# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/61 "2005-03-22T19:36:55Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Really? You need to back that assertion up then because thats not my own reading of history. If your reading of history is that all, or even many, of our previous wars have been based on lies, _you’ll_ have to back it up. I’ll spot you Tonkin Gulf, how about that? Note that the war it led to was a disastrous mistake, though. > [@](#): > > You don’t have to lead me to water Elvis…just show me something compelling that shows that Bush knew for a fact that WMD didn’t exist in Iraq but chose to go to war anyway. What part of “He didn’t care \*what \* the facts were” didn’t you … ah, the hell with it. > [@](#): > > I’m sure even the administration realized its case wasn’t clear cut enough to guarentee war with Iraq…certainly not in light of the rampant ignorance of people who don’t understand the nature of intelligence and want 100% guarentees. What part of “That’s what the inspectors were for” didn’t you … ah, the hell with that too. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone is disputing that Bush exaggerated the case that Iraq had WMD, that he cherry picked the data, or that he made his case seem much more solid than it was. What I’m disputing is that A) this is different than what other politicians do regularly, including those previous presidents that took us to war, and B) that this constitutes a lie of the core issue…again, that Bush did or did not know FOR A FACT, that Iraq had WMD. A) explain your examples, and B) agreed, it’s _worse_. At some point persistence becomes simple obstinacy, ya know? You’re there. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/62 "2005-03-22T19:49:13Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > /em looks around frantically at the hounds snapping at his heals Apart from telling you to get over yourself and to stop insulting people who are presenting contrary information to your argument that you cannot handle, I did wonder whither the OP? You might say that it is unfortunate that the OP abandoned you and your ‘heals’ to the hounds. I would suggest that it was unfortunate that you waded in with the offensive BUSHLIEDBUSHLIED attack on others, and it is unfortunate that you are so poorly equipped to defend your chosen position, treading a line between “lying” and “deceiving.” I would like someone who has chosen the point of view that you and the OP have to once and for all address the Rumsfeld text I have cited now in two threads that deal with the prevarications of the Bush administration. I don’t think there is any way around the issue that Rumsfeld lies in that exchange about links between al Queda. I think it is also informative that he is specifically questioned about the concerted effort on the part of the administration as represented by three officials who are expressly putting out the same information at the same time. How is this not a lie, officially orchestrated by the Bush administration? It is also important to consider that this concerted effort preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq resolution by only a couple of weeks. This administration lied with the express intent of swaying the Senate vote, and perhaps the public acceptance, of their pre-existing need to go to war with Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/63 "2005-03-22T19:49:30Z")
I no longer claim Bush lied in the lead up to the Iraq war. He didn’t lie. After reading Harry Frankfort’s incredible essay\*, it became clear to me that he [bullshitted](http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268/). Thus, anyone who continues to support him in this matter is spewing bullshit. \*unfortunately, the full text of the essay is no longer available online. I just ordered it from Amazon, however! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/64 "2005-03-22T19:55:40Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > It seems the onus might be on you to show that other presidents have started preventive wars using similar tactics. If you’re saying Bush is no different than his predecessors with regard to truth-telling and war-selling, give some examples to stengthen your case. How about I give a drive by sample of my thoughts as I have a meeting to get too and don’t have time for massive research. I have no intention of providing cites for any of this btw…if you are interested look it up for yourself, unless Elvis honors my request for proof that GW was alone as the only president to lead us to war using deceptions. These are all current enough I’m not going to bother giving any details, just pointing to where its debatable that deceptions occured. I’ll give some brief details of earlier presidents. Again, I have no intention of citing all this…if you are interested in details look them up for yourself. If you think I’m wrong about something by all means point it out…I’m doing this off the top of my head and I’m in a rush. Clinton: Somalia, Bosnia (perhaps the bombings in Iraq since that data is now considered ‘lies’ :)) Bush I: Panama Reagan: Grenada, Iran Contra * * * Carter: Well, I can’t think of any deliberate deception from Carter off the top of my head pertaining to war. Even the failed rescue attempt of the hostages wasn’t a deception, merely bungled. Nixon/Johnson/Kennedy: Various deceptions reguarding Vietnam (like the Gulf of Tonkin incident). Various deceptions as to how the war was going, to bolster confidence. Kennedy also had Bay of Pigs and some deceptions pertaining to the Cuban Missile crisis…mostly deceptions of omission here, if memory serves. Truman: Possible deceptions over the use of the atomic bomb (this is definitely debatable) against Japan pertaining to the current state of