: You are a LIAR, Mr. Bush, and for such a dedicated Christian, You bear an inordinate amount of “False Witness.”

You are a LIAR, Mr. Bush, and for such a dedicated Christian, You bear an inordinate amount of "False Witness."

By Lonna Gooden VanHorn

GEORGE W. BUSH said on Sept. 21st in Derry, New Hampshire:

"Today my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind with new contradictions of his old positions on Iraq. He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, no, we should not have invaded Iraq. After just last month saying that he still would have voted for force, even knowing everything we know today. Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison. Today he said, and I quote, "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." He is saying that he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of Democracy. I couldn't disagree more, and not so long ago, so did my opponent." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/21/1348211#transcript

In October of 2002 in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, George Bush in speaking about the resolution that would allow him to take this country to war with Iraq if Hussein could not be disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction by peaceful means said:

"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable" It means America speaks with one voice." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Regardless of how the rationale for going to war with Iraq has morphed since 2002, the rationale for war that was voted on at that time was to rid Hussein of weapons of mass destruction if peaceful means failed to achieve that goal. The president indicated he would try to solve the problem of Hussein's weapons without resorting to war.

Of course as we now know, and some experts tried to tell us then, Hussein had no significant WMD's. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

Contrary to what the president said yesterday, Kerry never did vote to use "force." In his speech before the Senate in September of 2002 John Kerry very clearly said:

" If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections"then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort"

"I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances"

""war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe.

If what George Bush said yesterday does not fit the definition of "Bearing False Witness," I do not know what does. It goes far beyond the misrepresentations of fact and the exaggerations that are part of every campaign. John Kerry's mistake was in believing that the president actually had any interest in trying to avoid war.

In yesterdays statement, Bush lied about what John Kerry's position had been. His statement also made it clear that war and deposing Saddam Hussein had been his own objective all along, in spite of the fact that in order to win Congressional approval for the resolution, his argument to Congress and the people was that Saddam must be "disarmed."

John Kerry said in his speech that:

"The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people " regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter"

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take"

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq"None of those resolutions" calls for a regime change"

When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said:

The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee:

That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

"war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."

""if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

In his speech before the Senate John Kerry also clearly stated that the most important thing to consider in our dealings with Iraq was that any actions we took regarding Hussein must not undermine our efforts on the war against terrorism:

"" And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends" on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged"

Unfortunately, we now know resources needed to fight the war on terror were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq before Bin Laden had been captured. Consequently, Al Qaeda was allowed to disperse and regroup. Its' numbers have swelled, and although it did not exist in Iraq prior to the war, elements of Al Qaeda are almost certainly there now. And the whole world hates us. At least the whole world overwhelmingly hates Bush. There is no way that making so many more people world-wide hate us makes us safer. There is no way we have any chance of regaining our status as an admired and leader of the world until we are led by a different president.

Additionally, the president's own advisors are saying that any chance of an American style Democracy in Iraq, is slim and getting slimmer. In fact Iraq is becoming more fundamentalist, and is very likely to erupt in civil war.

Before the invasion, most Iraqis did not like Saddam Hussein, but, in spite of the years of sanctions against them, most did not hate the American people. Now, sadly, in any poll taken the majority of the Iraqi people would rather have their former murderous dictator back in power than have American troops occupying their country. Especially since Abu Ghraib. But, George Bush continues to lie and attempt to deceive the American people by saying things are improving in Iraq when the opposite is true. And our soldiers and the Iraqi people continue to pay the price for his lies. http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

For all his evil, Hussein had the power back and running in three months after Gulf War I. It has now been 18 months and the Iraqis still have only sporadic electricity, and many are drinking what amounts to raw sewage.

Coverage of the war in Iraq is, for the most part, off the front pages and out of the headlines. Consequently, the America people also tend to believe things are getting better in Iraq. The truth is that American soldiers are pretty much holed up in safe locations and have basically ceded control of most of the country to the rebels. It is widely believed that the president will delay launching what will undoubtedly be a bloody offensive to take back parts of Iraq until after the election. Right now, in order not to alienate voters, his primary objective is to keep the American casualty count low. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092204D.shtml

In July of 2003 George Bush said we went to war with Iraq because Hussein wouldn't let the weapons inspectors in.

