If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

[G4scott]

I just thought it was appropriate for everyone to see what some other people's thoughts on Iraq and WMD's were before the war on Iraq...

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0
*
by John Hawkins
*
Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction... *
*
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 *
*
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others *
*
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 *
*
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 *
*
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 *
*
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 *
*
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 *
*
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 *
*
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 *
*
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 *
*
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 *
*
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 *
*
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 *
*
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 *
*
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 *

[G4scott]

But wait, there's more...

*
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 *
*
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 *
*
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 *
*
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 *
*
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 *
*
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 *
*
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 *
*
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 *
*
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 *
*
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 *
*
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
*
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 *
*
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 *
*
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 *
*
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 *
*
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 *
*
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[pseudobrit]

I just thought it was appropriate for everyone to see what some other people's thoughts on Iraq and WMD's were before the war on Iraq...

The obvious difference being that none of these people went to war with the wrong information.

[Ugg]

While it's hard to know exactly what information these people were privy to, let's not forget that the majority of that info was false and or exaggerated. SH was a threat to stability in the middle east and he was a grave threat to the people of Iraq. As far as the WMD, bad information in, bad information out. I think we can all agree that the US was clueless as to what SH was up to. That, I think, is the greatest tragedy.

[numediaman]

What's your point? That Democrats can be wrong, too? I will agree with that. I think Kerry's vote to support the war was wrong -- as was every other yes vote taken that day.

A question: couldn't you have given us an excerpt of the story, and then provided a link? Or was the source of the story a little embarrassing.

here is the source:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

[mactastic]

Ok, lets try them all on lying. Just start at the top ok? :D

[numediaman]

Let me clarify my previous post: I am very angry at the Democrats for going along with the president during the first three years of Bush's administration. The Dems are just as much to blame for getting us into Iraq and for the deficits, etc. But that does not mean that it is OK to continue down this same road.

Continuing to support Bush is like leaving the pitcher in after he has given up ten runs; like staying with the same girlfriend after you fined out she's really a guy :eek: ; like brushing your teeth with your hair gel, and continuing to do it. Change can be good.

[SlyHunter]

What's your point? That Democrats can be wrong, too? I will agree with that. I think Kerry's vote to support the war was wrong -- as was every other yes vote taken that day.

A question: couldn't you have given us an excerpt of the story, and then provided a link? Or was the source of the story a little embarrassing.

here is the source:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
What difference does the source makes if he's correct.

Off topic -- Anyway to subscribe to a thread without actually having to put in a post?

[blackfox]

Let me clarify my previous post: I am very angry at the Democrats for going along with the president during the first three years of Bush's administration. The Dems are just as much to blame for getting us into Iraq and for the deficits, etc. But that does not mean that it is OK to continue down this same road.
Excellent post numedia...I feel the same as you, but you have to admit it would 've been near political suicide for the Democrats to not follow suit in the post 9/11 political climate...it is a rough time for the Democrats as they are already on the defensive from the republican onslaught, subsequently followed poor policy and now look somewhat spineless and flip-floppers on the issues...of course in this instance, as you noted, I would rather have a flip-flopper than someone who is consistent in bad policy (ie Bush)...and there is the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing...

[numediaman]

What difference does the source makes if he's correct.

Off topic -- Anyway to subscribe to a thread without actually having to put in a post?

Yes, go up to "Thread Tools". There is a pull down menu and you'll find subscribe there.

Concerning sources: I'm in the media business -- so the source of the news is just as important to me as the content. It is important that I can trust the source. That doesn't mean I don't read, or won't trust news from new sources, it just means I will want to be careful.

But as I said, I won't argue the point that many Democrats should be held to account for Iraq, I just don't see how that gets Bush off the hook. He is, after all, the President.

[G4scott]

The obvious difference being that none of these people went to war with the wrong information.

No, but if they were in the position to make that decision, how can you know that they wouldn't?

The point is that blame for the inherent lack of WMD's in Iraq can't be placed on Bush alone. Bad intelligence or whatever it was, Bush wasn't the only one who thought Iraq had WMD's before the war.

[mactastic]

No, but if they were in the position to make that decision, how can you know that they wouldn't?


Well for starters, Bill Clinton WAS in a position to make that decision and the evidence wasn't compelling enough for him to go to war.

