Can anybody serious dispute that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq?

Question

When he said the following:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

We KNOW other countries had doubts. That's why ONLY the U.S. and Britain wanted to end the inspections and start the war. That's why they couldn't get an authorizing resolution. That's why the war is illegal under the UN Charter.

Do Republicans really think people are stupid enough to fall for their revisionism.

Right, Mike. There was also plenty of time for them to build a transporter machine and send the WMD to Neptune. Are there any other possibilities you'd like to propose that you have no evidence for?

panthrchic, they had no problem finding former Iraqi agents to tell them anything they wanted to hear. Don't you understand that when you attach your credibility to dishonest people, it brings you down with them?

HighVelocity, I can't put it any clearer than this: your statement "every major intellegence agency in the world agreed Saddam did have WMDs" is wrong.

Moltar, Hans Blix said the Iraqis were cooperating, so why do you say Saddam was obstructing them? Don't compound the lies.

raiderking, you could not be more wrong. Saddam did not kick the inspectors out of the country in 2003. Bush did, because he wanted to conquer Iraq before anyone found out there were no WMD.

lundstrom, you won't get best answer because your answer is full of falsehoods. Tell me this: if "every nation" agreed Iraq had WMD, why didn't they vote to authorize the war? Why couldn't they find any WMD? What is the name of ONE SOURCE that confirms that ANY country had solid evidence that Iraq had WMD?

Answer 1

That's Bill Clinton's Intel we ALL went by. You are barking up the wrong tree. The vote was pretty much unanimous.

Answer 2

If President Bush lied, so did George Tenet (the CIA chief), the U.N., Saddam himself, and a lot of other people, including President Clinton.

With or without WMDs, taking Saddam Hussein down was worth doing. I would agree with anyone who says the Iraq war has been mismanaged, but I would not agree that a solution of some sort wasn't needed, and I feel the war was probably the best solution available given the situation at the time.

I think it would have gone better if we had planned it with a nearer-term exit strategy once things were stabilized. We also should have tried to get the Iraqi Army back in business a little sooner.

Diplomacy had failed, sanctions had failed, and nothing that had been attempted had succeeded.

So the short answer to your question is yes.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, Americans are the most uninformed/misinformed people of all the West, the Middle East, Latin America, Russia and that whole ex Soviet Block, Japan, Hong Kong, and many parts of China. As a matter of fact an acquaintance of mine was actually in China meeting with Government Leaders when the U.S. Attacked and they asked my Friend how the American public could possibly rationalize such aggression? My Friend told them that I forget exactly, but about 70% of the American public believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11. The Chinese just shook their heads in disgust and asked how does this happen in a so called free society? My Friend just sort of hung his head not caring to explain massive corruption and corporate media...Mary.

Answer 4

I can.

Japan, Germany, USA, Russia, China, England, France, and other nations all agree to the same intelligence, as that intelligence was used to brief UN inspectors, and came from other sourses than the USA and GB.

Other nations did not cast doubt over Saddams possession, use of, or willingness to use them. What other governments questions was Saddams will to use these weapons through terrorist surrogates.

It is not revisionism. You can read it in the UN reports on Chem and Bio weapons of Iraq. But of course, because I dare to post facts that endanger your rhetoric, I will not get best answer.

Answer 5

Its been done here a thousand times, we all know the story. WMD's were only 2 of the 23+ reasons the government decided to go to war, Bush was going on intelligence bothf rom CIA and EVERY OTHER INTELLIGENCE SOURCE IN ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES who all believed saddam had them, and since we DID FIND WMD's in Kuwait in 91 it made sense.

We also went in because of multiple violations to over 17 UN resolutions, not allowing inspectors to come in and check for WMD's etc.

Answer 6

Let's do a report on whether or not Bush lied about WMD's.

Okay, first I have to find a somewhat unbiased media outlet (since we can't trust anyone in Government)...

So a searching we will go!

Hmmm, interesting. wikipedia.org has a bunch of garble on it.

