Why Do People Think The Bush Administration Lied About WMDs in Iraq?

It has been a mantra of the left/Progressives/liberals that the Bush Admin. lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the U.S. led invasion of 2003.

To me one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush Admin. was not strongly defending itself against this claim because they did not want to "reargue the reasons for the war". In doing so they allowed their critics to delegitimize his administration and crippled his presidency for the bulk of it.

That said the claim that the Bush Admin. lied about WMDs in Iraq doesn't pass muster.

1) If your doctor and several consulting doctors all say you have cancer and need surgery, and the tumor turns out to be benign, the doctors made a mistake. They didn't lie about anything.

2) The CIA Director (a Clinton appointee who owed nothing to Bush) insisted that the evidence in favor of WMDs was a "slam dunk" (exact quote). He repeated it directly to President Bush. Why should the president not believe the CIA Director?

3) It does not stand up to common sense reasoning. If you believe that the Bush Admin. lied about WMDs in Iraq. then you have to believe that

A) The Bush Admin. lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
B) To justify the invasion of Iraq.
C) An invasion that would inevitably expose that lie in the end.

Can't anyone see how ridiculous that is?

4) I will freely admit that the Bush Admin. exaggerated the WMD threat in Iraq. But exaggeration is not a lie. Nor is an administration required to argue the reasons both for and against war. I don't recall after Pearl Harbor the Roosevelt Admin. making the case that the U.S. had pushed Japan into going to war through economic sanctions.

5) Nor does an administration making their case for war absolve members of Congress from their responsibility to collect their own information and making their own informed decisions before voting on weather to go to war or not. Congress voted in favor of war. Not to mention the American people overwhelmingly favored it for that matter.

 

There were no WMD's (besides some old pesticide cans and dental exray chairs)

They lied.

The results are the evidence

 

Going to war, putting the lives of people in the US military at risk, requires absolute certainty of information to justify such an action. There was significant dissent in the US intel community regarding the case the Bush WH was making as a rationale for war. Couple that with the UN inspections being done immediately before the invasion which failed to find any evidence of a WMD or chemical weapons program and there is no question the invasion should not have been ordered.

 

There was more than evidence of WMDs, Saddam USED WMDs against his own people, the Kurds. The UN investigated with "minders" taking them around and at least once at the locked gate of a dry-milk processing plant under suspicion, trucks began rolling out the back of the plant. Then UN investigators were allowed in.

Just because they didn't find WMDs didn't mean they weren't there at some point in time. I bet they ended up in Syria where they used them against their own people too.

The BIGGEST LIE in 2004 was Dan Rather creating phony documents and trying to keep Bush from being elected a month before the election. It was called Rathergate, he was fired with his producer. You dems are disgusting, and still lying about republicans even today.

Steve

 

I believe GWB had a personal axe to grind with Saddam Hussein, and that the day he entered office he was looking for any thin excuse to go take Hussein out.

 

Committing American troops to war is the most serious decision a President can make. Bush people thought they could rebuild Iraq into whatever they wanted. They were “mistaken” in that thought and they were “mistaken” that Iraqi oil could be used to pay for it all.

So on top of the “mistake” of WMD, we have a series of follow up “mistakes”.

Is that more palatable, Mr. OP?

 

Yea...YEARS prior that were destroyed and documented as such

 

. . . and you believed them. Disgusting.

Steve

 

I recall that Blix believed - and said at the time - that Iraq had no usable WMD.

The British bigged it up too, with plenty of dissent.

 

Democrat Quotes on Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003

 

Of course he did. It's one of the reasons I voted for him and contributed to his candidacy. I doubt I'm the only one.

 

Of course.

 

I remember reading at the time that Hans Blix said he would NEVER report Iraq in possession of WMDs no matter what he found because he did not want his reports to be used to justify a war.

 

So if several doctors say you have cancer and surgery removes a tumor which turns out to be benign, then you accuse the doctor of lying?

You know you wouldn't.

 

Yup, and all those quotes were based on the assumption the Bush admin was telling the truth.

https://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-s...to-z/aluminum-tubes-in-iraq.html#.Wmdcn6inHIU

Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/iraq-intelligence/article24439789.html

 

The Neoconservative strategic model called for a US takeover of Iraq to be used as a base for further US invasions in the region and to enforce US hegemony.

 

Well, there is the argument that settling a "personal feud" should not justify sending our military into harm's way. Needless to say, Hussein was a really bad guy, and the world is a better place without him, but I'm of the opinion that there should be some real, tangible national interest before we send our troops in. I just don't see the justification, neither in hindsight, nor did I at the time.

 

Lol. That's comic gold there.

 

WASHINGTON — The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.

The stark differences between the public version and the then top-secret version of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate raise new questions about the accuracy of the public case made for a war that's claimed the lives of more than 500 U.S. service members and thousands of Iraqis.

The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."

But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.

That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."

Both versions were written by the National Intelligence Council, a board of senior analysts who report to CIA Director George Tenet and prepare reports on crucial national security issues. Stuart Cohen, a 30-year CIA veteran, was the NIC's acting chairman at the time.

