People claim that Bush lied to the nation about WMDs, is it not possible that he was lied to as well?

Question

Stipulated. We'll say he, and we, were "misinformed" rather than "lied to". Soften the speech however you would like, but is it possible that it is not his fault?

Answer 1

Yes, it is possible that he was misinformed about the WMD's. However, seeing as he is the President of the most powerful nation, with vast intelligence power, don't you think he should not have been able to be fooled? With all the resources he had at his disposal, he should have been able to find out there were no WMD's.

People here are talking about Saddam using WMD's against the Kurd's. Yes, he had WMD's at that point, but he had disposed of them by the start of the war.

People here are also saying that WMD's were found in Iraq. They were not, as shown here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

Answer 2

Saddam had WMD and used them on his own people and the Kurds after Desert Storm, so Bush did not lie about WMD's. Also Saddam had ample time to ship built WMD's out of the country prior to the war (and probably did.) We haven't looked in Syria yet. It is not only possible that Bush was lied to, but given the carryover Clintonists in the intelligence community I would be suprised if half of what he was told was the truth. The Democrat Senate at the time obstructed Bush appointments to the extent that most departments were woefully understaffed until well into the summer of '01. At best the Bush administration was barely operational by 9/11. I don't think that Bush is the sharpest tool in the box, but feel he is more honest and sincere than most people give him credit for. I am thankful he was in command rather than "internet inventor and Global Warming Alarmist" Gore or John (I didn't know any better so i voted for the War) Kerry. So much of the criticism of Bush is so late in hitting the news and is so tied to the left needing something to squall about that I find it hard for any of the media stuff to have credibility.

Answer 3

The President is never given raw intelligence data, unless he specifically requests it during his (what are typically) Daily Intelligence Briefings. The Intel estimates the President is given have been, by the time the President sees them, cross checked, verified, double checked and re-verified, just for the express purpose of NOT being able to lie to the President about what's happening in the world. Anything which has NOT been verified, the President is made aware of that fact.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney made it very clear early on in Bush's first term, they had no interest in anything which they couldn't use to invade Iraq. Do a little research and you will find some pretty unbelievable (but verified true) accounts of the 10 months leading up to the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

After all the attacks bin Laden had tried under the Clinton Presidency, after Sandy Berger almost begging Bush and Condi Rice to pay attention to Al Qaeda and fund Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, the only group in the area who was fighting both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He was ignored. Condi Rice testified to the 9/11 Commission she had an Intelligence Report SPECIFICALLY titled, "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack Within the US" more than a month prior to Sept 11. 2001. He had access to FBI reports of Muslims with suspicious means of support taking flying lessons. Informants with contacts to terrorists reporting to the FBI something big was coming to NYC in Sept. 2001 and that it had to do with hijacking aircraft. These warnings were also ignored.

How exactly was the President lied to?

Answer 4

Well, first of all does anyone remember exactly how the scenario went? Inspectors were trying to get into certain areas and Saddam's guards wouldn't let them. Were these inspectors like police or military serving some kind of international search warrant? No, far from it. So, we told Saddam if he didn't comply by a certain date then we would use whatever means necessary.

Do you also remember the first Gulf War? All the pictures of the IRAQI people being poisoned by their own vicious dictator and the stories of torture facilities used on men, women, and CHILDREN! Where was your outcry then? Why was there not a "Save Iraq" campaign comparable to "Save Darfur"? If that wasn't reason enough to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam I don't know what would be. The biggest weapon of mass destruction WAS eliminated from Iraq.

Oh, and haven't you heard? President Bush masterminded 9/11 as an excuse to declare war on Iraq. And it was all for the oil (none of which we have by the way judging by the price of gas). If you don't believe me, just ask Rosie! I hear she's not so busy these days since she quit her job.

Answer 5

It doesn't matter he is just a front man anyway. Chaney, Rummy, and GW's father are the real power. They tell GW to jump and how high. Thats why he doesnt care how many Mexicans sneek into the country or how many service people die in Iraq. He will have stolen so much from the tax payer he can laugh all the way to the bank.
google some serches about "pentagon funds missing" , youtube might still have some posted stuff too. Reserch it yourself, but be prepared to be shocked and keep an open mind.

Answer 6

Yes. Its very possible. But "W" is a puppet so did he realize he was being lied to? Does he realize it now? Nope.

Just one of those darn things, eh?

When will we find a real leader instead of puppets, liars, crooks, conmen, thieves, and shmucks.

Its time already. Presidents used to be great till Johnson came around.

Never been the same in over 40 years.

Answer 7

The CIA was feeding him intelligence, they weren't sure about the WMD, he went a head on the presumption. Worse was Cheney, he was told by the head of the CIA not to say anything about the supposed WMDs, because to them it wasn't factual. He went ahead and said it anyway in a press conference.

Answer 8

possible... yes...

but why, when you look into it... is pretty much every finger pointing at Bush?

several books have been written on the subject, many by people involved behind closed doors...

and almost every time... you hear the same thing...

Bush wanted intelligence agencies to PROVE that Iraq had WMD... and didn't care how they did it... or if it was true or not...

and when people brought info to Bush that said Iraq may not have WMD... he basically told them to go back and "fix" it...

yeah... I don't understand how ANYONE could think it was Bush's fault?

Answer 9

The Congress voted to allow the president to use force in Iraq thinking that he would allow the weapons inspectors to finish searching for weapons before force would be used, if necessary. Instead of waiting until they finished their search, he gave Saddam Hussein 2 days to get out of Iraq or we would attack. That is what the hullabaloo is about with members of Congress.

Answer 10

I personally think this was a case of sloppy intelligence work and massive group think by intelligence agencies all over the world, including the USA.

Virtually the whole world believed Saddam had WMDs and was pursuing them. Each intelligence agency would use the other's findings as even more reason to believe.

I think the Bush administration bought into it because it suited them. I don't think any of them really believed that Saddam didn't have WMDs.