the Japanese military, as well as the actual reasons for using the bomb (i.e. to prevent the Russians from gaining more of a foothold, etc). Possible deceptions over US involvement in Korea, and deceptions to the public on how the conflict was going, to bolster moral. Roosevelt: Hidden naval war with Germany (this is, to my mind, a bigger transgression than Bush’s, though I see the necessity and in the end even agree with Roosevelt…and deeply respect him too). Manuvered the US towards war despite the fact that most citizens were opposed. Various deceptions pertaining to negotiations with Japan and the US’s positions. If you have a tin foil hat, possible deceptions on a massive scale about allowing the Japanese to attack us first at Pearl Harbor. Various war time deceptions to bolster confidence. Wilson: Various deceptions to involve the US in WWI, again in opposition to the majority will. Lots of pre-war propaganda deceptions here to encourage support for the war by the citizens (very similar to what Bush did here IMO, as far as the demonization aspects go). Lincoln: Various deceptions used to take and keep the US in the war against the south, lots of propaganda type deceptions about how things were going, etc. Madison: Deceptions to get a declaration of war with Britian (excuses like the conscripting of our sailors and the like), deceptions as to the US’s intent (i.e. war portrayed as a defensive struggle against British oppression, while planning an invasion and land grab in Canada) and various war time deceptions used to bolster confidence about how things were going. Washington/Founding Fathers: I can’t think of any specific examples, but then I’m not well versed in this era of history either. -XT ---
**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:** [March 22, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/65 "2005-03-22T20:04:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > / > > To me it showed a lack of understanding of a representative government system and the implication that the citizens would need to be unanomous on a subject for it to be legitimate. Not my objection. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we can go to war only if \> 50% of the population agree in a poll. A President is supposed to lead, not follow the numbers. It would take guts to do what he thought was the right thing even though the people didn’t agree. But Bush has no guts. He decided on what he wanted to do, lied to get the public behind him, then claimed he was following a mandate. I live in California, so I’ve seen first hand what happens when policy is micromanaged through propositions. > [@](#): > > I freely conceed that Bush deceived the American public as to how solid the case was for WMD in Iraq. I freely conceed that when he and the others in the administration made their case they did so with rock hard certainty…when the data they had was conflicting and uncertain. They made it the central theme and reason for the invasion in fact, the decisively convincing factor. I also freely conceed that Bush et al used WMD as an excuse, that they had other reasons that they felt made it necessary for the US to invade Iraq. > > What I don’t conceed as I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence for is that at the core Bush lied that there were WMD in Iraq…I still believe that he DID think there were WMD, and that they would be found to vindicate him for his invasion. > > -XT Maybe you can agree that he lied about the certainty of WMDs? I agree with most of your points about the need for leadership. But FDR did Lend Lease even when I suspect most of the public was against it. (I don’t have any polls for this.) But he did it based on the facts - he didn’t make up an imminent threat to America from Germany. But maybe it isn’t a lie, maybe it is just bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/66 "2005-03-22T20:06:04Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Wilson: Various deceptions to involve the US in WWI, again in opposition to the majority will. Lots of pre-war propaganda deceptions here to encourage support for the war by the citizens (very similar to what Bush did here IMO, as far as the demonization aspects go). Just to bolster you point, everyone remembers the Zimmerman Telegram, no? That’s the one where Germany offered to give Mexico back the southwest if they helped out in the war (before the US was in the BTW). It pissed people here off enough that the war became much more popular. When the Brittish gave a copy of that telegram to Wilson (we did not intercept it ourselves) they could offer very little proof that it was genuine. Even more so, they vehemently asked us not to publish what little proof they could offer. So, as far as the public knew, Wilson had discovered this telegram from an anonoumous source. There was a considerable period of time when it looked likely that people would simply not believe it. Luckily for Wilson the German foriegn minister simply admitted that it was accurate. But before he did, the telegram was indeed “questionable intelligence”. Wilson certainly did not present it as such. He claimed that it definately was what it later turned out to be. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/67 "2005-03-22T20:38:24Z")
Just because others have also done wrong, does not make a wrong right. I suspect that there’s a particular name for this sort of argument, but I forget it off hand. It’s a convenient shorthand to assume that politicians’re deceptive. Yet, no matter how many of them do it it will still not be something that should be tolerated in a nation with a democratic government. Numerous politicans have been corrupt, accepting bribes and such. Still, this behavior, despite its relative prevalence, should not be tolerated and should be railed against where discovered. **It’s a matter of how low you’re willing for your country’s morals to go.** I think that we, the electorate should confront perfidy in government whenever and where ever we find it. If we allow politicians to deceive the electorate freely, then we lose our Liberty as a free people. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/68 "2005-03-22T21:24:48Z")
