebanon. The carrots and
the sticks are essentially the same.
With all these things said, it is still true that President Bush could have lied, only that the lie cannot be found in his words. We
can’t know his heart, nor are there any solid facts that can be employed to create a circumstantial case that even comes close to
fifty percent probability (versus the preponderance of evidence, required to convict). Again, we invite any facts to the contrary.
All these things may be true, and it is no sin at all to want to believe them so,or even to believe they are.
The FInal Nail:
Published long after the cancer had mestastisized, The Senate Select Committee REPORT ON WHETHER STATEMENTS BY
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WERE SUBSTANTIATED BY INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, June 2008, also called the Rockefeller
Report (provide here, complete text) verifies what we've just written above. It's a simpler read, but our analysis is based on what
was known by 2004, and only took a few hours to complete while this one took five years. Read it, 5 years!
To what end? Watch our gallery as to how many mea culpa's issue forth from city councils, law schools, the idiot bottom feeders.
And, we REPEAT, any who wish to say "Ooopps", we'll grant absolution and remove their name
Otherwise, it is still a damned lie to insist what Bush said was lies, or to say you can divine another man’s heart in order to
say they are, so we therefore sentence all of you to be hung until you are you are swatted down like flies, you low down
American cockroaches.
THE GALLERIES:
To this end we have created two galleries, one major and one minor, the lesser gallery (The dailyCuss) for the delusional
bloggers out there who merely serve as the hired labor to build these pyramids of dishonor. The Main Gallery, THE BUSH LIED
GALLERY are for the poseurs who have used this lie as a way to advance a political career or agenda, or are simply too old to be
mistaken for children.
In the main gallery we will hang both the name(s) and pictures (if available) plus links to this Opinion of our Court. You are invited,
free of charge, to submit names and links.
In the minor gallery we will only post names/links of the sites, but will also post (with your permission) your own blog sites or
other contact info at out Shite-ing Bovine page. We know there are hundreds at universities and colleges, and we invite you to
contact as many as you like just to annoy them. Bernard Chumm has some ideas posted at out Townhall blog. There are certain
questions they can't answer, or won't. Laisser les bons temps rouller.
……1) THIS IS THE MAIN LIE that Bush stands charged with, as best we can tell:
If true, both are lies, we agree.
(This approach may sound a little sophomoric, but bear with us, since during our internet search we found ourselves staring
straight down the barrel of at least a thousand 7th graders posing as college students, college professors, even lawyers, so we’re
not really sure who we’re dealing with in tracking the propagation of Bush’s lies. With the internet one never really knows, does
one?
(BLPD is one of those charges one sees all over the anonymous internet, on equally anonymous 1992 Honda Civics’ bumpers,
and on placards held by faceless, nameless soldiers of the cause, marching down Constitution Avenue, sometimes under masks
(so Daddy won’t pull the money).
(A few men and women of rank in Congress and elsewhere have actually strode to the microphone and uttered that phrase or
others like it in public (and we know who they are) but for the most part it’s the battle cry of a mob (or pep rally), not of sober
intercourse, although we do admit, none of us ever have ever gone to any of those west coast cocktail klatches that Cindy
Sheehan might have attended or hostessed. We can't know how loud, or hushed, those might have been.
(But Bush stands charged of bald-faced lying, and bald-faced lies are really easy to understand, when you stop to think
about it. It all comes down to what he knew and when he knew it, and what he said and when he said it. There’s nothing tricky-
dicky about it.)
There were also ancillary lies (other justifications for the invasion):
2 ) That at the time of the invasion, there was an existing Al-Quaida- Saddam Hussein connection;
3) That at the time of the invasion Saddam’s actively support for terrorism;
4) The famous “16 words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had sought a source of uranium in
Africa
In Justice Douglas’ words, all these accusations reveal a “penumbra” of secret supplications of George W Bush’s heart that,
when combined, “proved” he wanted to invade Iraq for as yet uncollected rewards. If true, these are indeed weighty and serious
accusations.
Bet you forgot about the "what's in it for him" requirement. Every crime has to have a motive, so we certainly would appreciate
any input if you come across any. We’ve been searching for years asking "What did Bush hope to gain?" What did he gain (that
no one knows about)? And what rewards have the anti-Bush forces deny him from gaining?