The CIA didn't respond officially to requests to explain the differences in the two versions. But a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained them by saying a more candid public version could have revealed U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.

Last week, Tenet defended the intelligence community's reporting on Iraq, telling an audience at Georgetown University that differences over Iraq's capabilities "were spelled out" in the October 2002 intelligence estimate.

But while top U.S. officials may have been told of differences among analysts, those disputes were kept from the American public in key areas, including whether Saddam was stockpiling biological and chemical weapons and whether he might dispatch poison-spraying robot aircraft to attack the United States.

Both documents have been available to the public for months. The CIA released the public version, titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," in October 2002, when the Bush administration was making its case for war. The White House declassified and released portions of the NIE's key findings in July 2003.

Knight Ridder compared the documents in light of Tenet's speech and continuing controversy over the intelligence that President Bush used to justify the invasion last April. There are currently seven separate official inquiries into the issue.

What that comparison showed is that while the top-secret version delivered to Bush, his top lieutenants and Congress was heavily qualified with caveats about some of its most important conclusions about Iraq's illicit weapons programs, those caveats were omitted from the public version.

The caveats included the phases "we judge that," "we assess that" and "we lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) programs."

These phrases, according to current and former intelligence officials, long have been used in intelligence reports to stress an absence of hard information and underscore that judgments are extrapolations or estimates.

Among the most striking differences between the versions were those over Iraq's development of small, unmanned aircraft, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

The public version said Iraq's UAVs "especially if used for delivery of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents—could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the US Homeland."

The classified version showed there was major disagreement on the issue from the agency with the greatest expertise on such aircraft, the Air Force. The Air Force "does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents," it said. "The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

There was substantial difference between the public version of the estimate and the classified version on the issue of Iraq's biological weapons program.

The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version.

In a section on chemical weapons, the top-secret findings said the intelligence community had "little specific information on Iraq's CW (chemical weapons) stockpile." That caveat was deleted from the public version.

The classified report went on to say that Iraq "probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents—much of it added last year."

"Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents," said the public report.

Deleted from the public version was a line in the classified report that cast doubt on whether Saddam was prepared to support terrorist attacks on the United States, a danger that Bush and his top aides raised repeatedly in making their case for war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington with a stronger case for making war," the top-secret report said.

Also missing from the public report were judgments that Iraq would attempt "clandestine attacks" on the United States only if an American invasion threatened the survival of Saddam's regime or "possibly for revenge."

 

You wouldn't be implying that our intelligence agencies would LIE for political purpose, would you? I mean, that's absurd, isn't it?

 

How many essays from the Center for a New American Century would you like me to provide that back up exactly what I said?

 

Because Saddam had talked about killing bush sr? It was a story, once upon a time.

 

Oh, you have not read PNAC? If not, ignorance is your friend. Hard to deny PNAC. And that they removed one thing from it...an major event which would allow this foreign policy to be implemented. 911 provided that. And all we needed was for Iraq to have a WMD program, especially a nuclear one...oh, remember the intel on yellow cake uranium? You forgot? Or just never heard about the claims from some intel?

Iraq was such a dangerous threat to the US. Their army would hardly even fight us. lol Until we disbanded it, and some joined the radicals, like isis. I guess they needed a paycheck from the others in the middle east? Gotta feed their families, ya know.

 

Bush and the neocons had several reasons for wanting to take out Hussein apart from WMD, which was well documented in the New American Century strategic plan for turning Iraq into a US base. Bush himself had a personal vendetta against Hussein because of the feeling Hussein embarrassed his daddy when Bush, Sr. withdrew the troops and Hussein stayed in power.

I think the Bush administration, or at least Bush himself, believed there were WMD in Iraq, or convinced themselves of it. Bush, after all, was a gut feeling kind of guy who went with his beliefs, whether there was factual basis for it or not.

Therein lies the lies. The actual fact support for WMD in Iraq was at best, suspect. To get the US public behind a dubious and unnecessary war that most of our major allies would not support, they had to gin up the facts. So the Bush administration, supported by the RW propaganda machine including Fox News, bombarded the public with dubious facts supporting the WMD claim, fabricated things about the regime, relied on claims of sources known to be of dubious validity, intentionally interwined facts to create false impressions, and cherry picked and intentionally misinterpreted data.

We were told again and again about how Iraq was a terrorist sponsor, in bed with Al Queda, had secret terrorist training grounds, were hiding Al Queda terrorists in their borders, the rape room, the yellow cake uranium, the nuclear program, the aluminum missile tubing, and on and on.

By the time the Bush administration attacked and invade Iraq, and astonishing 70% of the American public believed that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Those were the lies. The intentional deception of fact to convince the American public to support a war the neocons and Bush wanted.

 

so?

You (and others) seem to be suggesting that the Bush Admin. was obligated to present arguments against invading Iraq to the American people as well as arguments justifying the invasion.

It doesn't work that way. A prosecutor has no obligation to argue the case for the defense as well.

And as I pointed out, President Roosevelt didn't bother explaining Japan's grievances (some perfectly legitimate) against the United States when he asked for a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor.