If You Repeat It Enough....

    This one seems to fit in with the quote of the day. If you repeat a lie often enough, you will eventually get many folks to believe the lie.  And, let's just think about this for another moment or two.  Why do we need to lie about this?  Why can't we just admit that the administration cherry picked and exaggerated the evidence and that they were dead wrong about the claims?  Well, I guess the only reason would be that this group stands for something you like.  Wonder what that would be, for the WT, that is?

Comments

[Chris]

I guess I just want to know ... would you believe it if it actually was true? I mean, you weren't there, you didn't go there, and so all you have to go on are the conflicting reports sent back by people who HAVE been there. The media has an agenda, which naturally conflicts with the government's agenda, and other countries have agendas. And they're the ones sending reports. Who a person believes is a good indication of their personality, I think. I'm not saying I buy one group or another, but frankly, I'm rather tired of so many people "bush-bashing" because it's the fun thing to do these days. He's NOT the only one in charge of things, he's NOT the only person making decisions (remember congress and the senate?) and he's certainly NOT the only one who will be held accountable. The military has something to say too, and they're THERE. The democrats never went to Iraq, so their claims can be more or less dismissed. It's the people that go there and dig around for a while that are the people who are most believeable.

[chuck Gutenson]

Welcome, Chris, glad to have you with us! A few responses. Any sane person believes something that they know to be true. This is rarely a question of much interest:>) The bigger question has to do with the manner in which one assesses evidences in order to draw the best conclusions one can. There are some very interesting comments in your post. First, you refer to conflicting reports, but there is not substantive level of disagreement on the issue. Oh, there are still some who believe that the earth is at the center of the solar system. Just about every goofy claim has someone who believes it. The question is where the best evidence leads and there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq. Consider, further, your unfolding argument: we can't trust the media (they are anti-government you say, but you seem to forget how complicit they were with the government in supporting war) because they have an agenda (everyone, yes, you, too:>) has an agenda. This is hardly startling. One weighs the evidences of those with conflicting agendas the best one can.) We can't trust other countries, we can't trust dems (they haven't been there, you say, but of course they have, both political leaders as well as democratic soldiers). You seem to get the "bush-bashing" thing backwards. You seem to think people, on some sort of arbitrary basis, decide to "bash bush." The very important piece of data you overlook is that many folks have changed to become increasingly critical of the president because of the continued manifestation of both his perversity and incompetence. The margins in the Congress have done far too much to prevent oversight by Congress, and the administration's penchant for "signing statements" and simply ignoring oversight has zeroed the blame for this profoundly disastrous fiasco squarely at the "decider"s" feet. I find it remarkable that an articulate fellow like yourself could be unable to "buy one side or the other." I guess my question back to you would be, "What would it take?"

[Chris]

I think the reason I don't really buy one side or the other is that rarely does one side ever get it right. I try to vary my sample of media sources simply because of the agendas every reporter comes to the reporting with. In this way I have a better chance of reconstructing an event as it might have happened. Obviously it's not foolproof, and I can't be sure since I too wasn't there, but in my experience it at least gets me a little closer to what happened.

The whole Bush-bashing thing ... I really do think people often bash the president simply because other people are doing it. Think of it in terms of diffusion; a few people who really thought about it started it, then a few people who trusted those people said "yeah, he's a jerk" and then suddenly we have all these people who really know nothing about it bashing the president simply because it's the popular thing to do. It's been my experience that Australians do this (spent a year in Melbourne), and am seeing it more and more here in the states.

What bugs me is that most people have no substantive claim to bash him. Obviously it can't be COMPLETELY his fault - it never is. We have a whole government set up with checks and balances for the very purpose of keeping itself in line. If the president made decisions, and the rest of the government agreed, it's not the president's fault entirely. I'm not denying Bush has some accountability here, just that he's the sole person responsible.