For oil? If so, wouldn’t it be nice if Iraq gave us some? At least as much as Saddam gave the UN. After all, they owe us, big
time. Or maybe the invasion was all about Halliburton getting that big contract running mess halls? Actually they got more, but
we're not going to go into the tedious and difficult subject of UN-style General Service contracts (but we can if you want to) except
to say there was only one other services company in the world who could have provided such a broad scope of services in a short
period of time. And that company is French. Duhh!
And it sure as hell wasn’t for ratings, was it? Bush’s approval ratings began to drop as soon as WMD’s weren’t found in 2004,
although not enough to keep him from being re-elected.
This motive thing is a real mystery. (We’re not being glib here, if you want to provide a plausible and provable motive, feel free to
let us know. We’ll insert it here.< >)
One Final Note on Bush’s Justifications for the Invasion: The Dog That Didn't Bark. There was one other justification that
President Bush used in just about all his speeches leading up to the invasion. It was his stated desire to relieve the suffering of
the people of Iraq under the tyrant Saddam and a desire to liberate them. Sounds almost noble to me. He used “liberty” several
times, a term (and theme) apparently the anti-war/BLPD crowd have had no current association with. As Vassar Bushmills
recently wrote, apparently the "friend of their enemy indeed is their enemy, even if that friend were 'human freedom'". While we
won’t dwell on that point in a website dedicated to liars, the silence is deafening as to the only one tacitly admitted truth in Bush’s
list of justifications. Almost from the beginning, once that shoe-slapping spree was over, Iraqi freedom morphed from an “oh,
yeah but” to an illegal, unwanted invasion to a merciless and unwanted occupation. Moses Sands commented at the time that the
Left’s allegation that the Left's allegation that “the Arabs can’t handle democracy” sounded no different from Jim Crow democrats
in the South sixty years earlier. Indeed.
There were other derivative lies;
5) A Saddam- 9/11 attack connection, witnessed by an alleged secret meetings between 9/11 bomber, Mohammed Atta and an
Iraqi official in Prague before 9/11;
6) Lies used by Bush after the invasion of Iraq, to justify it in hindsight;“WHEN McCLELLAN SQUEALED, BUSH LIED” that sort
of analysis. “Imminent threat” was just such a lie, and if McClellan said it, it must have come direct from Bush’s heart. These post-
invasion justification lies include anything else any member of the Administration said, or wrote, or released, if proven wrong. All
are/were presumed by BLPD’ers to be lies, and lies uttered personally by Pres Bush or on his personal authority. He was behind
them all. Go Figure.
7) Bush invaded Iraq illegally. Commonly linked with the WMD lie, above, Bush is often accused of lying to the UN (through Colin
Powell) and Congress in order to get legal sanction to invade. We’ve shown that to be false, even in the information was wrong.
This derivative retroactive crime is political in nature, but has morphed into a legal cause of action with the help of not a few law
professors posing as 7th graders. It’s design, still in progress as events unfold, is based on the notion that once it was revealed
that Bush lied to and duped Congress into granting him the authority to invade Iraq, that grant was abrogated retroactively, with no
further action required by Congess. (A Congressional privilege heretofore unheard of, and still in dispute, still that’s how the neo-
lawyers try to define it.) Ergo, the invasion was illegal…much like Columbus’ landing in 1492.
8) Bush is occupying Iraq illegally. Another-Bush Retroactive Lie. When you see the BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED banner think of it
like those same people do the Constitution…a living breathing lie that continues to take on new charges here and there, almost
six years after it was first uttered.
These last two charges are applied retroactively, in part to give weight to the founding lie, but also to invite the involvement of
more credible heavyweights in the world of word-smithing and thought, (some, only in their own minds) who are way above the
pay grade of the minions who ploughed the fields with the original BLPD complaint.
These last two charges are the result of the BLPD charge being able to disperse throughout the blogosphere (snappy catch
phrase...gotta give 'em credit) and endure and remain viable as a slogan as events unfolded. For instance, imagine where any of
these charges would be today if WMD's were found in Iraq?
Well, actually they were, but isn't quite the point, is it.
WHAT BUSH ACTUALLY SAID, HIS WORDS (This is the boring part, I admit, and we've attached them to a separate page, with
links, so you can keep them handy. But alas, you have to read them if you’re going to take issue with our findings. For the vast
majority of you, it will be the first time you've ever seen what Bush ever said.
Finished? Good.
