# Did Bush Admit to Lying about WMD in Iraq?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 25, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194 "2003-04-25T21:13:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/1 "2003-04-25T21:13:15Z")
Okay, this is the first thread I’ve ever started, so be gentle. The case the Bush administration has consistently made to the world for the war in Iraq is that Iraq must be disarmed – that the combination of a rogue state, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and shadowy terrorism represents such a danger to the world that it simply must be addressed, with world support or without. Bush expressed this as the primary motivation in his address to the UN:
“Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place – in one regime – we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.”
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)
Also, here’s the text of Bush’s Cincinnati speech in which he reiterated the threat. The speech dwells on WMP for most of its length.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
Here too is the text of the Congressional authorization for use of force – note that it overwhelmingly references WMD as a justification.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
Okay, so now Bush and administration officials have admitted that weapons of mass destruction were only a pretext for war on Iraq, despite having explained it differently to the public.
[http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow\_030425.html](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html)
From the article:
“Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.”
Clearly the administration is backing away from the whole issue of WMD, it seems to me. Here, then, are officials’ real reasons for war as given in the article:
1. A chance to build democracy in Middle East and generally shake things up.
“The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.”
2. to intimidate terrorists and rogue nations.
“The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism.”
The question I have is, **did Bush mislead the world, and is this acceptable conduct from a democratic, representative government?** To tell the American public, the Congress and the world that the overriding concern is disarmament, then to reveal that disarmament was only a pretext for war – that even Bush lacks confidence that WMD will be found? Is it as the officials claim, only a matter of emphasis and not a willful misleading of the public?
As an aside, I am a Democrat who supported the war, and I find this to be breathtakingly arrogant. I also shudder to think what a Republican reaction would be, were a Democratic president to make such a revelation. Any tips on how to do a better job of starting threads would be appreciated.
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/2 "2003-04-25T21:37:06Z")
I am of the opinion that this war was a mistake, and that the administration did not provide sufficient justification. However, I don’t see how saying the WMDs were destroyed is equivalent to ADMITTING that he lied. They could ostensibly have existed and then been destroyed during the war. Seems unlikely that Saddam would have destroyed them rather than using them, and that they would vanish without a trace, but it is _possible_.
BTW, I think it’s a coherent, well-written thread - I just think you overstated the case a little, especially in the thread title.
---
### Author:  [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/3 "2003-04-25T21:54:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> **did Bush mislead the world…?**
I like to hope not.
---
### Author:  [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/4 "2003-04-25T21:56:46Z")
(all intentions and attempts aside, that is)
---
### Author:  [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/5 "2003-04-25T21:57:51Z")
\*\*I don’t see how saying the WMDs were destroyed is equivalent to ADMITTING that he lied. \*\*
Okay, the lie in the OP is that Bush’s real case for war and goals of the war, given statements by him and by officials, were different than the one he gave to us, and that he has admitted as such. It is not that Bush lied about the existence of WMD. The fact that’s he’s saying that WMD may not be found is a signal that they’re moving to a new rationale, meaning the old rationale was a lie. Is that clearer?
---
### Author:  [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/6 "2003-04-25T22:00:16Z")
I should have titled it: **Did Bush Admit to Lying about WMD as Justification for Iraq War?**
Oh well.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/7 "2003-04-25T22:12:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tomyoung \*
> The fact that’s he’s saying that WMD may not be found is a signal that they’re moving to a new rationale, meaning the old rationale was a lie. Is that clearer?
That makes no sense. What if the administration had a good-faith belief that WMD existed, and has now found new evidence that the weapons did not exist? What if the adminstration was correct about the existence of WMD, and the WMD were destroyed during the war by the Iraqis?
Why does the statement that WMD may not be found compel the conclusion that the original rationale was a lie?
- Rick
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/8 "2003-04-25T22:14:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tomyoung \*
> \*\*
> Okay, so now Bush and administration officials have admitted that weapons of mass destruction were only a pretext for war on Iraq, despite having explained it differently to the public.
> \*\*
No- they “admitted” **nothing of the kind**. There is a HUGE difference from “the WMD being a pretext” to “we had another good reason, but we emphasied the WMD instead”. No one has said they were a “pretext”. All long Bush & co has said there were many reasons for this war- now they are changing their emphasis, that’s all. Yes, I do detect a certain “smell of weasle”, but not to the extent you are claiming. Not even close.
Note that I did not find any of the reasons to be justification for the invasion.🆒
---
### Author:  [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/9 "2003-04-25T22:15:42Z")
I almost hesitate to mention it, given the many false or overstated ‘discoveries’ in Iraq. However, the latest theory, based on information gathered from an Iraqi scientist, is that many things were actually destroyed just before the US invasion.
I just searched “WMD destroyed Iraqi scientist” and got 2400 hits. [St. Petersburg Times](http://www.times.spb.ru/archive/times/862/news/n_9280.htm) Not the one I was expecting. The St. Pete in Florida has some nice beaches. I’m thinking this one doesn’t.
> [@](#):
>
> WASHINGTON - The United States has inspection teams inside Iraq searching for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday, adding that the government would “obviously look with favor on” Iraqis who provide information on hidden materials.
> Rumsfeld declined to confirm a story that said a U.S. team had been told that Iraqis destroyed and buried chemical weapons and biological-warfare equipment days before the March 20 beginning of the war. The story appeared in The New York Times, which said the information had been relayed to a government search team by an Iraqi scientist claiming to have worked in Saddam Hussein’s chemical-weapons program.
---
### Author:  [@serenitynow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/serenitynow)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/10 "2003-04-25T22:17:39Z")
I believe that there is a logical distinction between the existence of something and the finding of something. Interviews with Iraqi scientists (which were not allowed by Iraq in a meaningful way prior to the war) indicate that many WMDs were either destroyed or moved shortly before the war. The comments from the administration reflect this new evidence. I suppose some think that US intelligence services are omniscient, but that is simply not the case. The president still says he believes that we will find WMDs. That we may not is not an indication of lying.
I don’t believe that the president lied, but even if he did, I don’t see this being proof of, or indication of dishonesty. It is not even contradictory.
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/11 "2003-04-25T22:21:19Z")
I don’t think you could ‘destroy’ WMD’s without some trace remaining short of nuking something. If they can reassemble the space shuttle after being disintegrated at the edge of space they can certainly find chemical or biological or definitely radioactive residue even after being hit by a bomb. Just look at fire investigators to see that evidence most certainly is not wiped away by fire.
What gets me is the administration seemed to suggest (before the war) that they did in fact have evidence of WMD in Iraq but they couldn’t tell anyone without fear of compromising their sources.
Fair enough even though it didn’t sit too well with me (too easy to make that claim whether true or not but if true it is understandable). One would think that now, with Saddam out of the way and the war basically done with that the administration could produce its evidence. Even if they didn’t want to reveal sources they should just be able to drive to the places suspected or get the people who should know and come out with it.
I have no love for Saddam and his cult of personality and don’t mind seeing him goone. However, if Bush made up a pretext to go to war he should be impeached in my view (whether it is an actual impeachable offense I have no idea and even if it was I seriously doubt it would happen with this Congress). To me it is an incredible breach of trust. If the President wants to sell a war to the American public then fine but it shouldn’t be sold using trumped-up charges.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/12 "2003-04-25T22:36:16Z")
To be honest, from a logical perspective with no political ax to grind, I can’t see any American politician of whatever stripe ‘lieing’ on that kind of scale. He’d be committing political suicide. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that he/they could be WRONG though (which will cost him all the same). People have a childlike belief that the government knows all, sees all…and if there are no WMD then it MUST be because they had ulterior motives. I think they DID have ulterior motives in this mess, but I also think that they (Bush and his merry men) really thought they’d find something there or they wouldn’t have harped on it so much.
And not to put too fine a point on things, just because they haven’t found anything yet, doesn’t mean there is nothing to find. After all, its only been a few weeks since hostilities have stopped…its kind of a big country to hide things in also. I’m still in ‘wait and see’ mode as far as this issue goes…
If Bush “made up” the pretext for this war, that will come out…and we have a self correcting mechinism for such things. Someone ELSE will be in the white house come next election. IMHO, reguardless of WMD or not, pretext or not, someone else will be anyway…
-XT
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/13 "2003-04-25T22:50:50Z")
No, they haven’t admitted lying, nor are they going to. They’ve already laid the groundwork for thier strategy: the “no news” ploy. Having said that it will take time to find the WMD’s, they simply don’t find them. When asked, they will shrug and say “still looking, know they’re there, haven’t found them yet” followed by something like “The President is looking forward, not backward, he’s much to busy creating jobs for Americans. Besides, freeing the Iraqi people was always the number one goal.”
Eventually, you will forget. Go back to sleep.