The other part that people fail to realize is that we are where we are through a certain set of circumstances. The "WMD" scandal is over - we DID have probable cause, despite what revisionist historians would have us believe, and simply because they weren't ACTUALLY there doensn't mean that it was a bad idea just to make sure. The point is that we're there NOW, and despite past mistakes, we have to move forward with what we have. It just bothers me that people want to give up so soon.

Five years seems like a long time, but that neglects to take into account the difficulty of the goal! It's not going to happen overnight, and would probably not happen for twenty years. Yet people are so bent on immediate results that they forget the big picture. People who know the story of Wilberforce should understand that! He spent his WHOLE LIFE defending the slaves, and eventually they were freed. Why can't we do this with the same determination?

[chuck]

Chris, glad to have your further comments. I'll quickly hit a few points by paragraph. First paragraph, on complex issues, this is certainly true, but here we are talking about a simple "yes" or "no." Either he had WMD or he did not. There is overwhelming evidence that he did not, and none that he did. In a court of law or any other area in which we make decisions based upon real, live evidence, this one is as easy as they come:>)
Second, now you are talking at a different level of granularity. Do some folks engage in what one might call a "gang up on him" mentality? Of course. However, to dismiss substantive criticism due to that phenomenon is disingenuous, can't we agree on that much?
Third, of course there are plenty of substantive reasons to criticize bush, on this war and plenty of other things, particularly from a Christian perspective. We know that the data that led us into the war was manipulated, we now know that bush knew (or was remarkably incompetent not to know) that much of what he said was, at best, dubious, we have seen him run out numerous career military men who have disagreed with his administration, we have seen willful misuse of terrorism to accomplish other, political objectives. All of these (and much more) are worthy of criticism. Is he alone responsible? No one is ever "alone" responsible, but he is the man who has called himself the decider, who has ignored wiser men, etc, etc. So, yes, again, he is fully due the criticism he is receiving. Sadly, I fear, he deserves much more criticism....
Fourth, we did not have probable cause. The inspection regimes were working, Blix indicated there was no evidence of WMD, as did Scott Ritter. Using your "on the ground" test from yesterday, we should have believed these folks. In addition, I must say I find it shocking that a Christian would find all this acceptable. The case doesn't even fit the Just War Criteria, which are the only basis for a moral judgment from a Christian perspective. Just imagine, as is true for a friend of mine, that these children being killed were your relatives. I wonder then if you'd be so easy in announcing that we had "probably cause."
Finally, what you, and others who advance the same ideas you do, seem to miss is that our presence is making things worse. And, as General Odom noted this last weekend, there is no basis to think it is not going to continue to get worse. And to compare what is going on here to Wilberforce is to depend upon a very, very poor analogy, Chris. His continuing work was not consistently making things worse...

[Chris]

Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear about something. I'm not saying I find it at all acceptable.

However, it is a mistake to say that, because we're doing something wrong, we shoudln't be there at all.

I believe we're supposed to be helping Iraq, Iran, the whole middle east. I know we've made things worse, but I also know that things can get better with our aid as well. I don't believe troops should leave because I think we should be sending in TONS of relief workers; food, clothing, water, shelter, power plants, some air conditioning (terrorists wouldn't be as mad if they had a decent shower and some AC for a while) ... REAL aid. But the troops would be necessary to facilitate integration and assure that the terrorists, in their last ditch effort to sway public opinion away from America, attempted to destroy the infrastructure we began to build.

Bush is not above reproach, I said that. All I'm saying is that at the time, we believed WMD to be in the middle east. Things have changed, we've learned new things since then - we were ALL ignorant about WMD, and you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing when I say that I don't think the UN WMD inspectors were more than a formality to appease a restless United States. If you want to spread the blame, we could talk about Clinton and his failings when he KNEW what was going on in the middle east and did nothing to prevent it; he had Osama and chose not to act. And now we're minus two towers and part of the pentagon.

The Wilberforce analogy was simply a means to point out that we need to work harder. I agree, Bush screwed up by sticking to the same lame strategy over and over again, despite making things worse (though it makes sense that more terrorist would be recruited, have you read any of their propoganda? outright lies, most of it, but they're the only things the populace over there is exposed to). I want us to make it better - we started it, and perhaps on faulty grounds, but now we're bound and committed, and to pull out now is a bigger moral failing now that we know what we're up against. As Wilberforce said, "You can never say again that you did not know."