We reviewed ALL of President Bush’s public utterances concerning Lies 1 thru 4, above.
The facts of the charge, BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED as they were revealed by the words themselves do
not contain any lies within any legal or culturally acceptable meaning of the word.
This was not hard by the way. Even a cave man could have done it.
ANALYSIS
There will be lies, and rumors of lies:
Imagine how the political world would be today if they had found WMD’s.
When Congress voted in October 2002 to give the President the authority, to take whatever “acts he deemed necessary ..” there
were several voices raised against it. 77-23 in the Senate, 296-133 in the House. None of the dissenters however accused the
President of relying on bad information, misrepresenting it or lying. Give peace and the United Nations a chance was the most
common refrain.
Bush's words started to turn into lies when by May 2003 (when the US announced an end to combat operations on May 1
…about as big an oooppps! as any lie actually told about the war) no WMD’s had yet been found. Slowly, press stories began to
make it seem as if nuclear WMD’s were the only reason for invading Iraq.
Evidence of biological and chemical weapons were indeed found (ISG/David Kay’s Interim Report Oct 2003) even as late as
2006. But by early 2004 the term WMD’s had been morphed into nukes and nuke programs alone. Alas, there were none to be
found. At which time the rumor of a lie became manifest and it took shape and form from the jawbone of an ass. And it would be
named BLPD.
In a fair world the existence of biological and chemical programs, in contravention of prior agreements alone would have
exonerated Bush from any charge of lying as all his public statements about nuclear weapons in Iraq were futuristic, speaking of
what might happen in a year, or five years. (Read the text, children, we won’t spell it out for you.)
In a fair world, George Tenet was right, it was a “slam dunk”. But in the immortal words of George Clooney, “We have bigger fish
to fry”, and for the sake of argument let’s assume Bush was just plain wrong about WMD’s even in the broadest sense. Did he lie,
or was he misinformed?
As you know, being misinformed about a thing is an absolute defense to lying, and an admission (even a tacit one) of error
grants an absolute acquittal. While he steadfastly says he still “believes” (which is not a lie) there were WMD’s in Iraq the
administration has tacitly admitted the intelligence could have been wrong.
For you low-enders in the BLPD crowd this is where it gets kinda dicey as far as lies go, for a mistake in fact, especially if
received from an official or believable source is not as lie. It is a mistake. Most people in their ordinary lives go through those
every day. (We question Bush’s judgment and possibly his naivete here, but on grounds having nothing to do with honesty or
integrity.) He could not have lied unless there is/was some revelation as to what was in his heart at the time.
The CIA was the source of one set “facts” presented to Pres Bush, headed by a Clinton hold-over who resigned more or less in
disgrace not only for the “slam-dunk” comment, but also his role in deferring to Sandy Berger (while Clinton was playing “polish
the knob” or somesuch) when they had a real live chance to kill bin-Laden, and generally for doing nothing to stem the rise of
politically based careerism at Langley.
But there were other sources, such as the State Department , which had its own intelligence sources (sadly among them were
the French, who pounded Colin Powell like a rug)and British Intelligence, who sometimes reported to Bush directly through Tony
Blair rather than through agency-to-agency channels, no doubt ruffling a few territorial feather here and there. It was the Brits who
reported the Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Niger, resulting in Bush’s famous “16 words” at the Jan 2003 State of the Union,
and which caused those ruffled feathers over at Langley to send one of its agent’s very anti-Bush husband over there to debunk
the claim, resulting indirectly in the conviction of Scooter Libby from Cheney’s office. (The Joe Wilson-Valery Plame-Richard
Armitage case is being researched independently and has no bearing on the charges that Bush lied.)
The British still stand by this intelligence, and there is no credible evidence contradicting it, including our own CIA. Even Wilson’s
sworn testimony (versus his infamous op-ed) tended to validate the claim.
Our conclusion on Charge One is that Bush had every reason to believe there were WMD’s in Iraq and that Iraq was pursuing a
nuclear program in the period Sept 2002- March 2003…as did every member of Congress (having been briefed by the same fact-
source, the CIA), as did almost every international intelligence agency, as did the United Nations. (Don’t confuse Hans Blix’s
findings with his recommendations.)
Indeed, Bush’s language about WMD’s was cautious compared to the far more certain language of members of Congress,
running from 1998 to 2002. We rely on Snopes.com as a very good and impartial clearinghouse for facts and they compiled direct
quotes from Congress in the run-up to the vote that sounded much more emphatic than Bush ever proclaimed.