---
### Author:  [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/14 "2003-04-25T22:56:46Z")
Dubya may have lied about why we needed to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq that ended up killing thousands, but at least he didn’t lie about getting blowjobs from a White House intern. Otherwise, we would have to impeach him.:rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/15 "2003-04-25T22:57:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*
> \*\*No, they haven’t admitted lying, nor are they going to. They’ve already laid the groundwork for thier strategy: the “no news” ploy. Having said that it will take time to find the WMD’s, they simply don’t find them. When asked, they will shrug and say “still looking, know they’re there, haven’t found them yet” followed by something like “The President is looking forward, not backward, he’s much to busy creating jobs for Americans. Besides, freeing the Iraqi people was always the number one goal.”
>
> Eventually, you will forget. Go back to sleep. \*\*
Sad but true, and a good prediction. I will predict further that they will find some clues of WMD destruction, and some evidence of them being moved to Syria, but no “smoking gun”.
---
### Author:  [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/16 "2003-04-25T23:06:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tomyoung \*
> \*\*
> The question I have is, **did Bush mislead the world, and is this acceptable conduct from a democratic, representative government?** To tell the American public, the Congress and the world that the overriding concern is disarmament, then to reveal that disarmament was only a pretext for war – that even Bush lacks confidence that WMD will be found? Is it as the officials claim, only a matter of emphasis and not a willful misleading of the public? \*\*
gee maybe we should hand Iraq back to Saddam? uhhh I think we have his DNA… we could ask those Raleans to clone him… 😛
We may never find WMD in the degree and quantity that was stated before the war. They may have destroyed it just previous to the start of the war which is what they were supposed to have done instead of being belligerant about it. If there is evidence to show that thats what they did then the war is justified. We set out to disarm Saddam, whether we did it or they did it makes no real difference. Still like many other accusations and protestations about what is going on over there, the answer is still the same.
Give it TIME!
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/17 "2003-04-25T23:24:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Give it TIME!
Wow! You anti-American, anti-war, French Ass-kissers are all alike. Give it time. Sure. Just keep giving Blix more time. But you’ll see…what? Oh.
You meant “give the administration” more time. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/18 "2003-04-25T23:25:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \*
> \*\*They may have destroyed it just previous to the start of the war which is what they were supposed to have done instead of being belligerant about it. \*\*
If Saddam did destroy any WMD he may have had then it was a brilliant move on his part. However, I just don’t see it. First off that would mean that Saddam, prior to war starting or very shortly after it started, would have concluded he was done for. Destroying the WMD would be a brilliant last gasp at sticking a thorn in the side of Bush. However, that just doesn’t really sit right with what I understand of Saddam’s character. A sane look at what he faced should have led to this conclusion but Saddam never seemed all that sane in this regard. He was not a stupid man but neither do I see his character allowing him to admit he is done for to himself and a doubly doubt any of his cronies would suggest it and expect to live long. Anything’s possible though I suppose.
Secondly, I don’t think it is that easy to destroy WMD weapons and facilities. A bioweapons factory in a truck might be easy but chemicals of the weapons sort and certainly radiological weapons/facilities just can’t be gotten rid of overnight. It is hard to dispose of these things. Unless he had very limited quantities I don’t see how they could be gotten rid of in a matter of a few weeks (unless he started many months ago when this all started getting spun-up but that really stretches my belief of possibilities).
The problem with waiting longer and longer is that if a smoking gun is found some may claim the US shipped in the material for that purpose.
---
### Author:  [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/19 "2003-04-25T23:36:12Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by samclem \*
> \*\*Wow! You anti-American, anti-war, French Ass-kissers are all alike. Give it time. Sure. Just keep giving Blix more time. But you’ll see…what? Oh.
>
> You meant “give the administration” more time. :rolleyes: \*\*
Hey! All I ask is the same amount of time the UN gave Blix to work with before this war. 3 months. Lets say the US time started 2 weeks ago. Thats still 2 and a half months to go. I can pretty much bet that by Mid July of this year, there will be a smoking gun officially found and verified.
Theres a difference between giving something that doesnt work more time and giving time to something that hasnt gotten fully underway.
:rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/20 "2003-04-25T23:36:42Z")
The article cited in the OP would be a lot more convincing if it cited anyone more specific than “officials” in the administration. What officials? Members of the inner circle or the second under-secretary of the Bureau of Land Management?
```
It's also not particularly a insightful article -- basically it's answering the questions "Why Iraq and not some other miserable terrorism-supporting dictatorship?" and "We've known for years that Iraq has WMD -- we are we getting bent out of shape about it now?". You don't have to be as cynical and distrustful of the administration as Elucidator to have put those pieces together.
```
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194.md?page=2)