# Please tell me why you claim Bush lied about WMD? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2005, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650 "2005-03-21T23:53:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![PETERFI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PETERFI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PETERFI)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/181 "2005-03-26T04:46:23Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Clinton said he had them, Kerry said he had them, plus many international figures. Why do you only accuse Bush? Gosh, Bush lovers get so Mad :mad: when we say that Bush lied about WMD, of Course we say it as often as possible! šŸ†’ Bush Lied! :mad: Bush Lied! :mad: :mad: Bush Lied! :mad: :mad: :mad: I mean, things are so grim now for us, what else can we do to have fun right now? That, and the fact that we think that Bush had decided well before the first election what he was going to do, ignored the reports of the U.N. Inspection Teams, and went ahead with his plans anyway. :smack: That is, we say it because we think he did lie to us. We donā€™t think that either Kerry or Clinton lied to us. But we think that Bush did. Timing in life is everything. At the critical moment, when the decision to invade or not had to be made, most Democrats and more than a few others, think that Bush had a pretty good idea that he would find no WMDā€™s in IRAQ but felt it was O.K. to go, because he could say he wasnā€™t 100.0000000% certain. I am sure he felt that Sadaam was a nasty guy and did very bad things. But that was not a justifiable reason to rush into Iraq all by our lonesomes alienating so many other nations making apparent liars out of worldwide assets like Sec. of Defense. Powell. So thatā€™s a lot of it. That and the nagging feeling that the last two elections were stolen. I know these answers may drive you nuts, but they are actually closer to the truth than most people would write I think. I donā€™t think they show a particularly good side of people. I just think Iā€™m fairly right about it. Peter [The Peter Files](http://ThePeterFiles.blogspot.com) ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/182 "2005-03-26T04:52:57Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I donā€™t think it was necessary to pour over every scrap of pre-war data to get a suspicion that the Bush Administrationā€™s case was not on the up-and-up. For instance, when the ā€œCoalition of the Willingā€ was being assembled, it wasnā€™t hard to ask oneself the question, ā€œIf the Administration really had solid proof that Saddam has WMDs, why donā€™t they share it with the nationā€™s allies ā€“ especially France and Germany ā€“ and convince them to get on board the bandwagon?ā€ When one is suspecting another of drawing faulty conclusions from incomplete evidence it does not help oneā€™s case to be anything less than extremely thorough. When one is asserting deliberate manipulation(cherry-picking) of evidence to support some pre-concieved plan, then to do less than be as comprehensive as possible in analyzing the situation is to set oneself up for failure when holes in your own analysis appear. You will not see me call someone a liar without damn good evidence and support for such an assertion. Just as you would never see me fire the first shot without one HELL of a compelling case. Suspicions being good enough and things not passing ā€œthe smell testā€ got us where we are today. Iā€™m deliberately moving away from that mode of operation. YMMV. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/183 "2005-03-26T05:01:12Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > However, thereā€™s is the background odor that exudes from politics in general. This masks more than some suppose and definitely makes it hard to distinguish one foulness from another. And in this case, the trauma from 9/11, and the publicā€™s desire to see a great leader putting the nation on a resolute course to deal with an external threat made hornswoggling even easier than usual. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/184 "2005-03-26T06:24:59Z")
The big lie now is the insistence on putting Afghanistan (getting the perpetrators of 9/11 and the protectors of those criminals) in the same level/purpose/effort as Iraq (no 9/11 connections, not Saudi Arabia, Oil) In Afghanistan, the rest of the word is willing to risk the lives of itā€™s soldiers, secure in the knowledge that there was a good reason to get there (I am on record of reluctantly accepting going into Afghanistan) French, German, Spanish troops, are still risking their lives together with American troops, but it takes constant lying or equivocation to continue mentioning Afghanistan and Iraq in the same breath. Back then, when the drums of the Iraq war started, The warning sign appeared when I realized the same nations that were helping us in Afghanistan saw that Iraq was different, as allies, they normally had access to most of the same intelligence as the USA, (or to better ones as it turned out) even with that, they told the US to forget Iraq. Today, the fearless leader continues with his equivocations even when the coalition of the willing is shrinking, an equivocation that even my private college teachers in humanities showed to me that it is equivalent to lie. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/185 "2005-03-26T06:56:19Z")
Dude? Afghiaistan? What is this place of which you speak? ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/186 "2005-03-26T21:37:11Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > the Bush Administration was pushing for an invasion anyway. That behavior should have raised warning flags in peopleā€™s mindsā€¦ Maybe the tip off was Andy Card:" You donā€™t bring a product to market in Augustā€¦" ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/187 "2005-03-26T21:54:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Dude? Afghiaistan? What is this place of which you speak? What, did I screw up again? Checks the spellingā€¦ Afghanistan, yep, that is the spellingā€¦ But, no way **lucy** can make that mistake, thereforeā€¦ What is this Afgh **ia** istan place of which you speak? šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/188 "2005-03-26T22:53:13Z")