Further, the Democratic Party doesn't contain a 'neo' wing that has wanted to get a toehold in the Middle East for years. The authors and supporters of PNAC were not from the Democratic Party.

The argument you are putting forth amounts to 'well everyone else lied about it so it's ok if I do too'. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.

[Lyle]

The argument you are putting forth amounts to 'well everyone else lied about it so it's ok if I do too'. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.
I don't think that's the argument that G4scott was making, but I won't put words in his mouth. No, the problem I have with people claiming that the president lied is that, by definition, it means he made false statement(s) with the intent to deceive. I think it's clear that a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, got some bad information from their advisors and other intelligence sources about the situation in Iraq. Do you still assert that those people are liars, if they honestly believed that that information was true when they said it?

[Neserk]

What difference does the source makes if he's correct.



I'll remember this for the future. Note to self: Source is irrelevant to SH. HE doesn't care who said it so long as it "proves" his point and allows him to distract himself from the truth.

[Neserk]

The argument you are putting forth amounts to 'well everyone else lied about it so it's ok if I do too'. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.

It is really just a distraction technique. I'm not sure if it is meant to distract us from the truth or if he just needs it to distract himself from the truth.

[toontra]

Do you still assert that those people are liars, if they honestly believed that that information was true when they said it?

You, I, everyone (even governments) have certain viewpoints which they have accumulated through life, or inherit in the case of political parties.

When faced with evidence, especially this sort of "intelligence", there is a tendency to cherry-pick the bits which suit our agenda and ignore, or even suppress, those that don't.

It seems that in this case the selection was extreme, the sources weren't checked and the result was an unnecessary war. And that's being generous!

Maybe this isn't technically lying, but it is as disingenuous as was asking Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD!

[Lyle]

You, I, everyone (even governments) have certain viewpoints which they have accumulated through life, or inherit in the case of political parties.

When faced with evidence, especially this sort of "intelligence", there is a tendency to cherry-pick the bits which suit our agenda and ignore, or even suppress, those that don't.

It seems that in this case the selection was extreme, the sources weren't checked and the result was an unnecessary war. And that's being generous!

Maybe this isn't technically lying, but it is as disingenuous as was asking Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD!I think that, for the most part, I agree with everything you just said. No, really! ;)

But do you agree that it's inconsistent to call President Bush a liar (or, alternatively, claim that he cherry-picked the available intelligence) without making the same claim about the other politicians listed in the original post? It does seem that there's a double standard being applied.

[toontra]

But do you agree that it's inconsistent to call President Bush a liar (or, alternatively, claim that he cherry-picked the available intelligence) without making the same claim about the other politicians listed in the original post? It does seem that there's a double standard being applied.

As pseodobrit said, the difference is that, whilst many thought Saddam to be a tyrant and were persuaded that he may be a threat, I don't think any of them, on their own (ie Tony Blair), would have pushed for war, or would even have deemed an invasion at that point in time was either justified or necessary.

[kgarner]

I thnk the question is not whether or not Saddam had WMDs. That was well documented following the first Gulf War. Then we bagan the inspections which were eventually ended by Saddam (probably because they were getting close to finding his big stuff). Then everybody just kind of left him alone for 3-4 years without any supervision. If he had them after the war , and the inspectors job was preempted prior to completion (by Saddam), then were did the rest go? Do you actually, think that Saddam voluntarily dismantled them for us? I think the question here is what happened to the weapons he had, who did he give/sell them to?

My $0.02.

[numediaman]

The U.N. was conducting inspections right up until the U.S. said they were going in. The U.N. inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, then reported their results on Jan. 27, 2003. In that presentation, they reported that they could not find WMDs, and that Iraq was cooperating.

"Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/

Days following these presentations, the U.N. debated the reports:

The foreign ministers of China, Russia and France said the inspections need time to work.

"Inspections are producing results. ... The option of inspections has not been taken to the end," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. "The use of force would be so fraught with risk for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort."

. . . We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said, adding that there are "a number of issues under investigation, and we're not in a position to reach a conclusion about them."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/

So, despite the fact that the inspectors could not find WMDs, the U.S. went to war. Article II, Section IV of the U.N. charter states:* "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The Iraq war was (is) a war of aggression -- something that I believe is at odds with the ideals of the vast majority of Americans.