[chuck]

Thanks, Chris, for the clarifications, they help a good deal. Of course, we still have some substantive disagreements:>)
First, let me agree with your claim that being immoral in going in does not make it immoral to stay. However, and this is perhaps our most substantive disagreement, we should not stay if there is no reasonable chance that our presence will make things better. I think this is clearly the case, and I am in agreement with General Odom on that point. So, when "sticking to it" just makes things worse for everyone involved, then sticking to it isn't a good strategy.
On the issue of us "being ignorant" on WMD, that would be true only if you mean in the sense of having absolute certainty, which of course, we can never have. There was more than enough evidence against the claims and world wide opinion was against the invasion. In fact, given that we had to take the UN resolution off the table because we knew if would fail should give some evidence of just how widely those claims were disbelieved. On the weapons inspectors, I think you are parroting a conservative line:>) It is always popular to disbelieve anyone who doesn't support your prejudices, but these guys were right, whatever agenda you think they had:>) On the part about Clinton, if the new administration had taken seriously the plans he had put in place and paid attention to their own intelligence, we'd be a lot further ahead (I mean how many memos should Condi have to get dealing with terrorists planning strikes in the US, possibly using planes, before the administration took that seriously? How often do we let a John Ashcroft tell his people he is tired of hearing about terrorists?). In fact, most of what has been done in response to 9/11 was already in the plans (as reported in a Newseek article of some two or more years ago).
The bottom line is we have a bunch of neo-cons who think that raw displays of power are the only things that work. What saddens me most is just how many Christians have allowed themselves to be drawn into this world view. Help me to understand the biblical/theological basis for the positions you are defending. That would go a long way toward helping me understand.

[David Beasley]

Amen.
"Third, of course there are plenty of substantive reasons to criticize bush, on this war and plenty of other things, particularly from a Christian perspective."
Amen.
What is said and what is done by W. are the criteria for judgement and critique. Ever since I began commenting on W. and his world I have been called a bush basher but I don't intend to bash nobody... any more than my example of choice, Jesus of Nazareth, who critiqued what was profane to him so as those who would hear would not follow the critiqued into hell.

[Chris]

I guess mostly my position isn't as informed as I thought it was, because some of the stuff you mentioned I've never heard before (like memos about airplanes?). You'll have to forgive me for having a "conservative bias." I tend to be fairly middle-of-the-road in terms of politics; I'm fairly anti-socialist (it's the church's job to help people in times of need, not the government's), but at the same time, I'm also very pro-environmental conservation and the like.

I guess my position on the war is mostly based on some suppositions about when violence is necessary. In my reading of scripture I do not see Jesus saying that violence is never necessary; in fact, he goes around the temple with a whip driving out the people misusing the space preventing people from getting close to God. I see Peter strike down Annanias and Sapphira (spelling?) over their deception and greed.

It's fine for us to say "turn the other cheek" when it's our cheek we're turning, but what about when it's somebody else's? When those in power rape those that are oppressed, is it not our duty to help? The example that always comes to mind is sexual rape. If a guy came into my house and tried to rape my wife, you couldn't hold me back from beating the crap out of him. It's not even a question in my mind that he is to be pulled - violently if necessary - from off of my wife and be punished for his crime. Extend that further, what about Iraq? The people in power are raping the citizens through their greed. Sometimes I do think it's necessary to remove those in power (and this is where the Bush administration screwed up, but also the church), take care of the new country and teach the newly freed people how to coexist. Obviously both have to happen side-by-side, but only the power-display happened.

