Did Bush lie to us about Iraq's WMD?

[Dave Markowitz]

If Bush lied about WMD, then it would matter A LOT to me. In fact, to me it would be grounds for impeachment.

At this point I do not have sufficient data to believe that he did lie.

Do I think that invading Iraq was the correct thing to do, whether or not there were WMD? Yes, because of (a) Baathist ideology, which is essentially an Arab form of National Socialism, and (b) the links between Hussein's regime and various terrorist groups, including al Qaeda.

 

[George Dickel]

It will cause me to think about who I'll be willing to vote for in the next election if it is proved that Bush lied. There may or may not be a memo or e-mail found that proves he lied maybe only soft evidence and I will have to consider all information in my decision.

Just like Bush had to take soft evidence into consideration there were WMD present in Iraq. If there was hard evidence WMD were present, there would also have been enough intel to provide a location and spec ops would have been on it from the start of the war either destroying it or capturing it. I really don't think Saddam had signs on buildings saying "Caution, poison gas stored inside" or "Stay away, nuclear weapons storage". He had to hide the stuff from view by aircraft, satellite, UN inspectors and foreign counterintelligence sources within his own populace.

It has only been a couple of weeks since the intense fighting ceased and right now they are trying to keep order with our military forces. Only very recently have they captured any of the higher ups in the military who might have any knowledge of the location of any WMD. These guys are probably trying to negotiate a deal on their future with the US before they give up any info. Another point is that more than likely any of the troops who hid the WMD were executed on order from Saddam so as to protect the locations even more. It's a good possibility most of the top echleon may not have any idea where the stuff is hidden. In the intelligence arena it is called "Need to Know". If you don't need to know about it you aren't told and you had best not try to find out about it.

This is the same kind of sit-com problem solved in a 1/2 hour, I want it now, attitude the media and the liberals had when they were hollering about how long the war was taking only 1 week after the start. For the most part this questioning of Bush's integrity is driven by the left's disdain and hate for Bush and their need to discredit him. It is not out of honest concern it is only political opportunism. 6 months from now and there are no WMD found then you will have a reason to question if there were any to start with.

 

[CMichael]

Hello??? Hussein has used chemical weapons. That may be a good indication that he has had them.

I stated this in another folder but if I was Hussein and I saw that the coalition forces were closing in on me and I was going to escape I would either have the WMD destroyed or hidden extremely well.

 

[M1911]

CMichael: There's no question that Iraq has had WMD in the past. But that was not used as a justification for the war. What was used as a justification for the war was that Iraq still had WMD, even after agreeing to dismantle their WMD programs.

The question is not whether Iraq had WMD in the past, but whether they still have them now.

If we don't find wmd, there is another possibility other than GW having lied to us -- that our intelligence was faulty. But either way, it will be a big black eye to the US if we don't find WMD in Iraq.

 

[CMichael]

1911 it is highly unlikely that Hussein destroyed the weapons because that's what he agreed to in the cease fire agreement.

Think about this. I think it's safe to assume that he would only have destroyed the WMD because that is one of the conditions in the cease fire agreement he would bound to.

However, if he indeed made the concession to destroy the WMD and did indeed destory the WMD why would he not provide documention that he destroyed them?

Indeed showing the documentation would be the only way to prove that he destroyed them which would be the point of destroying them in the first place.

 

[M1911]

CMichael: He destroyed some of them. We know that because the UN inspectors were there when he did it.

The question is, did he destroy all of them?

I too am skeptical that he destroyed all of them. But yours and my skepticism isn't important for world opinion. What may sway world opinion is if we find WMD.

Right now much of world opinion is against the US on this issue and it will get worse if we don't find the WMD.

 

[CMichael]

Screw world opinion. I could care less what Hans Blix and Chirac think.

You don't hear the coalition members complaining.

It's irrelevant whether we actually find them. I think most people know he has had them.

 

[kidao35]

quote:

Kind of hard to gripe about the Patriot Act, then run roughshod over this principle.

How do you figure? Why does being guilty of one crime make you guilty of every crime you're accused of?

