And yet, the Iraqis seem to have acquired yellowcake from somewhere. So perhaps it is not out of the question that someone could believe in good faith, based on what the British were saying and what everyone else took for granted, that Iraq was attempting to acquire yellowcake from Africa as well.
Then it is wrong to accuse him of lying. Given that he was in agreement with practically everyone else on earth, that Iraq had or wanted to re-acquire WMD, it is difficult to see on what basis you are willing to condemn Bush - as you do here:
In other words, Bush knew that the pretenses were false, but nobody else who shared those same “pretenses” knew. Bush must, therefore, have had access to some information that President Clinton, Al Gore, Hilary, etc., had, so that he knew that the pretence that Iraq had WMD programs was false, but no one else did. What would that information be? Because the British told him that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake?
No.
Since Bill Clinton for one based his military action on belief in the same claims that Bush did - that Iraq was not complying with the inspection regime because Saddam was hiding his WMDs. And thus it is not necessary to be fooled by Dick Cheney to have a strong enough belief in Iraqi WMD to base military action on - Clinton had such a belief, and strongly enough that he bombed Iraq based on it.
Which is why I am careful to include Al Gore and Bill Clinton (and even Hilary, the Co-President) in the list of those who thought Iraq had WMD. They, at least, were not fooled by Bush, since Bush was not President when Clinton bombed Iraq. And therefore, they must have had sources of unbiassed, un-massaged information sufficient to convince them that Iraq was up to something, and something serious enough to warrant bombs and killing.
And therefore I do not see the evidence that says Bush lied. It was apparent to almost everyone throughout the 90s that Iraq was not coming clean about its weapons programs. What is it between January 20, 2001 and the invasion that showed that Iraq did not have WMD, and showed it definitely and clearly enough to convince a reasonable observer that all the previous Democrats were completely (although honestly) mistaken, and so obvious that only a liar could continue to maintain that Iraq had WMD?
I would say that it is the opposite. The only reason that it is now possible to conclude that Iraq’s WMD programs were apparently in abeyance is that Bush invaded. We know what we know now. But it is not possible or reasonable - and no reasonable person knew prior the invasion - to conclude that Saddam had disarmed, or that he was going to comply with the inspection regime as he had promised to do. We only know anything like that now, because Bush invaded, and overthrew the regime, and now we know what Saddam was at some pains to prevent the inspections regime from showing.
Hindsight is 20/20. If anti-war opponents are so sure now that Iraq was definitely disarmed, why did they not say so before the invasion? I heard a lot of “let the inspections work (for another twelve years)”. Work on what? Why call for inspections to continue if you know there is nothing to find?
The consensus was quite clear, on both sides of the aisle and for years before Bush was elected. And until you can show why it is not possible to think that Iraq had WMD before the invasion, it is unfair to accuse Bush of lying about something that everyone else “knew” as well.
Regards,
Shodan