# Did Bush lie to justify invading Iraq for bad reasons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368 "2008-07-13T22:31:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/101 "2008-07-15T21:45:02Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] To the notion that Bush wanted to go to war to provide a morale boost I am just not seeing it. [/QUOTE] Gah! :smack: I knew better than to check in on this thread in the middle of a busy day. No one is saying Bush wanted to go to war to boost anyone’s morale! They are saying he and his administration likely put a more positive spin on things in an effort to boost the nation’s morale prior to taking on the war, and that this something that leaders everywhere do in times of armed conflict. And with that, I’m out of here for now. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/102 "2008-07-15T21:57:51Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] Gah! :smack: I knew better than to check in on this thread in the middle of a busy day. No one is saying Bush wanted to go to war to boost anyone’s morale! They are saying he and his administration likely put a more positive spin on things in an effort to boost the nation’s morale prior to taking on the war, and that this something that leaders everywhere do in times of conflict. [/QUOTE] Sorry if I missed something. I read **PRR** in post #86: “On the smaller stuff, I will contend that all the jingoism, all the fear-mongering, all the “bring it on” stuff (that Bush himself concedes now was a mistake, btw) was pure posturing that could only have had “morale-building” at its aim.” Seems to me Bush was selling F.U.D. in order to coax the US to war and not spinning for morale. Guess I am just missing how morale is working in here and I’ll stick with the fun of endlessly debunking the willfully blind here who think Bush & Co. were truthful and saved the US from the evil Iraqis. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/103 "2008-07-15T22:31:28Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] Gah! :smack: I knew better than to check in on this thread in the middle of a busy day. No one is saying Bush wanted to go to war to boost anyone’s morale! They are saying he and his administration likely put a more positive spin on things in an effort to boost the nation’s morale prior to taking on the war, and that this something that leaders everywhere do in times of armed conflict. And with that, I’m out of here for now. [/QUOTE] Do you have some examples of what you consider this positive spin? I don’t think anyone is considering statements that we’ve got the best army and the bravest soldiers or that we fight on the side of good lies or worthy of any rebuttal. We’re disputing the justification for war, which doesn’t have a heck of a lot to do with the nation’s morale. Except maybe admitting we’re going to war for bogus reasons wouldn’t be good for morale. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2008, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/104 "2008-07-15T22:59:22Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] If we’re talking about whether a lie = a false statement, or if mislead = deceive, we might be stuck in a semantic morass for quite a while. [/QUOTE] You point out a mistake that is made a surprisingly large number of times on a board devoted to fighting ignorance. Even between posters, there is a quick trigger to call something a lie, when the only evidence is that it is a mistake. When it comes to Bush the incidence gets ratcheted up even more. Any mistake from Bush, particularly one having to do with the war, immediately becomes a lie. The fact of the matter is that the two things are not synonymous. and that there is an additional burden of proof for a mistake to be a lie, i.e., that the person who spoke in error did so knowingly. I would think people could agree on that, and level their accusations accordingly. No? ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/105 "2008-07-16T02:03:41Z")
But just because it isn’t a lie doesn’t mean it wasn’t criminal. For example, I work under some environmental regulations that state, in part, that it is illegal to knowingly discharge effluent containing chrome in excess of 5ppm and then there are a lot of civil and criminal penalties listed. If I have a tank full of effluent and decide to dump it, I can’t take just anyone’s word for it that it’s below the legal limit, and I can’t avoid testing it and claim “Aha, I didn’t knowingly dump anything. I had no idea what the chrome content of that waste was, and I’m as shocked as you are.”, and I can’t just choose not to believe all the people who tell me it is over the regulatory limit. It’s my responsibility to know what’s in that tank, and the word used to describe people who don’t find out is inmate. There’s such a thing as criminal ignorance, and invading Iraq without knowing the extent of the threat they offered may well rise to that level, depending on how hard you had to work to remain ignorant. If I can go to jail for not knowing something it was my job to know why not President Bush? I’m not saying he’s guilty, I’d have to hear a lot of evidence first, but if I was on the grand jury I might vote to indict. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/106 "2008-07-16T05:33:02Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] You point out a mistake that is made a surprisingly large number of times on a board devoted to fighting ignorance. Even between posters, there is a quick trigger to call something a lie, when the only evidence is that it is a mistake. When it comes to Bush the incidence gets ratcheted up even more. Any mistake from Bush, particularly one having to do with the war, immediately becomes a lie. The fact of the matter is that the two things are not synonymous. and that there is an additional burden of proof for a mistake to be a lie, i.e., that the person who spoke in error did so knowingly. I would think people could agree on that, and level their accusations accordingly. No? [/QUOTE] I agree with what you are saying there. I am also shocked that you do not see whole web sites that detail, with cites, over 900 instances of Bush & Co. perverting the truth in order to make a case for war as not compelling. If it were libruls nitpicking one statement then sure. But it is not one statement but literally hundreds and it is not nitpicking semantics. Bush and his cronies _provably_ lied (yes lied) as well as misrepresented the evidence they were absolutely in possession of in the lead up to the war. It was one monstrous spin machine and it really is not debatable that they merely misspoke or were misled by vague CIA/NSA/DIA/etc intelligence. Again, it is PROVABLE and INCONTROVERTIBLE. The cites for that are in this thread. Or pick up one of a number of books that speaks to this. In short it is a mistake when you misspeak once. It is not a mistake when you repeat the same falsities over the course of months with a clear goal in mind. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/107 "2008-07-16T08:39:44Z")
[QUOTE=Bill Door] But just because it isn’t a lie doesn’t mean it wasn’t criminal. For example, I work under some environmental regulations that state, in part, that it is illegal to knowingly discharge effluent containing chrome in excess of 5ppm and then there are a lot of civil and criminal penalties listed. If I have a tank full of effluent and decide to dump it, I can’t take just anyone’s word for it that it’s below the legal limit, and I can’t avoid testing it and claim “Aha, I didn’t knowingly dump anything. I had no idea what the chrome content of that waste was, and I’m as shocked as you are.”, and I can’t just choose not to believe all the people who tell me it is over the regulatory limit. It’s my responsibility to know what’s in that tank, and the word used to describe people who don’t find out is inmate. There’s such a thing as criminal ignorance, and invading Iraq without knowing the extent of the threat they offered may well rise to that level, depending on how hard you had to work to remain ignorant. If I can go to jail for not knowing something it was my job to know why not President Bush? I’m not saying he’s guilty, I’d have to hear a lot of evidence first, but if I was on the grand jury I might vote to indict. [/QUOTE] I am not trying to absolve Bush of his misdeeds. I am no fan of the man. My only point goes to claims of lying. Something is either a lie or it isn’t. It’s really that simple. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/108 "2008-07-16T08:41:28Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] I agree with what you are saying there. I am also shocked that you do not see whole web sites that detail, with cites, over 900 instances of Bush & Co. perverting the truth in order to make a case for war as not compelling. If it were libruls nitpicking one statement then sure. But it is not one statement but literally hundreds and it is not nitpicking semantics. Bush and his cronies _provably_ lied (yes lied) as well as misrepresented the evidence they were absolutely in possession of in the lead up to the war. It was one monstrous spin machine and it really is not debatable that they merely misspoke or were misled by vague CIA/NSA/DIA/etc intelligence. Again, it is PROVABLE and INCONTROVERTIBLE. The cites for that are in this thread. Or pick up one of a number of books that speaks to this. In short it is a mistake when you misspeak once. It is not a mistake when you repeat the same falsities over the course of months with a clear goal in mind. [/QUOTE] I’m a little confused by your response. You say you agree, then seem to not agree. As I just posted. Something is either a lie or it is not. Someone either spoke an untruth while knowing it to be untrue or he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/109 "2008-07-16T09:17:54Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] I am not trying to absolve Bush of his misdeeds. I am no fan of the man. My only point goes to claims of lying. Something is either a lie or it isn’t. It’s really that simple. [/QUOTE] Most important yet, something is a fact or it isn´t. So when the Bush administration said that they knew for a fact not only that Iraq had WMDs but also that they knew where the WMDs where, they where lying. After all you can´t have factual knowledge of something that doesn´t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/110 "2008-07-16T11:18:46Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] I’m a little confused by your response. You say you agree, then seem to not agree. As I just posted. Something is either a lie or it is not. Someone either spoke an untruth while knowing it to be untrue or he didn’t. [/QUOTE] No, it’s pretty simply. \*\*Whack-a-Mole \*\* understands perfectly the nuances and distinctions between knowing lies and totally innocent mistaken utterances. He is simply saying flat out that Bush lied. That’s what the evidence suggests. You are simply burying your head when it comes to the cites you are being given. The 935 false statements are not stated by the cite given merely to have been false. The cite goes further and makes a very convincing case that Bushco _knew_ that the statements were false. That’s called lying. I notice you’ve ducked any kind of response to my last post by the way. It seems to me that in your post #32 when you said: “In order to do that, it is incumbent upon [the executive] to put the most attractive face on the action possible” what you were really meaning was it’s OK for them to mislead. And further, by implication, that that is what Bushco did. It’s just that when it comes to admitting this, you have to use euphemisms like “most attractive face possible” because you can’t bring yourself to say straight out that what you are talking about is misleading people. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/111 "2008-07-16T11:40:02Z")