KEWL - This is what I found:

"Iraq and weapons of mass destruction concerns the Iraqi government's use, possession, and alleged intention of acquiring more types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. During his reign of several decades, he was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against civilians and in the Iran-Iraq War. Following the 1991 Gulf War he also engaged in a decade-long confrontation with the United Nations and its weapons inspectors, which ended in the 2003 invasion by the United States."


Jesus... Hussein pissed off the United Nations AND its weapons inspectors??


"The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability. The United States and the UK, along with many intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more. Inspections restarted in 2002, but hadn't turned up any evidence of ongoing programs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003."


Dang... Someone needs to teach me how to "bold the text" here so all the easy to read stuff can stand out clearer. lol


"The first use of WMDs in Iraq may have been in the 1920s. The Royal Air Force dropped mustard gas on Bolshevik troops in 1919, and Winston Churchill, secretary of state for war and air, suggested that the RAF use it in Iraq in 1920 during a major revolt there. Historians are divided as to whether or not gas was in fact used. In 1980 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report asserting that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years, which later proved to be accurate."


Wow... lol Hmmm... 1981 Jimmy Carter was President


"In November 1980, two months into the Iran-Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces. The United Nations reported many similar attacks occurred the following year, leading Iran to develop and deploy a mustard gas capability. By 1984, Iraq was using poison gas with great effectiveness against Iranian "human wave" attacks."


Wow again... lol


"Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran by Iraq. On January 14, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency said an Iraqi agent described, in medically accurate terms, military smallpox casualties he said he saw in 1985 or 1986. Two weeks after, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center reported that eight of 69 Iraqi prisoners of war whose blood was tested showed a current immunity to smallpox, which had not occurred naturally in Iraq since 1971; the same prisoners had also been inoculated for anthrax.


Anthrax - now there's a buzz word for the 2000's (It was around in 1971 huh?)

Well ask me if I'm as dumb as a 5th grader!

Answer 7

Of course, people can dispute it. That's the beauty of opinion.

I don't know if he really honestly believed it or not. I'll never know. I'm not in his head.

However, I don't believe anything the media and the government tell me without doing my own research. And from what I've learned, I firmly believe that some in our government believed there were weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

That said, a country should never go to war over one thing. Whether or not we like what's going on, we're in it. There's really not reason to squabble about what got us into the war. We're there. We have to take responsibility for how we've changed the country.

I really hope you can channel your energy into helping rebuild Iraq as quickly as possible. In my not so humble opinion, your time would be better spent.

Answer 8

Did he intentionally lie? No. Does it appear that his statements were incorrect? Yes. But, that doesn't equate to a lie. He based his statements on the intelligence at the time. It's important to also note, it wasn't just Bush making the WMD claim. There were many politicians on both sides of the aisle who made the same claim. Some of whom (the Clintons), who would've had intimate insight on the subject and couldn't make the claim that they were 'tricked by Bush'.

Answer 9

STOP! Jesus Christ, Almighty! Saddam Husseins personal history (Pre-George Bush) was filled with weapons violations, including WMDs. In fact all the chemical weapons we were worried about were repeatedly used against, Kurds, bedouins, Iranians, and other citizens of his own country. He and his cronies invested money into the Doomsday gun, hiding terrorist, paying the families of terrorist and gun smuggling.

Yes, they should have continued the inspections, which would have kept him and his in power. Oh thats right! He kicked them out of the country! They hadn't even finished and he kicked them out, knowing that it gave exterior forces the right to kick his tail if they chose too. Liberal revisionist history, is a wonder at times! Even my wife knows better than to ask stupid questions like this!

Answer 10

Too late now, isn't it?

By the way, YOU lie about the US and UK wanting to end inspections. If Saddam had nothing to hide, why stonewall the UN inspectors?

When will you get past the idea the the UN Charter somehow actually means anything at all?

Answer 11

Bad Intelligence! Doctored Intelligence.