I think the church has been extremely lax in its duty towards the people of the middle east. Instead of flooding the place with relief supplies and missionaries and cultural experts and doctors and people to rebuild infrastructure, we've stayed at home and built multimillion dollar additions to our church buildings and eaten ourselves fat. We squabble about whether or not the trinity is important in daily life but fail to help those who need us. We are the richest nation in the world, and many of those that hold great wealth are Christians who make great sacrifices for building projects and - occasionally - schools. A gross generalization (a friend of mine is Lebonese, and he's back and forth to Lebanon all the time), but one that unfortunately accounts for most American Christians.

In my mind, the church has taken far too LAX a stance on the situation in the middle east; I too disagree with the many blind-followers of republicans ... and democrats ... but I also am upset that those who oppose such blind faith do not stand for the people of the middle east! We all say "but it's wrong", but it's not them we are concerned about, it is our own consciences. Bush at least DID something; even if it was the wrong something, and perhaps he had some reasons that weren't in line, but he saw a chance to help and DID something about it. It's easy to judge him in the rear-view mirror, but then I think about the nothing that I've done to help my fellow human beings in the middle east, and I remember "oh right, I did nothing."

[Rob]

Ok, just gotta jump in here

First a little note: a) Apologize for the missive length, just don't have time to respond point-by-point in a running conversation b) CAPS – not yelling, just trying to make my point (don't know how to italicize)

1) "First, you refer to conflicting reports, but there is not substantive level of disagreement on the issue. Oh, there are still some who believe that the earth is at the center of the solar system."

First things first, very good to use the hyperbole that anyone who disagrees with your (and others) assessment of the WMD issue is the equivalent of assuming the solar system does not operate the way it does. If you are coming from that assumption I doubt any argument against your position will ever stand your scrutiny.

2) "First paragraph, on complex issues, this is certainly true, but here we are talking about a simple "yes" or "no." Either he had WMD or he did not."

Actually, not so. This is a perfect dichotomy when you wish to use it as a cudgel to beat someone down in an argument, but I do find it surprising you use this clear distinction when most people who critique the Bush administration lay on how “simplistic” his conception of geopolitics are. I'm surprised you don't appreciate the gray.

A lot of this comes from a talk by Williamson Murray as part of the Iraqi Perspectives Project. They are the ones translating hangerfuls of Iraqi documents seized in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Keep in mind he had nothing but scorn for Washington/Military in some of its handling of the Iraq situation (ex: He hates how they didn't have one archivist involved when these documents were found – so he and his small pool of linguists are faced with something not-to-dissimilar to the last scene of the first Indiana Jones movie)

Cite: IPP (http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf)

They come to several conclusions:
1) Sanctions WERE coming off - that was the progression. Heck the fact Saddam was bribing two of the members of the Security Council (France and Russia) and the issues of the "Oil for Food" scandal - ensured that at some point sanctions were going to come off of Iraq. Now, that is important to understand since past the United States, no one was particularly interested in handling the issue of corralling Iraq or enforcing any of the provisos of the UN resolutions/peace agreements ("No Fly Zone" for example)

Thus, and it is hard to remember with the progression of time, Saddam was going to be freed of his shackles no matter what.

2) Deception was an aspect of the crazy Saddam regime. I don't even imply crazy in the pejorative sense of his on mental awareness - but simply in how decisions were made and the structure of government. Specifically, Saddam stated on WMD "He replied that Iraq did not have WMD but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary, going on to explain that such a declaration might encourage the Israelis to attack."

So they did NOT have them - however they were doing everything in their power to convince everyone that they DID have them.

Now here is where perhaps perception/assumptions are an issue, but that's far from what many have implied the Bush administration was doing. Lying, for instance, is an INTENTIONAL untruth – whereas these documents prove the basis for a human error.

Sadamm's intent was part of the reason all the “chatter” we, the Israelis, the British, et al. were receiving were that Saddam DID have WMDs.

Ex: "search the area surrounding the headquarters camp and [the unit] for any chemical agents, make sure the area is free of chemical containers, and write a report on it,"

The intelligence services interpreted those instructions as an attempt to CONCEAL WMD rather than ensure compliance with UN regulations.

As the study points out: "What was meant to prevent suspicion thus ended up heightening it."

