Did Bush Admit to Lying about WMD in Iraq?

[DrDeth]

All right then. So let us see- Bricker claims that IF the charges against BC were true, and iF a indictment was returned against him, and IF a jury did convict him- then he’d be guilty of a “federal criminal offense”. Sure. Fine- but too many “Ifs” that did not happen. So lets apply this to the present case. Now, I don’t think these wild-assed claims against GWB are completely true- sure, he may have “puffed” his reasons for the war, and emphasied the one he thought would get more public support, but I don’t think there was any great Bush conpsiracy to mislead the Public or Congress. But let us assume there was. Let as assume the same sort of “IF” Bricker assumed when he intimated that BC was guilty of a “federal criminal offense”.

So- IF GWB & his admin did know their information was false, and did Kowingly & wilfully provide false, forged & misleading evidence to Congress & the Public in order to go to war- and he wanted this war for reasons of personal benefit, including re-election- then would there not also be some violation of a “Federal Criminal offense”? There is a lot of law in all those Federal codes, and it sure sounds like something that could be a “Federal Criminal Offense”.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yeah, but don’t you get it? Lying is only a mortal sin for a President when he’s a Democrat.

[RickJay]

But apparently both Republicans and Democrats can start wars and kill people based on lies.

Johnson, 1964: “They attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin!”

Bush, 2003: “They have WMDs and they’re gonna use them on us!”

It’s bilateral imperialism in action!

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by DrDeth *

So- IF GWB & his admin did know their information was false, and did Kowingly & wilfully provide false, forged & misleading evidence to Congress & the Public in order to go to war- and he wanted this war for reasons of personal benefit, including re-election- then would there not also be some violation of a “Federal Criminal offense”? There is a lot of law in all those Federal codes, and it sure sounds like something that could be a “Federal Criminal Offense”.

Yep, all those laws, surely he must have violated something!

Er… no. There is no federal law against the conduct you describe.

See, when I said a federal law was implicated, I actually quoted the U.S. Code section. If you claim the conduct above violates a law, let’s hear it.

And Elvis1Lives, the issue is not mortal sin, but criminal act. And both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of both. I am perfectly willing to tar Republicans for their wrongs acts. i thought Pointdexter’s lies were reprehensible. I thought Nixon’s actions were unquestionably criminal, and supported his impeachment.

Of the two of us, which is the more rapidly partisan, do you think?

[elucidator]

And this just in…

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/30/1051381997497.html

“President George Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is now acknowledging that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program is less clear-cut, and probably more difficult to establish, than the White House portrayed before the war.”

[snip]

"According to Dr Rice, the weapons programs are “in bits and pieces” rather than assembled weapons. “You may find assembly lines, you may find pieces hidden here and there,” she said. Ingredients or precursors, many non-lethal by themselves, could be embedded in dual-use facilities.

She had a new explanation too for Iraq’s ability to launch these weapons that were not assembled. “Just-in-time assembly” and “just-in-time” inventory, as she put it."

Interesting trial balloon, don’t you think?

[pantom]

From what I see in the article, it appears that she’s admitting, without admitting it, of course, that Blix and the UN were right.
Which means the French were right.
Sacre bleu!
Can I start drinking Bordeaux again now?

[The_Ryan]

*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.

As Bricker pointed out, it’s stretching to call Resolution 687 a treaty. And what part of the UN Charter is the US in violation of?

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.

So is war only justified if Iraq is currently in violation? If at the very moment troops cross the border, Saddam isn’t making any WMD right then, is the war not justified? And how would be know? Even with an amazing intelligence network, it would probably take several hours for us to find out if Sadam is in violation. And when we find out, that just tells us whether he was in violation a few hours ago. Or is there a small grace period? If Saddam is in violation, can the US attack within say two weeks, but after that the statute of limitations has expired?

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.