"And we gave him [Hussein] a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in". http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=30536&d=19&m=8&y=2003

An out and out lie. Shamefully, the press corps stood mute and let him get away with that blatant falsehood. In case I need to remind any of you, Hussein had let the inspectors in, and had given them surprising access. The inspectors said the inspections were working and they wanted more time in Iraq to search for weapons. But, Bush, et al wanted war. So they ordered the inspectors out and began their war of choice for control of that region and control of Iraq's oil -- their war for the financial health of Halliburton, Bechtel, and Chevron, and for what George thought would be the "glory" of that grounded, AWOL pilot George W. Bush. That rush to war has proven to be what Hal Crowther described in "With Trembling Fingers,"

"the worst blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful, egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign policy. If you don't believe it yet, just keep watching."

Henry Waxman chronicled 237 lies or misleading statements made by the administration in the run-up to war, and that was months ago. Cheney continues to spout lies every time he opens his mouth. Economist Paul Krugman has said Bush's budgets are the most dishonest in history. We know the administration edits EPA reports to make its' policies look better.

The lies of George Bush and this administration would fill volumes. In fact, as Bill Gallagher points out Bush is a serial liar. http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher152.html. Entire books have been written about the lies of George Bush and this administration. And, unlike Clinton's infamous "I did not have sex with that woman" lie, the Bush administration's lies are lies about things that are important to the welfare of the nation. Nichlas Kristof in "Sex Lies, and Bush on Tape" writes that in the 2000 campaign Bush promised that his tax cuts would leave most of the surplus intact. Bush said:

"My plan is to take a" little over a trillion of the $4 trillion surplus and give it to the people who pay the bills."

Instead, Bush borrowed money from our children to take the country into unending deficits mostly to benefit corporations and his rich friends and campaign contributors, not the people who "pay the bills."

Lies about the tax cuts, lies about the economy, lies about the environment, lies about jobs and medical care, lies that took us to war, and then when no WMD's were found, lies about the justification for taking us to war in the first place.

The Bush administration by its lies demonstrates how low an opinion it has of the intelligence of the American people. They believe they can do anything, tell any lie, and the American people will still support them and vote for them. Sadly, too many of the American people are proving Bush and Rove are justified in that belief.

The Bush Administration, in spite of the fervent professions of their Christian faith by many of its' members, especially those made by the president, is the most dishonest in memory.

Bush and this administration get away with their dishonesty and deceptions at least in part because at every juncture the media fails to hold them fully accountable for their statements, pronouncements and policies.

And, ladies and gentlemen, such deceit by the administration and duplicity by the media, in my humble opinion, is neither proper nor is such consistent and blatant dishonesty, deception and "bearing of false witness" in any way the marker of a dedicated Christian.

Bio: Lonna Gooden VanHorn is the mother of six and a grandmother. The Minnesota daughter of small farmers, she now lives in New Mexico, with her husband a Vietnam veteran.

She has not left her computer for months. Nor is she likely to until after the election. Someone, please send her food.

What John Kerry Really Said about the Iraq Resolution and Going to War with Iraq, from the text of his speech before the Senate in Sept. of 2002

"war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.                                                                                                                                                                As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice." Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
     If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs"
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
     In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States" The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption" If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections"then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort"
     But we do need friends" And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends" on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged"
     I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission.   If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war" In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right"
     The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort...in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this" What John Kerry Really Said about the Iraq Resolution and Going to War with Iraq, from the text of his speech before the Senate in Sept. of 2002

"war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

      As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice." Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
     If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs"
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
     In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States" The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption" If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections"then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort"
     But we do need friends" And most importantly, war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
     I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission.   If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war" In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right"
     The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort...in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this"