Now this was the chatter we were getting pre-Gulf War II. In a vacuum there are two ways to look at that statement:
A) They do have weapons NOW and are trying to get rid of them before either UN inspectors come in OR the US marches in and finds them.

B) And this is what the documents show - they largely destroyed the WMDs they had and this chatter were from people trying to ascertain if they did the job FULLY - in order not to get busted NOW for what they were supposed to have done a few years previous.

However, it is a perfectly understandable mistake to chose option “A” when a non-transparent government (Saddam) is making it state policy to obfuscate the truth - AND there is no history of being able to take him at his word. Combined with his previous actions concerning UN weapons inspections - and the roadblocks (sometimes literally) he placed in the way of Hans Blix's mission makes one hard pressed to believe an "objective" policy maker (with all the preconceptions that any analysis would have) could implicitly trust what was being seen. Let alone the "world opinion" that was against us (China, France, Russia) were largely bribed by dreams of Oil Money once sanctions were removed.

What the larger point is: 1) Bush did NOT lie 2) Intel was "correct" - but suffered (as I have pointed out) from poor assumptions that were hurt by Saddam specifically trying to hide the truth. 3) Hindsight is 20/20 (see Chatter example) but it's exceedingly unfair to judge on the basis of perfect information that we have now (See: Clausewitz and "Fog of War") plus the inherent difficulties there are to gaining ANY intelligence (HUMINT or otherwise) in a dictatorship.

Too often, as Chris has pointed out, a "groupthink" has taken over as it concerns BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) - he MUST have lied because we dislike him, rather than actually getting into the nitty-gritty of pre-war intelligence, actual documentary evidence, and the proper assessment that it was a mistake. A bad one, and one we should correct, but an HONEST mistake. Which is different than lying - and all that flows from that false premise.

Lastly, it does illustrate there is a non-"simplistic" reality to this whole discussion. You can't sum up this situation with a pithy bumper sticker that "Bush Lied, People Died". So cute - and yet so false.

3) Here's more from IPP - and why I brought up that sanctions were ending. Saddam was going to start WMD production the SECOND sanctions were pulled. For example: He had a "drug" factory (I believe it was for “aspirin”) that was separating the drug into a parts per million ratio that made the drug ineffective. Now, one might ask "Why make a factory that defeats the purpose it was set up to do?". Well, easy answer - the specific distillation and separation the factory was set up for was ideal for "drugs" such as Anthrax.

Thus, he was readying to make WMD as soon as sanctions were taken down - which adds to the fact that the pre-war intel was hinting at Saddam's heavy involvement in WMD procurement and development is not off - it was just off in timescale. And again, we know this NOW - we didn't have access to any of these internal documents. Plus, this is why I made the early point (as did IPP) on the fact sanctions were going to be pulled – what were we to do after sanctions were lifted? Especially considering his firm commitment to WMD procurement and development?

Also it does show that Saddam WAS a threat - now you can argue the merits of whether or not war was the adequate solution - however you cannot say he was NOT a threat. That is off the table by what the documents from Iraq show.

Additionally, you cannot critique as harshly Washington or Bush simply because of information we know now. I think you can condemn say the effect of the Church Committee on our intelligence gathering capabilities. Amazingly, when dealing with "bad" people we can't find a spotless lamb to get us inside info (thank you Sen. Church). Also, you can make the point the 9/11 Commission did in attacking the institutional atrophy you see in all organizations (such as the CIA) which cause huge issues. Lastly, you can also attack assumptions being the mother of all screw-ups – yet this is the nature of nations and organizations throughout all of history (ex: France didn't believe solid intelligence that said the Germans would invade through Belgium because they KNEW they had to go through Alsace-Lorraine because that's what they did in 1870-1871)

Part of the reason some people might get labeled as a Bush Basher is those of us who defend the Administration get upset that facts such as these never get taken into account. Again, you can critique Langly, Foggy Bottom, the WH, etc. without ever reaching the pejorative rhetoric that seems to be the nature of any attack these days.

