Question for the "Bush lied" crowd.

[Mxylplyx]

I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

 

[Farang]

I think it is because he knew that it wasn't a "slam-dunk" yet he sold it to the American people as one. What we have learned since is that he was making an argument to go to war rather than looking at the facts and seeing whether we should go to war. Personally I trusted him at the time and thought Saddam had WMDs and supported the war. Now I learn that he deliberately mislead the American people by not presenting all of the facts.

You are right when you say most people thought he had weapons. However the president had more intel than all of us and twisted it when presenting it to us. This has been made clear by a number of insiders and reports.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Farang
I think it is because he knew that it wasn't a "slam-dunk" yet he sold it to the American people as one. What we have learned since is that he was making an argument to go to war rather than looking at the facts and seeing whether we should go to war. Personally I trusted him at the time and thought Saddam had WMDs and supported the war. Now I learn that he deliberately mislead the American people by not presenting all of the facts.

You are right when you say most people thought he had weapons. However the president had more intel than all of us and twisted it when presenting it to us. This has been made clear by a number of insiders and reports.

When a politician is making a case to the public for something he believes, do you often see them presenting the other side of the argument? I dont recall any kind of major movement within the intelligence agencies at the time saying he was wrong for assuming Saddam had WMD's. I think they had egg in their face just like Bush and everyone else that supported it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.

The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.

If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Farang
I think it is because he knew that it wasn't a "slam-dunk" yet he sold it to the American people as one. What we have learned since is that he was making an argument to go to war rather than looking at the facts and seeing whether we should go to war. Personally I trusted him at the time and thought Saddam had WMDs and supported the war. Now I learn that he deliberately mislead the American people by not presenting all of the facts.

You are right when you say most people thought he had weapons. However the president had more intel than all of us and twisted it when presenting it to us. This has been made clear by a number of insiders and reports.

When a politician is making a case to the public for something he believes, do you often see them presenting the other side of the argument? I dont recall any kind of major movement within the intelligence agencies at the time saying he was wrong for assuming Saddam had WMD's. I think they had egg in their face just like Bush and everyone else that supported it.

Regardless of where you'd like to lay the blame, ultimately it rests upon the Commander in Chief.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.

The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.

If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.

I agree Saddam wasnt an imminent threat. Where I think Bush probably lied is claiming the war was being fought primarily because of the WMD threat. Bush had this lofty, overly idealistic goal of planting the seed of democracy in the middle east, and the WMD's were just his excuse for the invasion. It seems he was more concerned with creating this grand, Reagan like legacy, rather than the practicality of his great world plan.

 

[Gaard]

"These are not assumptions, they are FACTS."
"There is no doubt."


I seem to recall many articles about members of our intellegence gatherers saying that there was plenty of doubt, and that it just wasn't certain.

Put both those paragraphs together and what do you get? LIARS

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Farang
I think it is because he knew that it wasn't a "slam-dunk" yet he sold it to the American people as one. What we have learned since is that he was making an argument to go to war rather than looking at the facts and seeing whether we should go to war. Personally I trusted him at the time and thought Saddam had WMDs and supported the war. Now I learn that he deliberately mislead the American people by not presenting all of the facts.

You are right when you say most people thought he had weapons. However the president had more intel than all of us and twisted it when presenting it to us. This has been made clear by a number of insiders and reports.

When a politician is making a case to the public for something he believes, do you often see them presenting the other side of the argument? I dont recall any kind of major movement within the intelligence agencies at the time saying he was wrong for assuming Saddam had WMD's. I think they had egg in their face just like Bush and everyone else that supported it.

Regardless of where you'd like to lay the blame, ultimately it rests upon the Commander in Chief.

I agree, he is ultimately responsible for his screw up. I'm just trying to address the grounds of the "Bush lied" rhetoric, as it seems to be thrown around without much thought.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Gaard
"These are not assumptions, they are FACTS."
"There is no doubt."


I seem to recall many articles about members of our intellegence gatherers saying that there was plenty of doubt, and that it just wasn't certain.

Put both those paragraphs together and what do you get? LIARS

So if you state something as fact, and it turns out to be wrong, you are a liar? Lying entails you knowing what you are saying is false. Was Clinton lying when he bombed the aspirin factory?

 

[BoberFett]

I don't think Bush is a malicious liar as much as he is a puppet for people who are malicious liars.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I agree, he is ultimately responsible for his screw up. I'm just trying to address the grounds of the "Bush lied" rhetoric, as it seems to be thrown around without much thought.

Do you have proof he didn't lie?

Just like Saddam was required to have proof he didn't have WMDs.

 

[Gaard]

Think of it like this...

Some intel people said that it wasn't clear, yet we were told that there was NO doubt.

 

[smashp]

Heres how it Works

Bush admin leaks story to NYTimes or Post saying Saddam is a imminent threat with the WMD's or Al Qaeda terrorist 911 links.