Here's a quote from a previous article by Robert Steinback:

"Two movements -- one aimed at reversing the Right Wing's domestic war on civil rights, the other resisting President Bush's shocking determination to christen Warmonger America -- made public declarations of opposition this month in New York City.

It's too early to know if either movement will gain sufficient momentum to change policy. Many Americans, rightly concerned about the threat from
organized terrorism, have been cowed into believing that the very act of questioning government policies is unpatriotic if not outright treasonous.

But these movements have dared to face gale-force winds out of Washington demanding orthodoxy and conformity in the name of national security.

Last week those winds blew a large chunk of the Democratic Party off the deck and into a dank sea of timidity and capitulation to a terribly unwise
foreign policy -- just months after it caved in on an alarming domestic spying apparatus called the Patriot Act."

Link Here:

Dissenting Still a Right

The point is that while the author rails against the Patriot Act, he soundly believes Bush has lied about the reasons to go to war with Iraq, without any evidence. You can't complain about an erosion of your civil liberties, then claim someone else is guilty without proof, just because that someone else belongs to a different political party than you.

Civil liberties apply to us all. The author is politicizing this issue. He is no different than Ted Kennedy, who last Fall railed about our "civil liberties being under attack" by the Bush Administration, and is now a sponsor of a Nazi-style gun registration bill in the Senate.

Funny to see liberals wrap themselves in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as of late. The same documents they have been happy to wipe their collective butts with for the past 70+ years.

Completely unimpressive.

 

[M1911]

Screw world opinion. I could care less what Hans Blix and Chirac think.

What Chirac thinks and what he says he thinks are 2 different things, I suspect. I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.

But that said, I do think world opinion is important. I support our decision to go into Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

But it will be a lot better for the US as a country if we can convince more of the world that we were right. Finding WMD would help that goal.

 

[Geech]

I get you now, kidao35, thought you were disagreeing with me at first.

 

[Justin]

It's irrelevant whether we actually find them. I think most people know he has had them.

It's a historical fact that Saddam had chem/bio weapons in the past. After all, there's video/photographic evidence of his using these weapons on the Kurds and the Iranian military. It's a matter of historical record that the US sold Iraq Anthrax in the 1980's. No one is disputing that Saddam had these weapons in the past.

What is being debated is whether he had them at the time 1441 was signed. Thus far, I have yet to see anything that I would consider hard evidence to back that up. Which makes me really wonder what the Bush administration's real reasons were for this conflict.

But I tend to be cynical that way.

 

[Geech]

It was never part of resolution 1441 that we had to prove he had them, though. Instead, he had to prove he destroyed them, which he did not do.

 

[M1911]

Geech: You understand that difference. But many people throughout the world do not. They believe that we went in there for the oil and empire. I don't believe that. You don't believe that. But they believe that.

If we find WMD, that will help convince them that we had a righteous reason for going in.

 

[faustulus]

Good column

Sadly it seems that lying is OK if you are a Republican. What is worse is that if you don't believe the lie then you are a traitor and not supporting our troops. Even if your idea is to keep the troops home and let the Iraqis fight for their own freedom if they wanted it so badly.

That's kind of cynical, Derek. Keep in mind, even if we never do find WMD or WMD programs in Iraq, it still isn't clear the President lied about it. He may simply have had bad intelligence or bad analysts

Ah yes, plausible deniablity.

 

[agricola]

all this WMD or no talk is an obfuscation. Either you believe that Bush lied or you dont. FWIW, in the UK we know that Blair lied both about WMD (the so called "report" that was in fact a work of Googling) and the "execution" of two British soldiers.

 

[Thumper]

But that said, I do think world opinion is important.

Absolutely...and right now, world opinion is that Roosevelt's "big stick" has been taken out of retirement.

Whether you like it or not, our recent willingness to use force engenders a healthy respect.

The cold, hard, fact is that some types don't respond well to diplomacy. I'm glad we have a CINC that understands that.

Will our enemies respond with more violence?

OF COURSE...that's why they call it a fight.

 

[M1911]

Thumper, yes and no. It is good that the world realizes that we aren't a paper tiger. It would be better if they agreed that our use of force was justified.