Did George Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Question

Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:
"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."

Answer 1

I agree, if Bush lied, all of the Democrats lied.... then stabbed America in the back to further their political attractiveness.... Surprise, it just made them look UGLY and stupid... and it made them look like unhappy red-faced LIARS.

How cheap of the Democrats, they are on film saying we should take out saddam, that he has WMDs.

Answer 2

No, it was VP Dick Cheney who lied about the WMD. The intelligence reports cited, were not vetted through the proper channels, and instead were "stove-piped" through Cheney's ops at the Pentagon, including people such as Doug Feith. And, the attack was not simply "about the oil".

It is also well known, that Al-Qaeda and Hussein were enemies; it's very unlikely that he would give aid and comfort to them. Check out what Donald Rumsfeld was doing in the 1980's re aid & comfort to Hussein! (re chemical weapons etc)

Look up also the plan for a "Clean Break" for Israel; the current war in Iraq was planned around 1990 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Netanyahu, among others. It also has nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Look also to various comments and testimony given by Scott Ritter, a Republican and a decorated USMC vet, on his opposition to the war, as there was no evidence of WMD.

Personally, I would hesitate to quote Hillary on anything at this point. It is true that prominent Dems came out for the war, but, frankly, many of them can be cowardly in the face of a growling VP.

It is arguable that America is less secure now-- because of the war, more terrorists are being recruited.

Answer 3

I believed the US President acted based on intel reports and analysis of Saddam's Iraq then. There was no way of knowing whether the intelligence were flawed short of invading it to ascertain for themselves.

Here was a brutal dictatorship known to have used chemical weapons on its own people; attacked and plundered Kuwait; wrecked the environment by setting off oil fires; and pursued a nuclear program.

"The Bear" - Ret Gen Norman Schwarzkopf should have been given the mandate to invade Iraq during Desert Storm - that would have been a prudent decision when the US had the world allied to them.

Answer 4

The lie is not that he stood in front of the cameras and declared that Iraq has WMD's. The lie is how it became about that he stood there and propagated that lie.
Cheney exerted pressure on the CIA and NSA personally and in person. He ordered that they (CIA/NSA) had to produce reports that stated that Iraq has WMD's. THAT was the lie.

Of course, the members of congress, senate and Bush have been given those reports, so that they can (with that little clear conscious they have left) vote for a pre-emptive war. Congress and senate have been deceived by Cheney as well as Bush is his puppet. No one really thinks that Bush is actually the "president", right

Answer 5

Everyone thought Saddam had biological and chemical weapons. There's only one problem...such weapons don't readily lend themselves to terrorism. They need a massive delivery system, such as an army that can walk down the street and spray them on people. The only somewhat successful attack involving such weapons was the sarin-gas attack in Japan's subways. It killed a fraction of those killed on 9/11, and cost millions of dollars. Not much bang for the buck. And not much reason for an invasion.....

So Bush needed a bigger threat. So he began talking about nuclear weapons. And that's where he got into trouble. He claimed aluminum tubes had been purchased to make a nuclear weapon, even though our nuclear scientists made it clear to the administration that the tubes could serve no such purpose. And he claimed Iraq tried to buy yellow-cake in Nigeria, even though he and the administration knew this information to be fraudulent. That he delivered this claim in his State of the Union, his most vetted speech, indicates that the administration had made a conscious decision to overstate the nuclear threat.

So, yes, he lied.

Answer 6

1. WMD's, He lied if he didn't he should have withdrawn troops once none were discovered

2. Iraq Supports Al Quaeda, He lied still did not withdraw

3. Spreading Democracy, He lied he is after oil, why isn't he spreading democracy in Chad, Nigeria and the Sudan?

4. If we withdraw Iraq will fall into civil war! He is lying Iraq is in a civil war because of him!

in the end, he is the president so regardless what any democrat proposed no democrat sent troops he did.

Any more excuses?

Answer 7

Truth, well now, there's an interesting concept. It seems that truth is a relative thing when it comes to politics, particularly when mudslinging and half truths are the ammunition you have to cast a political enemy in a bad light. It seems that there is a LARGE faction in this country who will resort to ANYTHING to make the Bush administration look bad. Lot's of these people are in the media. Those of us who actually believe that there are ethical / moral absolutes and that they apply to anything, including politics, can quote the statements made by major Democratic political figures leading up to the whole conflict in Iraq, and it won't make a bit of difference. The truth is not what's important in their minds. It's all about how much they hate Bush! I am no Bush fan, but I'm sick of the ignorant, ill informed, political hate driven hot air that gets posted here by liberal anti American fools.

Answer 8

Carlos is an idiot.

I am glad you asked this question, as I can guess many will want to answer "yes". Kudos for the educational paragraph.

It should also be mentioned that the UN had repeatedly, repeatedly stated Iraq had "WMD". Resolution after resolution was passed, never enforced. Iraq and "WMD" was common knowledge at the time, it was discussed over the dinner table.

I am amazed that few seem to remember this, I guess it is "selective memory". Now it is a spin to garner votes.

Answer 9

Someone close to me worked in Naval intelligence and relayed info to the CIA as well. He tracked seal teams and coordinated missions using info from the CIA.
(I can tell you who, but then they have to come and lock you up for 25 years)

He told me the president relies on all of the intelligence agencies for his information. So, he just repeats what is fed to him.

Get that? Fed to him.

If there are people behind the scenes who want to manipulate the president or the whole damn country for that matter, all they have to do is feed the presidents' assistants the info they want to spread and convince them it is real. It can be so easy it is scary.

If the president questions an issue they just send in more "experts to stick up for the info."

So, I do not think president Bush lied, he just repeated what his people told him was happening.

I personally think VP Cheney was one of the main people pushing GWB to send troops to Iraq. I hope the hell he doesn' t run and get elected in 2008. If so, I'm heading for Canada. That man gives me the creeps, he thinks he is above the law. Him and a bunch of the present cronies in the da big white house on the hill!!!

Answer 10

There were plenty of people who said there weren't WMD.

U.N. inspectors found no evidence, our own special forces who were in the desert before the war started found no weapons, various intelligence people said there was no evidence.

Politicians are only told what the advisors tell them the advisors receive pressure from the administration, and internal sources so its no suprise that politicians on both sides thought there were WMDs. But why did no one listen to the people who actually did the investigating?