[SlyHunter]

Numedia however the blow quote is more important to me than the fact that they did not find WMD's. All that showed me was they were hidden too well.
I thnk the question is not whether or not Saddam had WMDs. That was well documented following the first Gulf War. Then we bagan the inspections which were eventually ended by Saddam (probably because they were getting close to finding his big stuff). Then everybody just kind of left him alone for 3-4 years without any supervision. If he had them after the war , and the inspectors job was preempted prior to completion (by Saddam), then were did the rest go? Do you actually, think that Saddam voluntarily dismantled them for us? I think the question here is what happened to the weapons he had, who did he give/sell them to?

My $0.02.

They were suppoe to be Inspectors not detectors. Saddam was suppose to show them his WMD's so they could inspect them and dispatch them appropriately. They weren't suppose to go hunting for them. If he destroyed them he should've showed them were they were destroyed and the dump site of the contaminate remains. If he gave them away. Thats a bigger problem.

[zimv20]

Source is irrelevant to SH.
i first read SH as "Saddam Hussein"

[kgarner]

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start their mission.

source:link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm)

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quantities of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

source: link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004882)

[Lyle]

As pseodobrit said, the difference is that, whilst many thought Saddam to be a tyrant and were persuaded that he may be a threat, I don't think any of them, on their own (ie Tony Blair), would have pushed for war, or would even have deemed an invasion at that point in time was either justified or necessary.

So are you saying it's the consequences of a false statement that make it a lie? That even if Bush believed what he was saying was true, even if he wasn't intentionally misleading the American people, that because we went to war over those statement(s) he is therefore a liar? It sounds like you're making an "It's not a lie if you don't get caught" argument.

I understand and agree that other leaders who believed exactly the same information (i.e. that Saddam had WMD and was therefore a threat to the U.S.) might have made a different decision about going to war. If I had been in that position, that I truly believed Saddam was a threat to the U.S., I'm not sure what I would have done.

But that was not my question. ;)

[Neserk]

So are you saying it's the consequences of a false statement that make it a lie? That even if Bush believed what he was saying was true, even if he wasn't intentionally misleading the American people, that because we went to war over those statement(s) he is therefore a liar? It sounds like you're making an "It's not a lie if you don't get caught" argument.

I understand and agree that other leaders who believed exactly the same information (i.e. that Saddam had WMD and was therefore a threat to the U.S.) might have made a different decision about going to war. If I had been in that position, that I truly believed Saddam was a threat to the U.S., I'm not sure what I would have done.

But that was not my question. ;)

Bush knew he was lying! He knew he didn't have the intelligence to back up his claims.

[Neserk]

i first read SH as "Saddam Hussein"

hmmmm ;)

[toontra]

So are you saying it's the consequences of a false statement that make it a lie? That even if Bush believed what he was saying was true, even if he wasn't intentionally misleading the American people, that because we went to war over those statement(s) he is therefore a liar? It sounds like you're making an "It's not a lie if you don't get caught" argument.

Who knows what Bush believed. It's all rather semantic anyhow IMHO. You get into the whole "lies" versus "untruths" and "uneconomical with the truth" jargon.

One thing I do know, however, is that if a country decides to invade another country in violation of international law and without UN sanction it had better be certain of it's grounds for doing so. Bush wasn't (and can't) have been certain, so shouldn't have taken such provocative action.

[Sayhey]

No, but if they were in the position to make that decision, how can you know that they wouldn't?

The point is that blame for the inherent lack of WMD's in Iraq can't be placed on Bush alone. Bad intelligence or whatever it was, Bush wasn't the only one who thought Iraq had WMD's before the war.

G4Scott,

I don't think Bush lied about believing the Iraqis had WMDs. I don't dispute that many others thought the Iraqis had both biological and chemical weapons that had not been adequately accounted for since the end of the first Gulf War. However, that doesn't mean he didn't lie and mislead. Only Bush took the available intelligence and used the most unreliable and extreme parts to justify an invasion. That qualifies as misleading. Only Bush took information he new was false and used it to move us to war. The example of including the Niger connection to a phony Iraqi nuclear weapons program in his state of the union speech is just one example of a lie. Other examples include the continual false links of Saddam with al Qaeda. Only Bush used the legitimate concerns about WMDs to manufacture a threat to the US and further justify his war.