You can also read into their comments some assumptions they may have made up on their own. It seems much of the resulting
rush to rewrite history after the ISG Interim report and David Kay’s report to Congress in Jan 04 was based on these
presumptions that weren’t really in Bush’s words. It could be that Bush asked for congressional authority to act in Iraq based on
one set of criteria and Congress granting it based on a slightly altered set.
We believe this is what set the entire BLPD cavalcade into motion, an attempt to accuse Bush of what they themselves
proclaimed, not him. Once again, they were accusing the Bush Administration of their own conspiracy.
Facts are still unclear whether nuclear WMD’s ever existed at all, or did exist in some less significant form or another, or were
actually destroyed as Saddam sometimes proclaimed, or were spirited away to Syria. Each of these have been alleged by
principals with access to information we do not have. But none have been proved…or disproved…so we warn against anyone
insisting on the truth of any of these possibilities without firsthand knowledge, as that too, would be a lie, and God knows, we
already have a boatload here. Not sure we can handle more.
Besides, if an Arab truck driver stepped forward to say he drove some weapons to Damascus, who would believe him? The first
hand eye witness accounts of front line workers in general, especially if on the other side of a desired end have been debunked
since Maggie Williams first shot down a uniformed Secret Service guard’s testimony (Rose Law firm records/Vince Foster)
because he was contradicting one of his betters, i.e. a lawyer. We can believe what we want to, but hold ourselves up to eternal
damnation, at least at this site and possibly one other. ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Exodus 20:16)
if we decide to proclaim what we believe as fact.
So, in these days eye witness accounts are of no use, even if under oath, unless accompanied by physical evidence, such as
photos, films, or testimony from Gil Grissom. And even photos can be shopped, as we found out in the Haditha Lie.
Analyzing the ancillary lies (other justifications for the invasion):
2) That at the time of the invasion, there was an existing Al-Quaida- Saddam Hussein connection; Bush didn’t claim that. On
one occasion he lumped Al Qaida in with terrorists Saddam may have been “harboring” (his words) which it turns out was true (al-
Zirqawi). The term “operational”, still in use today, is one that was applied derivatively, not by Bush or his administration, but by
his accusers, then used as time progressed as if Bush had been the generator of the term in the first place.
3) That at the time of the invasion Saddam’s actively support for terrorism; He did, but it was inconsequential, sending money
to the families of the 9/11 terrorists, stuff like that. The extent of his active support is unknown, even today, since the investigators
got sidetracked looking into all the money he sent UN officials and British MP’s.
4) The famous “16 words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had sought a source of uranium in Africa,
already discussed above.
The political progress of the BLPD lie and the liars:
We've already mentioned the derivative lies attached to the original BLPD (above) which really have no bearing on our
determination that Bush did not lie....and those who claim he did...did.
But events have time-lines, and we're big believers in using them, for politics follow those time-lines, so must also the lies
attached to the politics. (We recommend the factual and impartial Iraq Timeline for an event by event account of the war up the
current time.) By early-2004 the Bush lie had become political. It was an election year. So proving or at least establishing the lies
in the minds of the electorate were as crucial this political end as it was in satisfying whatever inner need belief in the lies fueled
among the bloggers. (We like fighting them at the Shite-ing Bovine, but figuring them out is another thing. Bernard Chumm has
few speculations.)
Many members of Congress needed "annulments" for their hasty votes in 2002 once the first stage of the war was won...and
contained some 8000 miles away. History can always be re-written, but only by the winners. And there was the issue of money.
Thew was supposed to over by 2004, and all those billions coming back to Congress' treasure chest.
The term "Bush Lied, People Died" wouldn't surface until he '04 campaign, but in our view, every negative event that arose in Iraq,
beginning with David Kay's testimony to Congress, was linked to Bush's foundational lies. Abu Ghraib went from mistreatment of
prisoners to torture because of the Bush lies. The failure to pacify the Sadr army, and the resulting talk of civil war, which persists
today, was magnified by the Bush lies. Every military failure, as the war bogged down 2004-2006, was a result of the lies. Every
Iraqi political success...and they were phenomenal if you stop to think about...were minimized because of the Bush lies. Even the
Surge's success has been filtered.
