# Did Bush Admit to Lying about WMD in Iraq? **URL:** \ **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:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/81 "2003-04-28T18:51:26Z")
Diogenes: You are right that he was never convicted. As a sitting President, he could not be arrested for a criminal charge. He agreed to a deal that avoided a criminal charge following his presidency. So as a matter of law, he has never been found guilty of the offense of perjury. So if your point is merely that he was never convicted, then I agree with you. The question I am answering, though, is: “If the evidence were considered by a finder of fact at a perjury trial, would it have been sufficient as a matter of law to support a guilty verdict?” If you believe the answer to that question is ‘No’, I will be happy to open up a GD thread that will try to be the one-stop-shop for Clinton perjury commentary. The short answer is that if a finder of fact heard Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony and credited it as truthful, Mr. Clinton could have been convicted of perjury. I will be happy to explain this in detail if you disagree. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/82 "2003-04-28T23:16:24Z")
Well, Bricker- yes, he was accused of lying to a Federal Grand Jury- which is a Federal Crime. But he didn’t do so. Unless you somehow think that being accused of something makes it so? if so, then Clinton is guilty of several murders. :rolleyes: True, he could not be arrested as a SITTING President- but seconds after GWB took office, they could hav arrested him- and he wasn’t. I’d be happy for you to tell us that really, truely, in real life- someone other than Clinton would actually have been tried & convicted of Perjury. But I hope you’re not going to do that as I don’t think anyone but the most rabid of Clinton-haters beleive THAT. However, if you do think you can prove to us that he was guilty of PERJURY during his testimoney to the FGJ- please- do open a new thread. Maybe- MAYBE someone could claim he was guilty of Perjury in the Paula Jones trial- but since the Judge made no such claim, I’d also think that was moot. Sure- he slipped around the truth in such a way that the Judge hammered him for Contempt- but that’s not perjury. And- Perjury there would not be a “Federal” crime. But my point was- the lie he admitted to in the Civil Lawsuit- wasn’t quite perjury, nor would perjury in a civil case be a Federal Crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/83 "2003-04-29T00:14:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > But my point was- the lie he admitted to in the Civil Lawsuit- wasn’t quite perjury, nor would perjury in a civil case be a Federal Crime. Commiting perjury in a federal civil case is a federal crime. Did you even read 18 USC § 1621? > [@](#): > > Whoever - > (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, > or person, in any case in which a law of the United States > authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, > declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, > declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is > true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes > any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or > (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement > under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title > 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material > matter which he does not believe to be true; > is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly > provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more > than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the > statement or subscription is made within or without the United > States. There is no section that makes a distinction between a civil and criminal case above. This law has been referred to twice above. Yet somehow you persist in your claim. So, tell us, **DrDeth** , how does lyiing under oath in a civil trial or proceeding NOT violate the law above? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/84 "2003-04-29T00:33:20Z")
In an effort to remain pleasant and charitable, I’m trying to think of why or how you might have formed the belief that lying under oath in a civil proceeding is not a federal crime. One thing that occurs to me (other than the obvious inference that you simply never read the eariler posts and referenced portion of federal law above) is that you are picturing a “civil case” as a state proceeding. If that’s so, then you should know that while states may have their own protection against sexual harrassment, federal law provides a civil cause of action for sexual harrassment. Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), creates a way for a person to sue another person, or a corporation, in federal court for sexual harrassment. So the “civil case” is itself a federal case. Perhaps understanding this will help your acceptance of how lying in such a case is a violation of federal law. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/85 "2003-04-29T00:35:25Z")
Was the paula Jones case a federal case? I thought it was an Arkansas lawsuit. And anyway it wasn’t material. If it isn’t material it isn’t perjury. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/86 "2003-04-29T00:56:37Z")