It is important to look at why the intelligence efforts of the CIA and others, including foreign intelligence agencies, failed so badly in their estimates of Iraqi's WMDs, but that is not the same as saying the President and his advisors were passive recipients of bad intelligence. Bush and his friends used whatever they could, regardless if they new it was untrustworthy or false, to move us toward the long held goal of use of US military might to restructure the middle east, starting with removing Saddam.

[Lyle]

Bush knew he was lying! He knew he didn't have the intelligence to back up his claims.

OK, then consider this quote from the second post in this thread:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Assuming that this is a legitimate quote (i.e. Kerry wasn't misquoted), does that make him a liar? According to your standard, he must have had intelligence to back up his claims, right?

[zimv20]

Assuming that this is a legitimate quote (i.e. Kerry wasn't misquoted), does that make him a liar? According to your standard, he must have had intelligence to back up his claims, right?
of course, where the point of this entire thread falls apart is the distinction between being wrong and lying.

one edge case we could examine is some posters in this forum, especially when war broke out. many posters were asserting that SH had WMD. turns out, they were most likely wrong. does that make them liars? no, they're just going w/ what they were told.

up the ladder - were the media lying? were members of congress lying? or were they expressing conclusions based on what they were told?

at least some of the problems have already been outlined -- tenet using the term "slam dunk," the WH stovepiping "intelligence" from chalabi et. al., those of dissenting opinion being ignored (or fired).

these are complicated issues. the WH was asserting their conclusions as factual, and i think it's disingenuous to label anyone outside of the WH as a liar, absent specific information that such a person was lying.

[toontra]

OK, then consider this quote from the second post in this thread:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Assuming that this is a legitimate quote (i.e. Kerry wasn't misquoted), does that make him a liar? According to your standard, he must have had intelligence to back up his claims, right?

Presumably Kerry was relying on the Whitehouse's press dept for information on "intelligence" which led him to make such a statement.

[Ugg]

OK, then consider this quote from the second post in this thread:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Assuming that this is a legitimate quote (i.e. Kerry wasn't misquoted), does that make him a liar? According to your standard, he must have had intelligence to back up his claims, right?

Kerry was very cautious in his statement and rightly so. "If necessary" and "I believe..." doesn't say that he knows there are WMD in Iraq, only that if the prez deems it necessary and based on the info given to me.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs but in the end gw controlled the flow of info and if he fed these people bad info and they made decisions based upon it that were later proven incorrect, did they lie or is their "lie" directly attributable to the bad info they received?

gw chose to go into Iraq based upon the weather, and political necessity, he could have waited for Blix to complete his assessment but chose not to. There was no imminent threat. Kerry chose to give gw his vote based upon the info that gw gave him and all the other members of congress.

[Neserk]

According to your standard, he must have had intelligence to back up his claims, right?


That makes no sense what so ever. Kerry got his intelligence from the Chief Liar. He didn't have his own intelligence. :rolleyes:

Why are you blind supporters so bent on avoiding the fact that your Dictator lied to you and continues to lie to cover up his lies.

Don't worry. When Kerry takes over in January of 2005 you can pick on him. I'm sure he'll do *something* wrong, some where. Although he'll have a tough time do something worse than Shrub, Jr.

[Lyle]

of course, where the point of this entire thread falls apart is the distinction between being wrong and lying.Yes, exactly. There's not much argument, at this point, that a lot of people were wrong -- or at least, that appears to be the case since we haven't located any WMD. The question is whether certain people knew that what they were saying was wrong, and that they were doing so to mislead people; that's my definition of "lying".

one edge case we could examine is some posters in this forum, especially when war broke out. many posters were asserting that SH had WMD. turns out, they were most likely wrong. does that make them liars? no, they're just going w/ what they were told.Agreed.

up the ladder - were the media lying? were members of congress lying? or were they expressing conclusions based on what they were told?Yes. My problem, as I stated earlier, is that there seems to be a double standard. A lot of people on this forum are willing to give Kerry (for example) the benefit of the doubt: that he was expressing his honest belief, based on what he'd been told; that he wasn't lying. In fact, I'm one of those people. ;) But few people will concede even the possibility that Bush was being fed bad intelligence on which he based his stated beliefs about WMD in Iraq.

at least some of the problems have already been outlined -- tenet using the term "slam dunk," the WH stovepiping "intelligence" from chalabi et. al., those of dissenting opinion being ignored (or fired).Yes. I'm very interested in reading Woodward's book. Based on the (limited) information I've heard about it in the last few days, plus some of the 9/11 commission testimony, it sounds like there were (are) some serious intelligence problems.

