Did Bush lie about WMD's?

Question

If so did Hillary lie too? The Clinton Administration?

- April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

I love it when people give thumbs down to answers like Thorngirl's.

Come on people. All she is doing is posting quotes taken from your esteemed "dovish" liberal leaders.

Answer 1

A major, or a minor, political figure taking liberty with the truth? Oh my goodness! Too bad it happens in real life just as often as it does in fiction.

Answer 2

He lied about Saddam Hussein having NUCLEAR weapons in Iraq.

We know Saddam had Chemical weapoins and MAYBE biological weapons. We know this for two reasons. Reagan and Bush Sr sold him the equipment to manufacture chemical weapons to help him (he was a US ally once) protect himself from the Ayatollah in Iran.The second reason is he gassed a large portion of his domestic rebel enemies, rebels who had trusted George Bush Sr when he said the US wpuld be there if they overthrew Saddam, They attacked, the US turned its back, and they were slaughtered by Saddam's military and police forces.

Bush and company had gone to extreme lengths to convince a skeptical America over Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Remember Colin Powell's oh-so-reasonable arguments to the UN? Powell KNEW he was lying, which is why he resigned in disgust 3 months later. Even though just 2 years before this, Rice, Bush, Cheney AND Rumsfeld all made speech's about Hussein's inability to secure nuclear materials and his lack of technology in delivering Chem or Bio weapons to the US or its Allies?

Who's the Flip Flopper here?

When the charges against Saddam were levelled, specifically, that he had WMDs (Chemical Nuclear OR Biological), no one argued cuz we KNEW he had Chem weapons. It was only when Bush and Klan said Hussein already had nuclear weapons, we knew our President had a whole different agenda. It's not a "war on terror"; its a war on Iraq.

If Bush's source for intel regarding Hussein's attempt to purchase uranium from Nigeria was so good, why did the British, who originally DEVELOPED the guy (Chalabi) who said Saddam was trying to buy uranium, say not only that this was unreliable but could give no corroboration to any of his story? Why, when the CIA AND the FBI llooked at this intel, they all dismissed it as a bogus report? Why THEN did Bush and Cheney start a whole new US intelligence service whose sole mandate was to reinsert this bogus intel BACK into the Intel stream the White House sees?

Now we DO know Saddam never had nukes. In fact the US hasnt exactly found tons of chemical weapons there either.

Answer 3

The following quote is from Bill Clinton in 1998; two years before Bush was elected.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," Clinton said. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."

Also by Clinton, the following:
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said

And don't forget this one after Clinton ordered airstrikes:
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. "

Now, who did you say "Lied" about the reasons for invading Iraq?

Answer 4

My answer is only if everyone who stated the same contentions throughout the 90's were also lying. If such is the case then all are culpable and it amounts to a huge conspiracy carried out by the United Nations and most civilized nations in the world. The people who do not like Mr. Bush and the administration would have us ignore everything that was stated by everyone previous to his tenure. This is not honest by any stretch of the imagination. I can accept that people do not like the administration and do not like the war. I have no problem accepting that these people believe in their convictions, but I find it unpalatable that they only want to indict those they find lacking, rather than holding all accountable for their actions and statements equally.

Answer 5

Yes. He lied. And, he deliberately went against our own intelligence recommendations to allow covert operations to continue that were in place that had infiltrated terrorist organizations and were effectively monitoring and reducing the number of terrorists. Those effective measures kept our nation safe. 9/11 occurred after Bush became President, not while Clinton had the watch over this nation's safety. Bush handled this nation's safety against terrorism no better than he handled the situation after Katrina. The only weapons of mass destruction that are known to exist in the Middle East are the nuclear weapons that the U.S. has supplied to Israel. The BILLIONS of cash U.S. taxpayers' dollars that Bush and his operatives have given/lost/bribed with/stolen in the Middle East will now certainly be used by religious fanatics, local power-mongers, and terrorists ( whom the CIA and U.S oil interests largely created) to purchase and develop arms. Bush and Cheney will stand before the World Court someday for these crimes against mankind.

Answer 6

No. He didn't lie, based on the intelligence he was using. However, it was old, outdated intelligence. So the President was negligent. He was working with information that was too old to be reliable. And that is NOT what the President is supposed to do.

Answer 7

yes politicans are liars. it should be obvious that the american public loves being lied too by now? by both parties and any and every politican. when america wakes up they will realize that both of the political parties have been playing us for fools for a very long time. either that or americans love to play a fools game.

what will happen when the world runs out of oil?

Answer 8

No. Bush received erroneous information from Intelligence agencies.

Answer 9

The problem is most libs have a very short memory ( must be from all the pot they want to legalize?) they quickly forget that congress belived in the WMD's , Pres Clinton Belived in them, Albriite belived in them, Gore, and the rest of Clintons staff belived in them, Saddam made it a point to make us think he had them, it was a bluff he tried but we called, if you throw inspectors out, and brag it up about having a program, eventually someone is going to call your bluff and Kick your A$$

Answer 10

His "lie" was because of an incompetent intelligence, CIA-bungling and paranoia, and because he was too anxious to pull the trigger on a number of issues that weren't just too truthful and honest. Congress gave him the authority based on the info given to them to use military action "as a last resort".