Diogenes, Judge Wright is a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Paula Jones case was a federal case. On review, I see that I made an error above. Ms. Jones brought her claim under 42 USC § 1983, not Title VII. Still federal law - I just referred to the wrong law. The materiality argument is a bit more complicated. For the moment, I’m trying to get DrDeth to understand that perjury in a federal civil case is a federal crime, and I’m trying to understand how he might think it isn’t. Your point is not that the perjury is not a federal crime, but that there was never perjury in the first place. I am afraid that answering that will confuse DrDeth. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/87 "2003-04-29T01:23:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by samclem \* > \*\*Jeff. I wasn’t _implying_ any such thing. I was trying to flat-out say that giving the administration more time to find the WoMD is ingenuous. \*\* Wow, samclem is actually complimenting his opponents! So if you agree that giving the administration more time is the noble thing to do, why are you opposed to it? sailor: exclusion of improperly collected evidence is a procedural requirement established by US courts. It no more applies to international relations than the British habit of driving on the left is a violation of US traffic laws. Furthermore, for this invasion to be illegal, there would have to be a law which the US is bound which it did not follow. And finally, the UN itself agreed that Iraq violated its agreements. Whack-a-Mole: traces of WMD **have** been found. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/88 "2003-04-29T03:02:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Diogenes, Judge Wright is a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Paula Jones case was a federal case. > > On review, I see that I made an error above. Ms. Jones brought her claim under 42 USC § 1983, not Title VII. Still federal law - I just referred to the wrong law. > > The materiality argument is a bit more complicated. > > For the moment, I’m trying to get DrDeth to understand that perjury in a federal civil case is a federal crime, and I’m trying to understand how he might think it isn’t. > > Your point is not that the perjury is not a federal crime, but that there was never perjury in the first place. > > I am afraid that answering that will confuse DrDeth. > > - Rick \*\* I concede that you have proven that perjury in the PJ case _if proven_ would constitute a federal crime. I stll contend, however, that the “lie” alleged in the case was not of sufficient materiality for a perjury charge to obtain. It is certainly no slam dunk, at least that a jury would be persuaded of it. I’ll take any more discussion of this issue to your other thread. ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/89 "2003-04-29T10:34:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*Did everyone forget about all the statue bashing, shoe thumping marathon > (…) > If bush made a mistake about those WoMd, is Iraq really worse off for it? \*\* What you see on TV in the US is different than what you see on TV in other countries: - Thousands of people dying during the war - People dying now because of the lack of water, medicaments, and hospital equipement. - People being very unhappy with the US occupation. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/90 "2003-04-29T14:17:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **The Ryan** wrote:_ > Furthermore, for this invasion to be illegal, there would have to be a law which the US is bound which it did not follow. There was, it’s called the UN Charter, and UNSC Resolution 687. Both are afforded the legal status of treaties, incorporated by the US Constitution. > [@](#): > > _ **The Ryan** wrote:_ > And finally, the UN itself agreed that Iraq violated its agreements. Technically correct, but ironically, only as correct as Clinton’s definition of “is” - it all has to do with verb tense. The UNSC did not agree sufficient evidence had been provided to determine that Iraq was _still_ in violation of its resolutions. > [@](#): > > _ **The Ryan** wrote:_ > Whack-a-Mole: traces of WMD **have** been found. Cite? And before you dig, I acknowledge that preliminary tests have indicated the presense of substances that might be used to create CW/BW weapons, but that not a single WoMD has been found. And certainly none of the “tons” and “stockpiles” Powell stressed in his presentation to the UNSC. ---
**Author:** ![tomyoung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@tomyoung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomyoung)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/91 "2003-04-29T16:02:49Z")
Well, Paul Krugman’s got my back. For the record, I may have overstated things a bit in my thread title, but I still feel that Bush misled us about his own motivations for going to war. The case that convinced Bush, IMHO, is not really the case he made to us, Blair, or the world. Am I the only person who supported the war who sees that as a big problem? > **[Opinion | Matters of Emphasis (Published 2003)](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/matters-of-emphasis.html)** > > Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Bush administration hyped threat that Saddam Hussein posed to United States; says Pres Bush surely knew that Iraq did not have kind of weapons of mass destruction that would make small, poor country a threat to greatest... Matters of Emphasis By PAUL KRUGMAN “We were not lying,” a Bush administration official told ABC News. “But it was just a matter of emphasis.” The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration “wanted to make a statement.” And why Iraq? “Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.” A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that “intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war.” One “high-level source” told the paper that “they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat.” Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It’s hard to believe that we won’t eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren’t true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a “mushroom cloud.” Clearly, Iraq didn’t have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn’t. Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn’t: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions — not just about Iraq, but about ourselves. First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal. Or consider one of America’s first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn’t let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we? So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn’t extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it’s just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn’t offer any occasion to stage a victory parade. Meanwhile, aren’t the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth? One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It’s a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not. Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration’s credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. “I don’t know what more evidence we need,” he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC’s Web site bore the headline “White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq.” Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site. Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11. Now it’s true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy’s decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn’t happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/92 "2003-04-29T16:30:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AZCowboy \* > There was, it’s called the UN Charter, and UNSC Resolution 687. Both are afforded the legal status of treaties, incorporated by the US Constitution. No, that’s not true. You’re wrong. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/93 "2003-04-29T17:00:56Z")
**Bricker** , you already know I appreciate your legal expertise. But would you mind pointing out the error? (Saying it twice just isn’t sufficiently compelling, at least to me, and as this thread should amply illustrate). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/94 "2003-04-29T17:29:03Z")
Actually, **AZCowboy** , my post was intended to do two things: Correct the misapprehension, and point out the problem with a gratuitous assertion - which yours was. You offered a gratuitous assertion – one without citation to authority or reasoning. I may equally gratuitously deny it. But the more detailed answer is that it’s far from settled under US law if a Security Council resolution carries the force of a treaty. The Constitution requires that the Senate consent to a treaty. It’s entirely unsettled if the Senate can cede that power, prospectively, to the UN Security Council, and whether a resolution from that body is, under the Supremacy Clause, a treaty and therefore the law of the land. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/95 "2003-04-29T18:16:23Z")
Congress _did_ ratify the UN charter, which specifically forbids acts of aggression against another country’s sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/96 "2003-04-29T20:07:06Z")
Sure - but it doesn’t forbid attacking a country that’s about to attack you. There is no requirement for signatories to the UN to bend over and wait to be attacked before responding. Now - was Iraq ready to launch an attack of some kind against the US? I was ready to believe it; with each day that passes with no evidence of their ability to do so, I become less sanguine. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/97 "2003-04-29T20:33:35Z")
See, **Bricker** , that was helpful. I take it your problem with my “gratuitous assertion” was the inclusion of UNSC resolutions, instead of limiting my assertion to the UN charter, so be it (as DtC has beat me to the punch). Now, my “gratuitous assertion” was in response to a “gratuitous assertion”, and until challenged, I did not feel the need to provide a citation to authority or reasoning. But now you’ve challenged it. I incorporate DtC’s post in my response. Further, I note US Public Law 107-243 “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002”. Within that congressional action, the POTUS’ authorization was conditioned to use force only in order to: (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The second condition was not met. Seeing your response to DtC, I only note that preemptive use of force was not part of Public Law 107-243. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/98 "2003-04-30T16:20:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I concede that you have proven that perjury in the PJ case _if proven_ would constitute a federal crime. I stll contend, however, that the “lie” alleged in the case was not of sufficient materiality for a perjury charge to obtain. It is certainly no slam dunk, at least that a jury would be persuaded of it. I’ll take any more discussion of this issue to your other thread. \*\* So, Bricker- if what you are hanging your hat on is the Contempt of Court violation in the Civil trial- how exactly is Contempt of Court a Federal Felony? I had assumed you were talking about the GJ issue. The Civil trial issue is settled- Clinton did not commit any Crime at all- but he was fined for Contempt of Court. I agree with Diogenes above. I suppose you have some cases where a defendant was both fined for contempt AND convicted or Perury for the same “lie”? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/99 "2003-04-30T17:43:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*More to the point, of course, the impeachment of Mr. Clinton arose from his lies under oath - a federal criminal offense. \*\* Yes, OK, I concede- Perjury at the Federal level can be a “Federal criminal offense”. However, BC was not guilty of commiting perjury, thus he did not commit a “Federal criminal offense”. ---
**Author:** ![regnad\_kcin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@regnad\_kcin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regnad_kcin)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194/100 "2003-04-30T19:17:51Z")
This is a great topic. Please please please discuss Clinton’s blowjob in a thread devoted to Clinton’s blowjob! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-admit-to-lying-about-wmd-in-iraq/171194.md?page=6)