Domestically new Bush-lied campaigns arose with each political season. By late 2004 the term was all over the internet (you can
start counting them next week at our dailyCUSS page) and had become a part of the language, thanks to bumper-stickers , t-
shirts, and free media advertising every time there was an international conference.
In 2007 Sidney Blumenthal reprised the what-Bush-knew-and-when-he-knew-it theme by citing two unnamed CIA sources who
stated the Iraqi Foreign Minister, then in the hire of both CIA and the French, had reported there weren't any WMD's. It's a great
story, we can always rely on Sid for a good read, but goes nowhere, as the info is third hand, even more stretched out as to
whether Bush was actually briefed. We're not even sure CIA bought it.
It's a lie that won't go away because it covers a lies, mistakes, agenda and policies that have to remain from public view.
There are true-believers out there...we've spoken a lot about the bottom feeders, and we've spoken a lot about the facilitators, the
handlers, although with well-financed sites such as dailyKos, we suspect a little bit of both. But how do you explain the action of
academe, college professors, law professors, entire city councils? Even a few members of Congress have gone round the bend.
Cannon fodder or cannon? We're not sure, but by 2010 we'll have compiled volumes about them.
The bottom layer of players in the BLPD lie mostly move according to their own nature, yet almost always in lock step with one
another. This proves certain kinds of marketing works on certain kinds of impressionable, angry, un-inquisitive narcissistic
minds. One object of modern Left politics is to get them into a receptive state. Bushmills called this “cultural conspiracy”, i.e.
individuals thousands of miles apart acting identically to the same stimulus. We’re almost there now, after two generations, and
it's not really that different from the 76 Virgins hustle terror-handlers use on horny kids in Palestine and Lebanon. The carrots and
the sticks are essentially the same.
With all these things said, it is still true that President Bush could have lied, only that the lie cannot be found in his words. We
can’t know his heart, nor are there any solid facts that can be employed to create a circumstantial case that even comes close to
fifty percent probability (versus the preponderance of evidence, required to convict). Again, we invite any facts to the contrary.
All these things may be true, and it is no sin at all to want to believe them so,or even to believe they are.
The FInal Nail:
Published long after the cancer had mestastisized, The Senate Select Committee REPORT ON WHETHER STATEMENTS BY
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WERE SUBSTANTIATED BY INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, June 2008, also called the Rockefeller
Report (provide here, complete text) verifies what we've just written above. It's a simpler read, but our analysis is based on what
was known by 2004, and only took a few hours to complete while this one took five years. Read it, 5 years!
To what end? Watch our gallery as to how many mea culpa's issue forth from city councils, law schools, the idiot bottom feeders.
And, we REPEAT, any who wish to say "Ooopps", we'll grant absolution and remove their name
Otherwise, it is still a damned lie to insist what Bush said was lies, or to say you can divine another man’s heart in order to
say they are, so we therefore sentence all of you to be hung until you are you are swatted down like flies, you low down
American cockroaches.
THE GALLERIES:
To this end we have created two galleries, one major and one minor, the lesser gallery (The dailyCuss) for the delusional
bloggers out there who merely serve as the hired labor to build these pyramids of dishonor. The Main Gallery, THE BUSH LIED
GALLERY are for the poseurs who have used this lie as a way to advance a political career or agenda, or are simply too old to be
mistaken for children.
In the main gallery we will hang both the name(s) and pictures (if available) plus links to this Opinion of our Court. You are invited,
free of charge, to submit names and links.
In the minor gallery we will only post names/links of the sites, but will also post (with your permission) your own blog sites or
other contact info at out Shite-ing Bovine page. We know there are hundreds at universities and colleges, and we invite you to
contact as many as you like just to annoy them. Bernard Chumm has some ideas posted at out Townhall blog. There are certain
questions they can't answer, or won't. Laisser les bons temps rouller.
As a justification for the invasion of Iraq, before Mar
20, 2003, George W Bush stated there were
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (the lie) while
knowing 1) there were no WMD’s, or alternately, 2)
having no reason to believe one way or the other.
whether there were WMD’s in Iraq (the mens rea.)
20, 2003, George W Bush stated there were
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (the lie) while
knowing 1) there were no WMD’s, or alternately, 2)
having no reason to believe one way or the other.
whether there were WMD’s in Iraq (the mens rea.)
See How you can submit! Below
IN MEMORIAM: POSTED SEPTEMBER 11, 2008