How could Bush know that there 'WEREN'T WMDs?

Question

I love liberal conspiracies.

"Man, Bush knew they didn't have WMDs and he went anyway."

Let's ignore that Saddam had them before, used them on the Kurds and Iranians and was, let's say, less than forthcoming with the UN inspectors. How could Bush know that he didn't have WMDs? Does he have god-like powers? You can know someone has it or be pretty sure, you can also think someone has something, but not be totally sure because it's hundred of thousnads of square miles of empty desert. It's impossible to know that someone doesn't have something in there entire country.

You can't lie when it comes to intelligence if there are some reports to the positive. Intelligence officers sift through hundreds of different accounts and make their best guess. The whole "Bush lied, people died" is crap. Overzealous and biased interpretation of data, maybe, but there isn't a lie in there.

DAVE- I don't agree with all your points, but at least you're articulate. I agree some field ops direct intel would have been better, but from what I read, we had practically no assets in Iraq. No one was feeding us info. We had to rely on second-hand info from expatriates and people who had business there.

AJ- I'll dismiss my prejudices against the Un and just say. When someone shows up for an inspection and they are made to wait outside for four hours, it is very suspicious. Also, they just inspect likely sites, not the entire country. I've been there. The whole damn country is an ammo dump.

Answer 1

Well the point I think is not so much that Bush actually knew there weren't WMD's, but that while not knowing there were WMD's, he authorized an invasion on the pretext that there were. I totally agree that Bush could not have known whether or not there was WMD's - hence the need to allow weapons inspectors to do their job. The major point of the anti-war movement is that war should not be started unless it is absolutely necessary: if the justification for war is the possession of WMD's and there are weapons inspectors currently in country searching for them, then jumping the gun is not justifiable, and is even less so when it turns out there were no WMD's.

Another point of the anti-war movement is that the intelligence reports supporting the claim that Saddam had WMD's were not in fact so clear cut; now it has come out that much of the intelligence used to justify the war to the public and the world at large was faulty. The claims of uranium purchases in Africa, the trailers of biological research, the ability to launch a WMD attack in 40 minutes; not only have these turned out to be false, but they were in fact not even supported by the data at the time.

Of course political slogans tend to be simplistic. The situation is not as simple as "bush lied people died." But the fact remains that he invaded not only on a false pretext, but on a pretext which was then in the process of being investigated. A leader has the obligation to not start a war unless it is deemed absolutely necessary. You make a good point that there may have been an overzealous interpretation of data, not an outright motivation to lie, but the fact is that a leader who overzealously interprets data which leads to an unnecessary war is a very poor leader, if not an outright war criminal.

driveranderson: don't be silly now. even the administration and the military are not using that as justification of the war. why? because those shells contained gas which had been manufactured before 1991 and was degraded to such a state that it was unusable as a WMD. And do you really want to justify a war on the grounds that a nation had 500 old shells with degraded gas which were unusable in combat? If Bush had justified the war to the American people on the grounds that Saddam had 500 shells which had been manufactured 15+ years ago and were no longer threatening, what do you think the American people would have said? I suggest you not cite WMD claims which even the military and the administration are steering clear of. And try to watch something other than fox news too, it tends to rot the brain.

thealligator414: yes, because the WMD's that the UN and Hans Blix failed to find were quickly found by American forces, thus validating Bush's preemptive invasion! Maybe it has occurred to you that if we cite a reason to invade a country, we need to have a valid justification for believing that reason?

Answer 2

There was never any reliable evidence presented to the American, or to the world at large that Saddam had WMD's. A congressional investigation made it pretty clear that the white house, specifically the office of the vice president had ignored evidence that negated the presumption of WMD's in Iraq.

On the other hand Saddam played things pretty close to the chest. Even his own generals thought they would have WMD's to fight the U.S. this time around. Their jaws pretty much hit the floor when they found out the cupboard was bare.

A wise man once said, "If you look hard enough for something, you are going to find it. Whether it is there or not."

Answer 3

you are correct. But the CIA are extremely good at thier jobs, and as far as i know, this administration completely ignored that info. The CIA DID NOT have any postive reports about WMD's. The had many informers in Iraq who were apt to lie and were mentally unstable.

Also, your logic is completely off. Its true thats its impossible to know if someone doesnt have something. But does that mean you invade an entire country and cause over 2500 US soldiers and 28,000 Iraqi's to die just because you dont know whether Saddam had weapons???

That makes no sense. With that logic, we should invade Iran, North Korea, and Syria next, because each MIGHT have WMD's.

Lets assume the worst here. Saddam has a stash of chemical an biological weapons. If thats true, why hasnt he used them in the last 10 years since UN sanctions began? who would he use them against? and for what purpose?
Even If he did use them, would it cause over 40,000 casualties and breed more terrorists, the way
US led invasion has?? Your logic makes no sense.

Answer 4

There were 500 shells found in Iraq containing Phosgene and Sarin of pre 1991 manufacture. Which was a violation of UN sanctions. This report was released this week by Senator Santorum and is available on Fox.
The Taliban and Saddam established Diplomatic relations in 1999 so Iraq could broker a deal with the Russians who believed the Taliban were supporting the Chechen resistance. The Russians were aiding the Northern Alliance and the Taliban were in desperate straights. Thus Linkage prior to 911 also provided additional reason Contrary to Liberal Mythology to go to war in Iraq. Secular Saddam made an Alliance with Mullah Omar. and groups in Pakistan loyal to Osama.

Answer 5

Did Saddam have WMD's? Of course. Was he stupid enough to leave them and let the West find them? Of course not! He blew them all up, like everyone else would have done. Bush's biggest mistake was not securing more evidence using Special Ops or CIA field tactical work before rushing in with the full-scale invasion. And with president's lying, which president HASN'T lied. They all lie! It's which one can get away with which lie- that's what determines how well a president does.

Answer 6

He refused to let the inspectors finish their work. Powell was warned that the speech he gave at the UN contained falsified info:

Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 25, 2006; Page A01

In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5 and said: "We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."

The sentence took Drumheller completely by surprise.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," said the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, "but I turn on the television and there it was, again."

While the administration has repeatedly acknowledged intelligence failures over Iraqi weapons claims that led to war, new accounts by former insiders such as Drumheller shed light on one of the most spectacular failures of all: How U.S. intelligence agencies were eagerly drawn in by reports about a troubled defector's claims of secret germ factories in the Iraqi desert. The mobile labs were never found.

Answer 7

Didn't let the weapons inspectors finish their work???! They'd been there since 1991!! The U.N. is a joke. Weapons inspectors will never find wmd, when the host govt decides where they get to look!! Iran the next example! Let's wait for weapons inspectors to get in there first, to NOT find the nukes that everyone knows they will eventually have! Great idea Hans Blix!!!

Answer 8

Your missing the point. Many countries have WMDs look at N. Korea seems to be a better target to me and closer to the U.S. Any president that states he don`t spend that much time on Bin Laden puts the U.S. in danger.

Answer 9

If he would have read the reports coming back from the weapons inspectors he would have known.

How about "Bush is an idiot, people died" instead.

Answer 10

the day Bush started this hostile takeover, otherwise known as the war with Iraq, he came on tv and said that he had proof of wmds. enough said really, he said he had proof...where the HELL is this proof????? its the mans own words for crying out loud...proof of wmds....