NYTimes or Post runs story Citing "Government" officials

Cheney or Rummy, or Bush, Or Rice or any other of the cheerleaders point to the Article as Fact. Saying "hey look at this media report"

 

[ProfJohn]

The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Gaard
"These are not assumptions, they are FACTS."
"There is no doubt."


I seem to recall many articles about members of our intellegence gatherers saying that there was plenty of doubt, and that it just wasn't certain.

Put both those paragraphs together and what do you get? LIARS

So if you state something as fact, and it turns out to be wrong, you are a liar? Lying entails you knowing what you are saying is false. Was Clinton lying when he bombed the aspirin factory?

When you state something as fact when you know that it isn't FACT, that's lying, and the magnitude of the matters involved makes that lie much more grievous.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

Here is my opinion on this matter.

I don't think Bush flat out lied to the American people, but he definitely mislead them. I think people who see lying and misleading as synonymous then Bush would be a liar.

Now, you may ask how did he mislead the public? If you look at how he sold the idea of the war, he sold it as 'If we don't attack Saddam, USA is in great danger' so in my eyes thats like a 99% chance of WMDs in Iraq. In reality there was a good deal of skepticism in the International Community (I mean look at the # of allies we had vs Saddam now vs Saddam in 1991) so maybe in reality it was like a 10-20% chance.....

So in a way he did mislead or lie in some people's eyes.

 

[Kwaipie]

When Bush tried to cite a British Intelligence report on Saddam trying to get the materials together for nukuler weapons, the CIA chief stopped him twice, then he went ahead and said it in the State of the Union in '03. He knew it wasn't true and said it anyway. That is lying.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The fact that even the most rapid anti-Bush people in congress or the media don?t accuse him of lying should tell you all you need to know.

EVERYONE thought he had WMD, as Tenet essentially said the idea that he didn?t have WMD was just implausible.
Before the war even the people who voted against it didn?t even try to make the case that Saddam didn?t have WMD, they just felt that Saddam wasn?t worth going to war over.

So far we have had Tenet and Collin Powel leave the admin and neither of them have ever claimed that there was even an serious doubt as to whether Saddam had WMD or not. I guess we can accuse them of ?group think.? They were so sure Saddam had WMD that I doubt they even looked at the alternatives.

As far as debating whether or not we should have gone to war I think we should focus less on what we found and more on what we believed at the time and whether or not it was worth going to war based on what we thought at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 and too many people on here use that hindsight when they make their charges.

Everyone = eve·ry·one (ev're-wun') pronoun. Every person; everybody


**Cough** Scott Ritter **Cough**

 

[1EZduzit]

Heh, look at my sig. Bush lied.... and still is.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

-snip-

I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.

The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.

If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.

In the '03 State of the Union speech GWB argued we shouldn't wait until the threat was imminent. You remark bolded above, and thus pretty much your entire point, is invalidated. I.e., in the speech he argued for attacking BEFORE the threat was imminent.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

LINK to copy of speech

Fern

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you have proof he didn't lie?

Fortunately, in our society, the burden of proof lies on the accuser...there is no requirement to prove that Bush didn't lie...the expectation is for those who maintain the opinion that Bush intentionally lied, or committed a crime, to prove their accusations.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

-snip-

I don't believe "Bush lied" about Saddam having WMDs. EVERYONE believed Saddam had WMDs.

The "lie" was claiming Saddam's WMDs were an imminent threat. What's clear now is that intelligence available to the Administration pre-invasion indicated that Saddam - given the WMDs he was THOUGHT to have - was NOT an imminent threat. But the Bush Administration chose to ignore what the intelligence was saying and painted a dire scenario to justify the invasion.

If you want proof of just how dishonest Bush is, consider that EVEN NOW, Bush tells us how dangerous Saddam was. But given what we know now, that he had no WMDs, how can Bush possibly justify that statement? There's a word for statements like that: lies.

In the '03 State of the Union speech GWB argued we shouldn't wait until the threat was imminent. You remark bolded above, and thus pretty much your entire point, is invalidated. I.e., in the speech he argued for attacking BEFORE the threat was imminent.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

LINK to copy of speech

Fern

In your quote he seems to be suggesting an imminent threat. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." Then he follows with disagreement, implying he believes the threat is imminent. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" This suggests that Saddam is secretly plotting. " Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is [not an option.]" Saddam cannot be trusted and he will not restrain himself.

Now this isn't the best example of when Saddam was described as an imminent threat by Bush, but I just wanted to point out your evidence actually works against you. He is clearly disagreeing with those who believe Saddam is not an imminent threat.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Do you have proof he didn't lie?

Fortunately, in our society, the burden of proof lies on the accuser

Then why did we invade Iraq without proving they had WMDs?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

So it took you six years to figure out "Bush wasn't a conservative", and now you're trying to figure out whether or not he's a liar?

Oy..........

🙁

 

[Gaard]

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."


Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."