Why did George W. Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Question

In order to start the Iraq war, why specifically did Bush lie about Saddam having WMD's and posing a threat to the United States?

Answer 1

He must have believed Clinton who said he had evidence of Iraqi WMD going back to 1995. Or he believed the UN which had placed sanctions on Iraq to force them to disarm. Or maybe he believed the House and Senate Inteligence committees which both said Saddam had WMD as was a threat. Plus he got a bipartisan authorization to use military action in iraq agreed to by both houses of congress.

He had a lot of sources to guide his decision.

Answer 2

Think you can stand a little history?
The initial weapons inspections by the UN started in 1991, shortly after the Gulf War.
Saddam had built up an arsenal of chemical weapons and had used them previously to kill an estimated 20,000 people, including 5000 Iraqi Kurds. He used both mustard gas and tabun, a nerve agent.
As late as 1999, Iraq rejected yet another UN Resolution (1284) and, after numerous warnings of military intervention, Saddam ejected the inspectors from his country. Prior to their departure, they had destroyed 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional warheads, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 TONS of chemical agents. There was no reliable monitoring from 1999 on - and even the Chief Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, admitted that even though the inspectors had located and destroyed most of the laboratories, production equipment and chemical agents found - he could not confirm that they had eliminated Saddam's WMD arsenal completely - including VX nerve agents.
When Saddam wasn't expelling the inspectors from the country, he was denying them access to several buildings and numerous areas.
This is the scenario at the time when the decision to attack Iraq was put to a vote. Forget about any rhetoric about "Bush lied" - given Saddam's history and the findings of the inspection teams - HOW WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED?

Answer 3

NO!!! The Intel that was used had been collected from many sources over many years. The Clinton's used and referred to this information many times during those 8 years. The U.N. and the E.U. also reported that WMD was a problem that needed addressing in Iraq. What do you think the U.N. sanctions were for. Saddam had weapons he used on his own people. Saddam gave interviews in which he made reference to these weapons. Don't buy in to the lies that the Dems. who are running for President are spreading about being tricked. Hilary better than anybody else knew and talked about these weapons before President Bush was every elected.

Answer 4

Every Intell agency agreed or lacked the evidence to stop it. But it's come to light that very high-levels knew that the 'attempt to buy nuclear-weapon capability' claim was a KNOWN myth. So, the obvious answer is that GWB wanted a war. Why?

Reasons for a war:
- Post 9/11 desire for vengence on behalf of the US general population
- Chance for a fast, low-cost victory (aweful quick to declare "Mission accomplished")
- Saddam flaunted UN resolutions, killed a bunch of people, tortured a whole lot more.... Saddam was an easy 'bad guy'
- Reinvention of middle east politics and political-framework based on the clearly-stated philosophy that democracies always work (clearly stated by GWB... Totally reversed decades of foreign policy involving support or recreation of dictators throughout the middle east.)
- Subsequent potential for a vast improvements in everything middle-east related.
- Every President that I can think of has found a reason to deploy troops in some foreign country during the term of their Presidency. It's as if they all think "well, we've got them and they cost a lot, I guess we should use them."

REASONS NOT TO GO TO WAR:
- I've got nothing. It's obvious now, but back when this started. There were a lot of reasons to go and not much reason to sit on our hands.

One last thought -- go rent "WHY WE FIGHT". It may not be right, but I doubt it's wrong.

Answer 5

Like I've said before, the Democrats will say whats popular at the time. After 911, lets go get them. Since its harder than they thought lets cut and run. Bush has been faced with some of history's worst events and guess what Democrats, he made a decision! He didn't sit around to see what Fox News thought was right, he set a plan and is executing it. Like it of not he has made tough dicisions in the face of terror. All the while our economy has been very good, jods at an al time high, a very good housing market and so on. We would have never been in as good shape we are nor if two face kerry was running things.

Answer 6

In an effort to put enormous pressur on Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons and bankrupting their economy. They are and have been the leading contributors to terrorists. Entering a Middle East conflict through Iraq was the most logical step all the while losing the least American soldiers lives in the process.
It cost Iran $20 to produce a barrel of oil as opposed to Saudi Arabia, Kuait, and the UAE (USA Allies) only $2 a barrell.

By liberating Iraq it put's enormous pressure on the Iranians to get nuclear power faster in an effort to be the dominating coumtry in the Middle East and therefore OPEC.

This pressure is forces them to spend almost all their monies on attaining nuclear capability putting Iran on the verge of bankruptsy and is the keystone of liberating the entire Muslim Middle East.

"Talking" to them is counter productive when you are attempting to bankrupt them much as Reagan did to the former USSR. Iran will then fall from with in and it's majority pro-western peoples will arise to power.

The effect of a free Middle East makes peace a commodity and ensures a raging economic future.

Funding to terrorist organizations such as Hezzbholah, Al-Qaueda, Ham mas, and Fattah will dwindle from a river to a trickle.

Failure in Iraq will lead to the complete opposite. Possibly Cold War against China and Russia and with China's bolstering (understatement) economy they could bankrupt the USA within 40 years. Russia would regain it's political power seat in the world it has desperately been seeking. Terror cells could be propped up around the globe with Iraqi oil revenues and $8 dollars a gallon of gas and long lines at the pump could be the norm for years prior to the long American soup lines that will make the last depression look like a skipped breakfast.

Answer 7

He had to lie about something that would be half believeable to enter this playtoy of his.. here are a couple of the lies from him about this war

1. enter because of 9-11
2. WMD's in iraq (lie)
3. saddam was linked with al quada (lie) now the story has changed again..
4, it is to dangerous for america to pull back now, they will only follow the US back here..
5. Have to stay and help put the country back together, then back to..
6. To dangerous to leave...

If he opens his mouth you can almost count on it being a lie..

Answer 8

well he didnt lie iraq weapons but he still is ................. just how many number of civilians have been killed in iraq (100000) till now and he still things hes going to win a war well i dont think more and 2 or 3% number of people have even been killed during the rule of sadam there are hard days a head about for bush and his friends and how much of tax payiers money has been put in war al in the name of wmd but in fact the true point is they are after the oil and usa the citezen need to rise bring to account such a person and choose a better person in future ....................

Answer 9

Because he wanted support for the war. First is was involvement in 9/11, then it was WMDs, then it was biological weapons, then created fear and used fear and continuous tactic, then suddenly he's a man of peace and a great humanitarian because he wants to go to "free" the Iraqi people. Like he cared about the Iraqi people. There is only one reason to explain why he wanted Iraq so bad...oil. Let's not forget the close connection with Haliburton.

Answer 10

If he had been lying, he would have had some spooks go plant some WMD's in the desert as soon as the area was secured, and then let the military "discover" the WMD's. If he had been lying, this would have covered up his lie. If you say he was lying, please exert your brain to come up with a plausible explanation of why bush did not do this.