these are complicated issues. the WH was asserting their conclusions as factual, and i think it's disingenuous to label anyone outside of the WH as a liar, absent specific information that such a person was lying.Sure, I agree with that. ;)

[Lyle]

That makes no sense what so ever. Kerry got his intelligence from the Chief Liar. He didn't have his own intelligence. :rolleyes: Kerry didn't have his own intelligence? Now that's a ringing endorsement for the Democratic Presidential candidate. ;)

Why are you blind supporters so bent on avoiding the fact that your Dictator lied to you and continues to lie to cover up his lies?I don't think I've made any personal attacks on you, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. I have been trying to get an understanding of why so many people are so confident that Bush was lying, and why they're equally confident that none of the other politicians quoted at the beginning of this thread weren't lying. There's been a lot of good, thoughtful discussion, which I appreciate...

Don't worry. When Kerry takes over in January of 2005 you can pick on him. I'm sure he'll do *something* wrong, some where. Although he'll have a tough time do something worse than Shrub, Jr.... and occasionally someone veers off-topic.

[mactastic]

Kerry didn't have his own intelligence? Now that's a ringing endorsement for the Democratic Presidential candidate. ;)


Well he didn't have anything like the Office of Special Plans the way Dubya did...

[pseudobrit]

I don't think that's the argument that G4scott was making, but I won't put words in his mouth. No, the problem I have with people claiming that the president lied is that, by definition, it means he made false statement(s) with the intent to deceive. I think it's clear that a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, got some bad information from their advisors and other intelligence sources about the situation in Iraq. Do you still assert that those people are liars, if they honestly believed that that information was true when they said it?

Either way they have egg on their face. They're either:

a) liars

b) grossly incompetent

Which is it? I'll choose

c) another President in November

[zimv20]

Kerry didn't have his own intelligence? Now that's a ringing endorsement for the Democratic Presidential candidate. ;)

not sure how serious you're being, but i expect that his two main sources of information were 1) the WH, 2) the senate intelligence committee

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by Lyle
So are you saying it's the consequences of a false statement that make it a lie? That even if Bush believed what he was saying was true, even if he wasn't intentionally misleading the American people, that because we went to war over those statement(s) he is therefore a liar? It sounds like you're making an "It's not a lie if you don't get caught" argument.

I understand and agree that other leaders who believed exactly the same information (i.e. that Saddam had WMD and was therefore a threat to the U.S.) might have made a different decision about going to war. If I had been in that position, that I truly believed Saddam was a threat to the U.S., I'm not sure what I would have done.

But that was not my question.

Bush knew he was lying! He knew he didn't have the intelligence to back up his claims.
How do you know that are you psychic?

[numediaman]

What I don't understand is this: if G.W. talks to God and God tells him what to do . . .

July 08, 2003 – "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Then how come he didn't know where to find those WMDs? How come George's hair didn't grow half a foot and turn white like Charleston Heston in the Ten Commandments? ;)

Did Bush lie? Yes. He lied the minute he asked Tenet on December 21, 2002 "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?", and then instructed Tenet to dig up something. (This is when Tenet said his famous line "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!")

[IJ Reilly]

I think we're confusing lying with a chronic lack of critical judgment. If the conclusions to be drawn from any given set of facts is prejudged, then the facts will tend to be warped and filtered to fit the desired outcome. Sins of omission will occur to avoid facing the reality that the facts may lend themselves to ambiguous, uncertain, or even contrary conclusions. Even if presented, this evidence tends to be overlooked, discredited, or treated as less weighty or persuasive. These are the basic dynamics of any human decision-making process, which I'm sure we've all seen in our own lives many times. If the leader of the process has already set his mind on a course of action, then it's unlikely that he'll get any contradictory arguments from his subordinates.

I believe George Bush was determined to do Iraq from the very start. All of the evidence so far made public points towards this. His personality profile, even as described by people who admire him, is also not one of a subtle or nuanced thinker. He works from the gut. That doesn't make him a liar necessarily, but it also doesn't make him a prudent decision-maker who'll take the trouble to get an unbiased view of all of the facts before he adopts a course of action.