So NO we don't KNOW that “that the data that led us into the war was manipulated” we don't KNOW that “Bush knew (or was remarkably incompetent not to know) that much of what he said was, at best, dubious”

4) Last point – I'll leave the Just War Debate to my friend in Seminary. You discuss that it isn't immoral to leave.
Arguments I've seen against our involvement have been:
A) We gave Saddam WMD so we have no moral standing to take him out/fix it: I thought we learned in Kindergarten that you should clean up your own mess. I've never understood the logic of that argument that we equip a despot and then should just...well accept the fact we made a raw deal
B) WMD have not been found therefore we should leave – I've addressed that above, but those points aside; even if its a screw-up don't we have a responsibility to help a nation from a more reason “screw-up”?
C) Distracting from the War on Terror: Well since Iraq has become the magnet for Iranian, Pakistani, Arab, etc. insurgents from around the globe THEY somehow consider this a front-line. So – heck if they are moving into an area where we can adequately pick off targets that are making themselves “available” to our ordinance – all the better in my estimation. Is it not moral to eliminate these threats to not only ourselves but those we are invested in Iraq to help? Consider the threats they made themselves against any Iraqis involved with elections (which millions who “voted with their feet” proved that they wanted). We should leave them in the lurch and face the insurgents alone? How is that moral to stand and “wash our hands” of an entire people?

Also, why shouldn't we help try to establish a stable government that protects its people in a region of the world where (as Chris has pointed out) we should be much more involved. Yet you face a huge amount of resistance from the Islamic States in the area. Why not establish at least a non-hostile Arabic state where Christianity can at least have a shot (in comparison with say the Saudis). It may be naive but shouldn't we try?

[chuck]

Hey, Chris, I appreciate your willingness to dialog. If you are patient and willing, we could have a very interesting dialog over the next few weeks on these issues. I have taught a course on war and peace, and have a pretty good grasp of the JW criteria, etc. So, let's see where we go:>) Let me offer a few comments on your various points.
First, on the issue of what churches do and what governments do, I have just finished the first draft of a book on this topic. Bottom line, we are told that governments are ordained by God, and it would be remarkably strange to think that governments have been excluded from one of the highest priorities of Scripture--care of the poor. Those on the margins have to be protected from exploitation, which means there will necessarily be a place for legislation. Sorry to be so brief on the point. At some point, my book will be out:>)
On your point about the whip and the temple, grammatically, it is unclear that Jesus is using the whip to beat up people. The term describes a whip used to drive animals. So, it is most likely that he is not driving people, but animals. On A and S (how's that for avoiding the spelling:>)), whatever the Holy Spirit might or might not have done does not warrant our actions.
As to Jesus saying never to use violence, there are many things that Jesus never bothers to tell us "never" to do. So, we have to extrapolate with our best judgment. Everytime the use of violence is discussed, Jesus is opposed to it. Further, if there were ever a case where the JW criteria would have been met, surely it was first century Israel's case. Yet, Jesus steadfastly refuses the path of violence. So, he missed a mighty opportunity to show us that use of violence was ever justified. He could have still been killed (in battle!) to die for our sins, could have been raised, established the kingdom, etc. But, he did not and instead modeled non-violence.
Next, as JH Yoder has noted, there is a world of difference between saying you should interpose yourself between your wife and a person attacking her and going to war. The rules of engagement are very different, you don't end up killing non-combatants, etc. In fact, many pacifists affirm what is called "just policing," where violence can be used in very limited ways by a police force, but which constantly opposes war.
I agree with you on the laxness of Christians toward the middle east. A lot of it is laziness, other parts are related to really bad readings of Revelation, and others are just raw bigotry. We have much work to do there, and the war in Iraq has only made all that harder.