I was responding to an argument which I understood to be saying that creating WMD would necessarily result in indications of creation. I responded that such had been found. I never said that tons or stockpiles have been found. To put in logical terms:
Whack-a-Mole says A -> B (and implies (~B therefore ~A))
I say B (and imply that therefore ~A hasn’t been proven)
You say “But A hasn’t been proven!”
I say that I never claimed that A has been proven, only that ~A hasn’t been proven.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**As Bricker pointed out, it’s stretching to call Resolution 687 a treaty. And what part of the UN Charter is the US in violation of?
**

The obligation on all countries to use peaceful means to resolve their differences. The sovereign equality of all countries. Etc. etc.

**
So is war only justified if Iraq is currently in violation? If at the very moment troops cross the border, Saddam isn’t making any WMD right then, is the war not justified? And how would be know? Even with an amazing intelligence network, it would probably take several hours for us to find out if Sadam is in violation. And when we find out, that just tells us whether he was in violation a few hours ago. Or is there a small grace period? If Saddam is in violation, can the US attack within say two weeks, but after that the statute of limitations has expired?

**

If he HAS WMDs, he is in violation. There is no need for him to currently be preparing them. The point is that a)The Security Council has to conclude that he is a current danger to world peace (And current is the word here), and b)the Security Council decides that military action is the only means likely to be able to change that.

**
I was responding to an argument which I understood to be saying that creating WMD would necessarily result in indications of creation. I responded that such had been found. I never said that tons or stockpiles have been found. To put in logical terms:
Whack-a-Mole says A -> B (and implies (~B therefore ~A))
I say B (and imply that therefore ~A hasn’t been proven)
You say “But A hasn’t been proven!”
I say that I never claimed that A has been proven, only that ~A hasn’t been proven. **

Ok, please cite where conclusive proof, rather than claims, of indications of production have been found.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
She had a new explanation too for Iraq’s ability to launch these weapons that were not assembled. “Just-in-time assembly” and “just-in-time” inventory, as she put it."

A-ha! Blatantly lifted from Java’s “just-in-time compilation”. The Iraqis were pillaging Sun’s valuable intellectual property, and of course, piracy is a crime of universal jurisdiction.

[elucidator]

I would like to take this occassion to point out, yet again, that $250,000 is sitting there, waiting for someone to walk in and tell us where just one “massive stockpile” of WMD’s are located. Been about three weeks now. If there are “massive stockpiles”, then there are lots of people who can cash in.

And nobody has. Not one.

[AZCowboy]

Oh, The Ryan, referencing Bricker now. Ironic. Let’s start from the bottom and work up.

You claim that you were “responding to an argument which I understood to be saying that creating WMD would necessarily result in indications of creation” when you wrote: “Whack-a-Mole: traces of WMD have been found.”

If so, then I’m not sure why you directed the comment as you did, as I cannot find that claim posted by Whack-a-Mole anywhere in this thread. Regardless, you now say, “I responded that such had been found.” So, presumably, “such” refers to “indications of creation”. Which is also a bit different than the “traces of WoMD” you originally stated. So be it. So I ask again, cite? Your logical contortion makes no sense, as I have not made the claim you ascribe to me.

Since you are fond of Bricker’s analysis of my post:

Bricker wrote:
You offered a gratuitous assertion – one without citation to authority or reasoning.

If the shoe fits…

The Ryan wrote:
So is war only justified if Iraq is currently in violation?

No. Jump to conclusions much? The section of mine you quoted was in direct response (and clearly so, following where I quoted you) where you posted, “And finally, the UN itself agreed that Iraq violated its agreements.” My conclusion, if you are struggling to grasp it, is that the UNSC did not authorize the use of force against Iraq (at least since resolution 678 - to expel Iraq from Kuwait, under the UN Charter, Chapter VII, using the “collective defense” principle).

So, when you say, “the UN itself agreed that Iraq violated its agreements”, it reminds me of a certain Bricker quote.

And finally:

The Ryan wrote:
As Bricker pointed out, it’s stretching to call Resolution 687 a treaty. And what part of the UN Charter is the US in violation of?