Let’s take them nice and easy. In fact, one at a time. Apologists ready? Try this one: > [@](#): > > In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: “ **We found the weapons of mass destruction.** ” Bush was referencing two trailers or “mobile labs” discovered in Iraq. > > **Just days earlier** , the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers “could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured.” Lie or not? Says right there that the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded **days earlier** they couldn’t be. Note: all cites from [The Center for Public Integrity](http://www.publicintegrity.org/) 934 to go… ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/112 "2008-07-16T12:07:15Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] I’m a little confused by your response. You say you agree, then seem to not agree. As I just posted. Something is either a lie or it is not. Someone either spoke an untruth while knowing it to be untrue or he didn’t. [/QUOTE] I agree in general that people may scream “lie” on some point or other that does not merit it because they dislike the person saying it (or what they are saying). I think Bushco, in their effort to drive the country to war, intentionally deceived AND outright lied. Moreover they did it repeatedly and so often that there is no way it can be chalked up to a mistake or minor spin. Trying to dodge the _overwhelming_ evidence with nitpicking semantics that do zero to mitigate any of it is just willfully ignorant or intentionally argumentative. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/113 "2008-07-16T14:35:51Z")
Seems to me such things as \*\*Red Fury \*\* points out are clearly “lies” and not mistakes or erroneous recommendations, unless you’re willing to concede that Bush and every advisor he has is hopelessly illiterate. It’s really astonishing to me how strictly “lying” gets defined by Bush’s defenders–you’d think THEY were being accused of lying. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/114 "2008-07-16T16:51:57Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] Seems to me such things as \*\*Red Fury \*\* points out are clearly “lies” and not mistakes or erroneous recommendations. [/QUOTE] Belive it or not, I think you are correct! :eek: But not like you think: it only _seems_ to you that they are lies - which of course doesn’t make them so. Take **Red’s** post as an example. To me, not being a Bush-hayter, there are several perfectly acceptable reasons for this. The info on the trailers may not have filtered back up to Bush by the time he made those comments; the report may not yet have been vetted for accuracy, or even that the trailers in question were the ones being examined. (IIRC, there was widespread speculation that Hussein, in the game of cat-and-mouse that he was playing, was moving them around to avoid detection and perhaps using some as innocent decoys); Bush may not have been referring to the trailers at all but perhaps something else; we have only the word of whoever **Red** is quoting; etc., etc. Proof is not proof if logical alternatives exist as to what it purports to prove. I’ve seen nothing in this thread that couldn’t have other, legitimate explanations. And frankly, you guys appear to be grasping at straws here. The big meme the last several years has been that Bush knew full and well that Iraq didn’t have WMD and lied about it so as to prosecute a war that wanted for personal reasons…usually given as: avenge daddy/steal Iraq’s oil/make Cheney-Haliburton rich. Now, having been called on to offer incontrovertible proof that this is the case and being unable to provide it, you resort to hairsplitting of one sort or another so as to make a case of “if it looks like a duck”, etc. This question is far too important to make if-it-looks-like-a-duck assumptions. Either Bush deliberately, knowingly lied in order to justify a war he wanted to pursue for personal reasons, or he didn’t…and again no _proof_ has been offered that he did. In any war, there are thousands of apparent inconsistencies between what this person said or knew and what someone else said or knew. There can even be questions as to whether they actually knew it or only thought they did (and I’m talking about people on both sides here). So I would say to the OP: No, unless incontrovertible proof can be offered to the contrary, Bush did not lie to justify invading Iraq for bad reasons. I will be out the rest of the day. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/115 "2008-07-16T17:01:15Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] It’s really astonishing to me how strictly “lying” gets defined by Bush’s defenders–you’d think THEY were being accused of lying. [/QUOTE] And it’s astonishing to me how sloppily lying gets defined by you and other Bush detractors. As I said just above, this question of whether or not Bush deliberately lied us into a war that would have been unjustified otherwise is far too important to be making if-it-walks-like-a-duck assumptions. Either you know for a fact that Bush did so, or you don’t. Assumptions and what things ‘look like’ don’t count. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/116 "2008-07-16T17:04:08Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] Proof is not proof if logical alternatives exist as to what it purports to prove. I’ve seen nothing in this thread that couldn’t have other, legitimate explanations. And frankly, you guys appear to be grasping at straws here. The big meme the last several years has been that Bush knew full and well that Iraq didn’t have WMD and lied about it so as to prosecute a war that wanted for personal reasons…usually given as: avenge daddy/steal Iraq’s oil/make Cheney-Haliburton rich. Now, having been called on to offer incontrovertible proof that this is the case and being unable to provide it, you resort to hairsplitting of one sort or another so as to make a case of “if it looks like a duck”, etc. This question is far too important to make if-it-looks-like-a-duck assumptions. Either Bush deliberately, knowingly lied in order to justify a war he wanted to pursue for personal reasons, or he didn’t…and again no _proof_ has been offered that he did. [/QUOTE] Alas, if the same level of stringent, hairsplitting nitpickery would had been used to analyze and refute the Bush administration claims about the threat of Iraq WMD a war may have been aborted and a whole lot of people wouldn´t be dead. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/117 "2008-07-16T17:07:15Z")
With that standard for drawing definitive conclusions, no one would ever get convicted of any crime at all, absent a confession, which could always be withdrawn. Juries would constantly return verdicts of “Gosh, we don’t really know. All the evidence says guilty, but there may be some other explanation that the defense attorney didn’t think of, and besides we might not even be real but characters in someone’s dream.” Which BTW is why I’d like to see Bush stand trial on criminal charges. Because juries can and do conclude things that are “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “beyond any possible or imaginable doubts whatsoever.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/118 "2008-07-16T17:26:48Z")
Bush went to war because his “advisors” told him that allowing saddam to stay in power would result in: 1. an attack upon Israel 2. soaring crude oil prices (if saddam got control of Saudi Arabia) There was actually some truth to this: Saddam was broke-he needed cash, and the logical thing to do was to get control of more oil. More presciently, the fall of Saddam would have plunged the gulf into instability, causing soaring oil prices. As for the fairy tale about a democratic Iraq: nice idea, but never was going to happen. we ought to slice the place up and cut a deal with the Kurds: build a base in Kurdistan, and contruct a pipeline through Syria to the Med. and tell the world that we will defend it…and let the Shia and Sunni slaughter eachother, to their heart’s content! ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/119 "2008-07-16T18:06:31Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] The info on the trailers may not have filtered back up to Bush by the time he made those comments; [/quote] Then he should not have made a categorical statement of fact. > [@](#): > > the report may not yet have been vetted for accuracy, Then he should not have made a categorical statement of fact. > [@](#): > > or even that the trailers in question were the ones being examined. Then he should not have made a categorical statement of fact. > [@](#): > > Bush may not have been referring to the trailers at all but perhaps something else; we have only the word of whoever **Red** is quoting; etc., etc. I suppose you could use that argument about anything reported after the fact, right? What would constitute adequate context? Full video? > [@](#): > > Either Bush deliberately, knowingly lied in order to justify a war he wanted to pursue for personal reasons, or he didn’t… You have a false assumption hrere. I, and I think many others, do not assume “personal reasons.” I’m perfectly willing to assume that President Bush and his administration had motivators beyond the personal for gathering and increasing popular support for a war in Iraq. But I do not believe that any collection of noble intentions justifies general deception in pursuit of that support. Believe it or not, there are those of us who are not your idea of “Bush-haters” who nonetheless don’t care much for being deceived by our leaders, regardless of political stripe. And it sure looks like you’re being just as knee-jerk in support of the President as those you decry are in opposition. So, what are your conditions for “incontrovertible proof?” Is there really _any_ evidence which would make you consider the possibility of dishonesty and deception regarding the Iraq war? . ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368/120 "2008-07-16T18:11:39Z")
[QUOTE=Starving Artist] Belive it or not, I think you are correct! :eek: But not like you think: it only _seems_ to you that they are lies - which of course doesn’t make them so. Take **Red’s** post as an example. To me, not being a Bush-hayter, there are several perfectly acceptable reasons for this. The info on the trailers may not have filtered back up to Bush by the time he made those comments; the report may not yet have been vetted for accuracy, or even that the trailers in question were the ones being examined. (IIRC, there was widespread speculation that Hussein, in the game of cat-and-mouse that he was playing, was moving them around to avoid detection and perhaps using some as innocent decoys); Bush may not have been referring to the trailers at all but perhaps something else; we have only the word of whoever **Red** is quoting; etc., etc. Proof is not proof if logical alternatives exist as to what it purports to prove. I’ve seen nothing in this thread that couldn’t have other, legitimate explanations. [/QUOTE] So, when your kids say an alien beamed into your house and broke the lamp, they and the ball they were playing with had nothing to do with it, do you apply the same careful analysis as above? Philip Johnson talking about evolution has nothing on you, my friend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bush-lie-to-justify-invading-iraq-for-bad-reasons/456368.md?page=7)