[chuck]

Rob, thanks for taking the time to join us and for offering your comments here. Thanks also for taking the time to offer the clarifications at the outset. I will not waste too much time responding to commentary on rhetorical devices either of us use in our arguments:>) We both use them, and we both tend to assess the other as over-use or over-exaggeration:>) So, to your points.
First, it seems that the vast majority of what you say actually supports my major point: there were no WMDs. This was the point of my original comment and responses. In addition, while you assert that the conclusion to your argument is that Saddam "was" a threat, this is a faulty conclusion to your argument, isn't it? If the premises you defend are true (I don't have time to refute them all, I doubt they are all entirely false, though I'll comment on some), then the conclusions that would lead to are:
1. Saddam wanted to be a threat.
2. Given time, material, etc., Saddam might be able to build a plausible program for WMD.
3. If he did and if nothing were done to prevent it, Saddam might become a threat to the US at some point in the future.
Whatever you think about how bad Saddam is, one does not become morally empowered to undertake war on the basis of what an evil man wants to do and might be able to do given all the confluence of right factors. So, your argument supports the conclusion that going into Iraq initially was an immoral decision on any of the bases we normally use to judge the morality of such undertakings.
Moving on, your arguments attempting to defend Bush and his administration from lying do not succeed. In fact, even if one accepts as true all of your claims, all it would prove is that the administration did not lie on the issues you cite. Consider, though, that we well know by now that Bush had every reason to see the claims regarding Niger as false. Further, Cheney and Bush continued to attempt to connect Iraq directly with 9/11 (Cheney, for example, defending the claims of the infamous "Prague" meeting), when he knew there was no adequate evidence to support these claims. In fact, Bush finally completely backed off this and then tried to say he'd never made those claims. In addition, we now know far more details regarding the extent to which the office established by Rumsfeld was distorting intelligence to build a case for war. Hadley recently admitted as much, but tried to obfuscate things by saying they were merely giving something like "alternative" interpretations. Next, remember Rumsfeld's claim that "we know where the WMD's are, they are north, south, east, west of Tikrit...." Obviously, you cannot know what turns out to be false. I could go on and on, but .... Bottom line here: I grant your definition of a lie as an intentional telling of that which is untrue. Even though I think your conclusions are faulty on the points you raise, there is far too much evidence of lying beyond that narrow set of issues. We had more than enough evidence that there were no WMDs. So, yes, we do now know that the evidence was manipulated and we do know that much of what Bush claimed was dubious at best.
No need to distract with the reference to "groupthink" (a move often made when one finds oneself in the minority:>)). What I noted was that many who now object to Bush do so on very good evidence of incompetence.

To your last set of comments:
First, I never offered any one of the three arguments you attempt to refute for why it is not immoral to leave now. My argument there was based upon the line of argument advanced by General Odom and many others: there isn't anything we can do while there to make things better and our presence is only making things worse. It cannot be moral to stay somewhere if your goal is to help and your presence is hurting.
I don't agree with a good deal of the way you lay out A, B, and C, but since they aren't my argument, I'll not engage them.
Finally, your last paragraph hinges on equivocation, unfortunately. You ask, "shouldn't we try to help?" To which you expect the answer, "Yes, we should try to help." Then, you respond, "Then, what's the problem?" However, I reject this framing. First, this war was never pitched as a "humanitarian" effort, as well it could not be. Hundreds of thousands dead, over a million refugees, billions upon billions of dollars of damage to basic infrastructure, deterioration into civil war, etc. etc. is hardly characterizable as "trying to help." At this point, I am much more in agreement with Chris's assessment that we should be much more involved in genuine humanitarian aid. That would be true help, but what we are doing hasn't helped, isn't helping, and by the vast majority of accounts isn't going to help. So, while I would support "helping," this ain't helping. Your last comment suggests you see this when you talk about being naive. You don't go "try something" that is as destructive as war without much better reason to think it will succeed. I won't even bother to point out the "sliding justification for war" you've engage in, oops, guess I did:>)
Bottom line to the whole thing: the vast majority of the world was opposed to the war. Those in the area obviously did not see Saddam as a threat, and a "secular" Moslem like Saddam was not going to be a confederate of bin Laden. We had more than enough evidence to know what was being claimed was false. Bush led us into the war anyway and now history will see this catastrophe as his legacy.