Regarding the first sentence, I agree, and have since revised the statement (with regards to “UN resolutions”) to reference US Law. I supplemented that with a “citation to authority” and reasoning. As to the second sentence, the part of the UN Charter is Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraphs 1, 2, and 4; Article 2, paragaphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7; and Chapter 5, Article 25 (which incorporates resolution 687). IF one were to claim that the US’ use of force was authorized by the UN, then the US would have also violated Chapter VII, specifically Articles 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 49, and 51.

But you know, that is all beside my main point. In my response to your first post in this thread, I quoted three statements you made. I refuted all three. I have since backed up my position with “citation to authority or reasoning”. But you have not.

What you have chosen to do, instead, is to challenge my refutations, without even the slightest attempt to support your original gratuitous assertions, without so much as a citation to authority or reasoning.

I will not respond to you in this thread in support of any of my contentions anymore, until you have at least either offered support for your original gratuitous assertions; or, retracted your statements.

Put up or shut up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So is war only justified if Iraq is currently in violation? If at the very moment troops cross the border, Saddam isn’t making any WMD right then, is the war not justified?

It’s not even justified if he is in violation. Junior Bush does not have any authority to enforce UN resolutions.

Aggression is only justified if another country can be shown to be an imminent threat, which clearly Iraq was not. Possing some hypothetical bits and parts, and further hypothesing some imaginary hidden launchers is a long way from establishingh that iraq was a threat to the US.
The Bushies wanted a war and they didn’t care what they had to say or do to justify it. There really isn’t any question that Junior lied. He got caught lying about that nuke report last year, he tried to pass off another forged report as real. He assured everybody that he had solid evidence that Iraq was about to launch WMDs at the US at any moment, and we now know that he was lyng through his teeth. We now know that there aren’t any WMDs and that there probably never were.

As for this new little balloon that Condie is flaoting about a “hidden” stockpile of WMDs ready to be assembled and launched at any second, I suppose that might work for the kinds of morons who drive tractors over Dixie Chick CDs but I say get that weak shit out of my face.

BTW, Israel is in violation of plenty of UN resolutions and they have WMDs for sure. When do we get to invade them?

[RickJay]

It’s a sad commentary indeed that it’s become painfully obvious that the President and his administration were lying about the entire WMD issue, and those (including many Dopers) who were so convinced the WMDs were there have… well, just forgotten the issue ever existed.

Where are the calls for Bush’s resignation? Where are the calls for an inquest?

[squeegee]

You mean, “Where’s the outrage” ?
some of you may remember this phrase…

[elucidator]

Sure do! Quote from Bill Bennet, moral paladin, public scold, and high roller! Lost 8 million in Vegas. Haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Ol’ Yeller.

Not quite convinced on the “lying” issue. I don’t doubt they knew that thier evidence was weak (to be generous), but they probably figured they would be proved right in the end ('cause Saddam is/was an evil, evil man). Hell, truth be known, I believed it myself. Didn’t think it was a war-worthy issue, but didn’t doubt he might very well have them. He might not, as well, and have been bluffing that he did to keep thie Iranians off thier feed.

My harping on the bounty money offered but not taken underscores that point: if the Bushistas knew for sure that there were no WMD’s, they wouldn’t have offered the reward. Most likely, they are hoping someone will rat out a warehouse full of Nasty and they can say “Yeppers, thats the one, knew it all along”.

Morons. We are being led to war by morons. And we are so stupid, they’ll probably get away with it.

But hey! The President is looking forward, not backward. Lets see some more footage of the statue falling down and the Gloat on the Boat.

[Kimstu]

What alarms me is the sudden apparent shift on the Administration’s part from being loudly alarmist about WMD’s to being fairly blase—just at the moment when the turmoil in Iraq makes it more likely that unscrupulous looters could sell any bad stuff they found to bad guys. As David Corn writes,

Weeks after the April 9 fall of Baghdad, the Pentagon was still in the process of assembling a survey team of 1,000 experts to search for chemical and biological weapons and signs of a nuclear weapons program. Why had this force not been ready to roll at the war’s start? […]

Bush had maintained that Saddam Hussein was a danger partly because he was close to possessing nuclear weapons. The US military, though, did not bother to visit Iraq’s number-one nuclear site. A Washington Post story noted that before the war the vast Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center held about 4,000 pounds of partially enriched uranium and more than ninety-four tons of natural uranium, as well as radioactive cesium, cobalt and strontium. This is stuff that would be valuable to people seeking to enrich uranium into weapons-grade material or merely interested in constructing a dirty bomb. Yet, the paper reported, “Defense officials acknowledge that the US government has no idea whether any of Tuwaitha’s potentially deadly contents have been stolen, because it has not dispatched investigations to appraise the site. What it does know, according to officials at the Pentagon and US Central Command, is that the sprawling campus, 11 miles south of Baghdad, lay unguarded for days and that looters made their way inside.”

