Do you think President Bush deliberately lied to Congress, to invade Iraq?

Question

Please be honest

niffer's mom
Please keep in mind...this is the politics section of yahoo

Answer 1

Oh for goodness sake!
Can we all please get off the Michael Moore soap box.
Who cares, now, after all this time, whether you believe that the all powerful Bush misrepresented the threat in order to get approval to send troops to war? What do we think he hoped to gain?
It's done. It can't be undone. Even if the President were to stand up in front of America and admit that he lied, so that he could send our troops to war for whatever self serving evil intent, it wouldn't solve the problem. Even if we then commenced the dispening of whatever punishment we think fits the crime it would not undo what's been done.
Can we please quit debating this theory and deal with the issue as it sits now?
If you believe, really, honestly, believe that the system of checks and balances is no longer working, and we've granted the President too much power, then we need to change the system, not continue to gripe about rumor, and theory for all eternity.
Secondly, we are there, in Iraq, now. We should be debating what goals need to be met, and how to make that happen, so that we can peacefully leave Iraq, and allow those folks to govern themselves. It needs to be done in a manner that doesn't further alienate us from the world.
I wonder if all of the people who still insist on spewing the conspiracy theory, over, and over, and over, handle all of the problems they face in their own life in the same manner that they'd like to solve this one?
Like their kid would be playing soccer, another kid cheats, so the parent complains, but they aren't satisfied that the kid was punished, so every week they come back and repeat the complaint again, and again, until finally they decide to pack up all the soccer balls an yank their kid out of the game right before they go to the championship. Fire all the officials, send all the kids home, declare the other team the winner by default. Everybody suffers, nobody learned how to work through conflict or change the rules so that next season that same cheating brat wouldn't be able to do it again, but hey at least you have something to b***h about for all eternity. Again and again. Still the same story. The kid is forty years old now and you'll still be repeating the story about how unfair it all is.
Don't you ever just want to get over it.
Y'know fix it, and move on?

Answer 2

No. There is s difference between a deliberate lie and saying something that is untrue.

There were so many other people (including top Democrats) who believed Saddam posed a signifigant threat. It is not a deliberate lie when what intel you have says one thing when the facts later show something different.

Anyone who wants to put all the blame on Bush is using unrealistic standards. And those members of Congress who say they were deliberatly lied to -- Let's just say I doubt their verasity.

What motive would Bush have for lying about that? Cheap oil? Well it's not so cheap. Revenge for Saddam's trying to kill his Dad? A covert action would have been the obvious solution there. I'm sorry, even though I don't agree with everyting Bush has done, I just don't see a plausible motive for lying to Congress. And to my knowledge no one has kept a semen stained dress to prove otherwise.

Answer 3

I honestly don't know. And I'm a proud liberal and a strong opponent of this war, which I think was one of the worst American policy mistakes in the last hundred years.

Wishful thinking is very powerful, and Bush was surrounded by people telling him exactly what he wanted to hear - that Iraq posed a strong threat to American allies in the Middle East (remember when we actually had Islamic allies?) and to the US itself. Also remember that senior intelligence officials in the Clinton Administration (Kenneth Pollock for example) also believed that Iraq was attempting to develop real "Weapons of Mass Destruction" of a biological or nuclear type (not the ancient poison gas that some have tried to say posed a threat to the US, Israel, or anyone except Iraq's own people - that's self evident hogwash as hundreds of nations, including some ruled by crazy or evil dictators, have tons of the stuff and haven't attacked anybody but their own people).

I tend to think that Bush was just plain stupid, but was certainly disingenuous in discounting or ignoring any evidence that disagreed with his preconceptions. Stupid in that he surrounded himself with "yes men" who ignored everything that didn't support the PNAC/Perle/Wolfowitz assertions and disingenuous in that none of this evidence was provided to Congress or the American people.

Self-delusion is powerful medicine - I honestly think OJ doesn't believe he killed anybody either. ;-)

Edited to add:

Clinton's CIA, NSA, and NSC had the same information that Bush's did, and they decided in the end that the threat could be contained by political pressure, sanctions, and a regular stream of air strikes. They did not see the need for invasion to destroy the potential for Iraq's development of bio-weapons or nukes. Turns out that they were right - Iraq produced no such weapons and was effectively contained by their policies.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans did NOT see the same evidence that the NSA, NSC, and CIA presented to the President - no President in history, Democratic or Republican, has ever provided that kind of access (nor should they IMHO). The difference is that Bush only presented the highlights that supported his policies and filtered out conflicting reports as "not credible".

As to his motivations, I have no doubt that he THOUGHT that Saddam possessed WMDs and posed a legitimate threat. Like cops who plant evidence on bad guys that they KNOW are guilty, he expected that he would find all the proof he needed, so what's the harm in exaggerating a little now in order to get the goods on the bad guy? By that standard he wasn't lying about his BELIEF that Iraq was a threat, just exaggerating what he "believed" into what he "knew".

Answer 4

I don't think he "deliberately lied" but I think he heard only what he wanted to hear. Faulty intelligence, maybe. But the whole point of it is even if Iraq had WMD's they were the least dangerous country of the ones that have been proven to have WMD's... North Korea, Iran, etc. He made a rush to a pre-emptive war and tens of thousands have died because of it and our credibility around the world is zero. His comments the other day at a press conference that we would not leave while he's President show just how controlling and close minded he really is.

Answer 5

No. He was going on intelligence, provided by a department of the government, that had been totally GUTTED by the previous administration. Plain and simple. The military and intelligence complexes were cut SO far down, by Slick WIlly and Co., that Geoge W. (NOT the brightest bulb on the tree to BEGIN with) was forced into a critical decision, based totally on incorrect intelligence data. Plain and simple. Anyone who tells you different, is stumping for the opposing party in the next election, and is not INTERESTED in what the TRUTH really is. The problems we are experiencing TODAY, are a direct result of 8 years of Mr. Clinton. He left a MESS, and George W. simply is NOT the man to clean it up. Oh if we could have JUST re-elected his father, with an all Republican Congress.......

Answer 6

Diamond K needs to check history. Hezbollah and Al Quada came into existence because of American foreign policy,
In the hundreds of years prior to modern day Israel, Arabs,Christians and Jews lived in Palestine and Lebanon in peace.
What would;d the reaction of the U.S. been if 40,000 armed Jews decided that they wanted to take a large chunk of Florida for their own state?

Answer 7

No and please read "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". There was never ONE reason why we went into Iraq. The authorization for war that was passed overwhelmingly by Congress has paragraph after paragraph of valid reasons to go to war against Iraq.


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Answer 8

This was all said before Bush was President, or when he had only been there a short time:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

Answer 9

I think that president Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. He wanted to finish what his dad started and I think he has Arab friends that wanted him to do so.
Isn't it funny that both Bush presidents have Arab friends that have hired them and given them Millions of dollars.
Something does not add up.
I would not trust Bush to watch my animals.
I never voted for him and I never would.

Answer 10

It was for political gains.. however, it was good to have had saddam captured since he was an enemy who had wanted to take revenge on the US.. becoz of the help the US gave to Kuwait during the invasion of iraq of kuwait...