[zimv20]

I believe George Bush was determined to do Iraq from the very start.
and that is the thing we keep overlooking. i firmly believe it was inevitable and often wonder, absent iraq, if bush would have even run.

[toontra]

That doesn't make him a liar necessarily, but it also doesn't make him a prudent decision-maker who'll take the trouble to get an unbiased view of all of the facts before he adopts a course of action.

Precisely. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and leaving the lying aside, what we are left with is an ineptitude in critical decision-making. Surely that is one thing, above all others, that people should expect in a leader.

My gripe with Tony Blair is that he defends his position time and time again saying the decision to go to war was based on his own "personal and passionate beliefs". Well, I'm sorry but I don't think that's the way leaders should behave. They should make critical decisions in a reasoned, rational and dispassionate way based on all the available evidence, not in the fervor of personal passions!

[mactastic]

and that is the thing we keep overlooking. i firmly believe it was inevitable and often wonder, absent iraq, if bush would have even run.

I remember turning to my wife once Dubya had been selected and telling her that the one thing that was for sure was that before his term was up Dubya was going to invade Iraq on some pretense.

[Neserk]

Kerry didn't have his own intelligence? Now that's a ringing endorsement for the Democratic Presidential candidate. ;)


I realize you are trying to be funny but I obviously used the word as a noun not an adjective...


I have been trying to get an understanding of why so many people are so confident that Bush was lying, and why they're equally confident that none of the other politicians quoted at the beginning of this thread weren't lying.

Because Bush wanted a war with Iraq. The only reason he ran for president was to get a war! No one else wanted a war, no one else had a reason to lie!

[mactastic]

Oh there were others who wanted a war. Go look up the authors of PNAC, you'll find they've been advocating something along these lines for a long time.

[Neserk]

What I don't understand is this: if G.W. talks to God and God tells him what to do . . .

July 08, 2003 – "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."

Then how come he didn't know where to find those WMDs? How come George's hair didn't grow half a foot and turn white like Charleston Heston in the Ten Commandments? ;)

Did Bush lie? Yes. He lied the minute he asked Tenet on December 21, 2002 "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?", and then instructed Tenet to dig up something. (This is when Tenet said his famous line "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!")

More importantly, why Didn't God tell him about 9/11 so he could stop it. The only explanation was that 9/11 was God's will and the hijackers were right after all :eek:

Or

GWB doesn't talk to God and God has told him nothing...

[Neserk]

I think we're confusing lying with a chronic lack of critical judgment.

Nope, GWB was lying. He knew his intelligence was bad. Had there been WMD it would have been pure conincidence...

[Neserk]

How do you know that are you psychic?

:rolleyes: You don't have to be psychic to know that when a person has lied before they will lie again. You only need to be intelligent. I was saying the same thing a year ago I am saying now. Bush wanted a war. Bush started a war. Bush is a liar.

[SlyHunter]

I realize you are trying to be funny but I obviously used the word as a noun not an adjective...



Because Bush wanted a war with Iraq. The only reason he ran for president was to get a war! No one else wanted a war, no one else had a reason to lie!
I am really currious where you are getting all this information.

[SlyHunter]

:rolleyes: You don't have to be psychic to know that when a person has lied before they will lie again. You only need to be intelligent. I was saying the same thing a year ago I am saying now. Bush wanted a war. Bush started a war. Bush is a liar.
That would depend on how you would define "is" as?

[skunk]

That would depend on how you would define "is" as?
Whaat? :eek:

[pseudobrit]

Oh there were others who wanted a war. Go look up the authors of PNAC, you'll find they've been advocating something along these lines for a long time.

And are strangely enough now holding high, unelected office in the Bush White House.

[wwworry]

That would depend on how you would define "is" as?


ooooh! great comeback!

for a guy that goes on and on about someone lieing about an affair you sure are apologetic for excuses that lead to over 10,000 deaths

[IJ Reilly]

Nope, GWB was lying. He knew his intelligence was bad. Had there been WMD it would have been pure conincidence...

I'm not so certain. Understand, I'm not in any way giving Bush a pass on this, but I think he heard what he wanted to hear, and only what he wanted to hear. Insofar as the evidence for WMD was concerned, he elected to believe those who were certain that Saddam had them, and rejected the views of those who were less certain. The African uranium connection is a perfect example of this filtering process in action. Bush simply doesn't have doubt, and he probably doesn't understand it in others, either.