Iraqi looters got inside a nuclear research institute containing thousands of pounds of radioactive materials? :eek: Please tell me I read that wrong.

War was waged–so Bush and others said–to prevent Iraq’s WMD from being transferred to people and groups who would use them against Americans. But the war plan included no schemes to prevent that from occurring. This was a dereliction of duty. Looters beat the United States to Iraq’s nuclear facility. If Iraq had WMD, if Al Qaeda types were in Baghdad, and if these terrorists were seeking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq–the fundamental claims made by the Administration–then there is a good chance the nightmare scenario Bush & Co. exploited to win support for their war has already come true. […]

“Our first priority,” [Tony Blair] recently said, “has got to be to stabilize the country, the second is the humanitarian situation, and the third–and we can take our time about this and so we should–is to make sure that we investigate the weapons of mass destruction.” Take our time? Wasn’t the point that the United States and Britain could not wait one week longer before invading because it was necessary to neutralize the threat from these weapons?

So let’s see. Then, they said we had to invoke the Administration’s pre-emptive strike policy against Iraq because we were in imminent and severe danger from Saddam’s WMD. Now, not only have they not found any WMD, they appear to have been inadequately prepared to look for WMD or to safeguard material that might be used for WMD. (IIRC they immediately put oil sites under military guard, right? But they couldn’t spare troops to keep an eye on the uranium at Tuwaitha?)

If these claims are correct (and I hope to heaven they’re not), then either the Administration was indeed lying about its stated chief motive for invasion and was never seriously concerned about an Iraqi WMD threat, or the war strategists have been hideously, criminally negligent in throwing a country into chaos without making adequate provision for finding and safeguarding its WMD materials.

In other words, either we were never in any serious danger from Iraqi WMD, or we are now very possibly in worse danger from it than ever. I really, really, really, really hope that Bush was lying about there being WMD in Iraq. I kinda hope the Washington Post was lying about there being uranium there too.

[elucidator]

Good points, Kimstu, hadn’t really looked at that point of view.

I also recall a 60 Minutes report just about a week or so before the trajectory of the shit intersected the locus of the fan. Gist of the report was that our anti-chemical suits were weak: poor seals, etc. The report elicited zero response from the Bushistas, no rebuttal, no expression of concern, they just went ahead anyway.

Now, if the report was correct, and Saddam bin Laden used chemical weapons, and US soldiers died as a result…well, you can just imagine! Peasants armed with pitchforks and torches would have dragged GeeDubya out of the White House and…lets just draw a veil over that scene.

So either the Bushistas knew that 60 Minutes got it all wrong, in which case they most likely would have refuted the report…or they knew there was no threat to worry about.

[pantom]

There is no possible way to be overly cynical about the current Administration. None at all.
I never would have thought the shrub’s moral vacuity would stoop to such a point that he would gloat over a victory against a nothing nation that he instigated by lying through his teeth, completely forgetting about the soldiers who died as a result of his dishonesty, while wearing the uniform he dishonored through his desertion at the time of his own call to duty, even as he put ordinary citizens in even more danger of attack by those seeking revenge for this unprovoked attack. Truly beyond belief.
The worst part of it is, he’ll be re-elected for this. By the time the consequences are felt, he’ll be long gone.

[elucidator]

Time wounds all heels, and whatsoever shall go around, therefore shall it come around.

[pantom]

No. Not true. The dead are gone, he’s still there. He’ll die happy and rich, as will all his friends.
Don’t look for justice.