Why do liberals LIE and claim Bush said there were no WMD in Iraq?

Question

Are they using twisting logic to interpret the following quote, from Bush, as saying that?

"It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But MUCH of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find THOSE weapons."

====

What reading level would one have to finish, in order to realize that is not an "admission of no WMD", but saying that some intelligence was wrong, and we have not found the ones we were looking for?

Answer 1

they claimed they knew where they were, they saw them on satellite, yet when it was shown they were not there, they did not see them being moved to another country as some of the neo cons like to guess since they cannot understand that their "god" LIED. give me a break. Remember 3/30/2003
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

You worship at the feet of a fool and he is pleased when you do so because he knows you take one sound byte and run with it.

GEORGE Bush's top security adviser ... admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.

Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine

Answer 2

Maybe because Bush admitted there were no WMD in Iraq. Then Bush went on television and made jokes about they must be out there somewhere. This was during a White House dinner and over four thousand troops died and Bush is making jokes. The CIA informed Bush three days before he attacked Iraq they couldn't find any WMD. Perhaps Wikileaks isn't so well informed on the facts.

Answer 3

The quote is a classic explanation of what could be termed "a rational decision based upon irrational intelligence". In other words, the the wheels were spinning but the hamsters were on their backs wavin their little hamster feet in the air.

It would be disturbing if no intelligence were consulted before waging war. Governments just don't act that way. Foreign policy, including policies on war, are based upon intelligence gathered by the government. If that intelligence turns out to be incorrect or poor, then it is up to the policy makers to recognise this and request more qualitative intelligence before making a decision.

But this wasn't done. The decision was made too quickly, and based upon intelligence that was incorrect.

So despite claims otherwise, one could argue that although the intelligence was poor, the decision to wage war was also irrational as it was made to quickly and with disregard for second opinions from other bodies (eg the UN).

Effectively both decision-makers and intelligence are to blame.

Whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq remains a moot point that covers the mutual failure of decision-makers and intelligence gatherers.

Answer 4

That's such a stretch.Liberals aren't lying here and you know it.This question is only credible to hard core Bush supporters.In other words you're only talking to your own base.
In the second clip Bush straight out says Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.What's it gonna take for you to accept the truth and start thinking how we can fix this mess instead of acting like it was not a mistake?

Answer 5

Here is something for you to chew on. Never in our country's history have we started a war with a foreign government with the intent of overthrowing that regime and implementing our own form of government on them. The war was wrong from the beginning. It is not Americas place in this world to police and destroy other peoples governments. We should have worked with the United Nations and exhausted all other possibilities then go to war with the rest of world. The war had nothing to do with WMD it had more to do with oil and finishing what his dad could not.

Answer 6

Saddam needed to be eliminated, but reconstructing a 'culture of democracy' is nutty.

Cheny, Haliburton, and Dubai is the reason for everything else; and Bush was too stupid to know.

Answer 7

It was reported prior to the war that there were no WMDs. It doesn't make any sense to try to pretend that there are WMDs in Iraq and we haven't found them yet. I'm sure there's a Santa Claus at the North Pole as well.

Answer 8

the CIA said it. and Bush acknowledged it. Stop arguing semantics.

"Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
"

Answer 9

Funny how even when Iraq and Saddam came to the U.N. agreeing to any amount of inspections, which still turned up nothing, Bush and his warmonger buddies decided to invade anyway.

It was never about security, it was about oil & defense contracts.

Answer 10

The quote says MUCH intelligence was wrong and in your interpretation you say SOME intelligence was wrong.

Are ya kidding, skippy?