I couldnā€™t have, therefore I didnā€™t. Story goes a guy who bought an early Picasso work was worried about its authenticity. Since he lived in France, it wasnā€™t too difficult to track him down at the beach. The gentleman approached respectfully and acquainted Piccasso with his concern about the painting, and Picasso agreed to look at it. He showed him the picture, and Picasso shook his head disdainfully. ā€œNo! It is not a Picasso!ā€ The art collector was, of course, devestated. ā€œAre you sure? Isnā€™t this your signature at the bottom?ā€ ā€œOh, yes, of course I painted it. But its still not a Picasso!ā€ ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/189 "2005-03-28T19:39:02Z")
Is that something like Zaphod Beeblebrox coming in six-packs? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/190 "2005-03-28T20:03:39Z")
This deserves a cross linking: [\*\*Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Adminā€™s \*\*[Mis] **Use of Intel re Iraq** ](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242238) ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2005, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/191 "2005-03-29T06:08:21Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Iā€™ve been completely unable to find anything substantial supporting WHY Bush et al thought the data they have was correct in light of conflicting data coming in from the UNā€¦or even to find the meat of what that data was. Mostly just hints and inuendo wrapped in ā€˜its classifiedā€™. Exactly, and that has always been a serious problem for many of us. Bush went to war primarily on the strength of rhetoric and fear in order to pursue not WMDs as he stated but his own agenda, and those who noticed this alarming development have been objecting ever since. Of course, they have also been joined by those who are automatically opposed to Bush on less valid grounds, which perhaps results in a less clear message ā€“ but we have no control over that rabble. > [@](#): > > I spent about an hour last night (granted, not an exhaustive search by any means) going through whats available and kept running up against statements that what I was reading was only the unclassified portion, the rest was classified. In light of this Iā€™ll have to backpedal on what I promised to Abeā€¦I canā€™t find anything compelling that hasnā€™t already been shown (which I admit isnā€™t much) to support WHY Bush et al thought their data was more solid than what was coming out of the UN inspectors on the ground. Consider this a retraction of my earlier statements and a serious rethinking of my position on this issue. My hatā€™s off to you. > [@](#): > > I still think they are valid, I still think that Bush and the administration had SOME evidence they thought was solidā€¦but I have to admit Iā€™m much less sure than I was now that Iā€™ve personally dug into what I could find. Iā€™m also much more sympathetic to the position that Bush lied about the whole thingā€¦I can much better understand why folks are so convinced this was the case. Like Clinton before him, Bush had _some_ intelligence on this subject. Clinton realized it was insufficient to go to war, but Bush went about inflating and adding to the evidence as much as possible while playing the politics of fear, and very likely figured that he would find _something_ in Iraq that he could use after the fact to justify his choices and make everyone forget about the irregularities required to get to Baghdad. That, as nearly as I can tell, was his plan. Simple application of the sceptical method showed that there was no real evidence, only, as already mentioned, smoke and mirrors on an orchestrated scale. Whatā€™s been making us sceptics fret since then is that Bush managed to build a great fantasy castle in the clouds, and millions of people moved in right away without even a thought as to the non-existent foundations. The best thing one can hear on these boards, on any topic but especially on this one, is ā€œafter a review of the available evidence I have revised my positionā€¦ā€. That shows that the power of critical thinking continues to exceed that of propaganda, even propaganda as powerful as that of Bushite machinery. Itā€™s a good day. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/192 "2005-03-29T16:47:27Z")
Donā€™t forget the groups founded to ā€˜enhanceā€™ the case that waiting to deal with Hussein entailed an unacceptable threat like the Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the [Office of Special Plans](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=199309). Donā€™t forget that we allowed Zarqawi to persist in Iraq becauise he bolstered the case for war. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/193 "2005-03-29T20:05:06Z")
How about the _ongoing_ lies. Or do some of you _really_ believe in the altruistic propaganda thatā€™s being used to justify the enduring occupation? If you do, I suggest you follow the money trail to disabuse yourselves of that risible notion. Naomi Klein wrote an excellent article on the topic, Sept of last year. [Baghdad Year Zero](http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-13.htm) > [@](#): > > The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the warā€™s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bushā€™s Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists. > > Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself. > > The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=9)