Clinton: Didn’t start a full-scale war, is no longer president. Bush: Current president. Started a full-scale war. One of these things is NOT like the other _fucking_ thing… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/69 "2005-03-22T21:53:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Maybe you can agree that he lied about the certainty of WMDs? Certainly. I thought I’d already done so in fact. > [@PatriotX](#): > > Just because others have also done wrong, does not make a wrong right. I agree. I never said what Bush did was right…in fact, I’ve said repeatedly I thought his decision to go to war with Iraq was stupid. > [@Voyager](#): > > I agree with most of your points about the need for leadership. But FDR did Lend Lease even when I suspect most of the public was against it. (I don’t have any polls for this.) But he did it based on the facts - he didn’t make up an imminent threat to America from Germany. Completely disagree. There was no ‘imminent threat’ to America from Germany…its preposterous, certainly in light of history. Germany was barely holding its own against the French and the British in WWI…they wouldn’t have a hope in hell of threatening the US. Even in WWII there was no real threat to the US from Europe…certainly not an ‘imminent’ one. > [@PatriotX](#): > > Get over this, “It’s okay because everyone else is doing it,” excuse. You are absolutely correct. Besides I’m blathering on here. I’ve already said what I meant to say in other threads about this…and said way more than enough crapola in THIS thread to boot. > [@Loopydude](#): > > Clinton: Didn’t start a full-scale war, is no longer president. > Bush: Current president. Started a full-scale war. So, for you its a matter of scale, not type of transgression? Clinton deceived…but didn’t start a full scale war. So its cool? I suppose you have a point. > [@PatriotX](#): > > I think that we, the electorate should confront perfidy in government whenever and where ever we find it. If we allow politicians to deceive the electorate freely, then we lose our Liberty as a free people. I agree with you completely. My question though to you is…do you think the electorate WILL do that? Because I have to admit I see no signs of it myself. It seems to break down along partisan party lines. I hope your way of thinking gains more wide spread acceptance in future. -XT ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/70 "2005-03-22T22:02:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I agree with you completely. My question though to you is…do you think the electorate WILL do that? Because I have to admit I see no signs of it myself. It seems to break down along partisan party lines. I hope your way of thinking gains more wide spread acceptance in future. > -XT That’s one of those things. However, if I do not do it then it will never be such that everyone does it. I can’t control other people, however, that does not release me from my obligations to America and her ideals. If there’re two of us, then that’s two more than none. The advent of the internet has been a great blow to ‘[rational ignorance](http://newsjunkiesunanimous.com/rational_ignorance/painless_primer.html)’, _The_ greatest threat to the Republic (no matter what **luci** says). In matters such as this, we all have to do what we have to do without regards to the odds of success - even if that’s all that we can do. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/71 "2005-03-22T22:04:32Z")
But I’m much more hopeful than that sounded. One of the tricks is to keep the pols fighting amongst themselves. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/72 "2005-03-22T22:11:08Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Just because others have also done wrong, does not make a wrong right. > > I suspect that there’s a particular name for this sort of argument, but I forget it off hand. [tu quoque](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#tuquoque), perhaps? ---
**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:** [March 22, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/73 "2005-03-22T23:05:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Completely disagree. There was no ‘imminent threat’ to America from Germany…its preposterous, certainly in light of history. Germany was barely holding its own against the French and the British in WWI…they wouldn’t have a hope in hell of threatening the US. Even in WWII there was no real threat to the US from Europe…certainly not an ‘imminent’ one. > > -XT 😕 In WW I, to quote Dylan, “the reason for fighting, I never did get.” My understanding of LendLease was in support of our traditional allies, the British, against tyranny. In all my reading about WW II I have never come across FDR claiming Germany was an imminent threat. My point was that he did Lend Lease despite it possibly being a loser in the polls. We went to war when Japan proved to be, against all expectations, an imminent threat indeed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/74 "2005-03-23T00:11:29Z")
And, point of fact, the imminance of a threat from Germany or the lack thereof was a moot point, since Germany declared war on the USA. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/75 "2005-03-23T00:19:17Z")
Quite, when we went to war. There were many acts of war committed, however, by the US before that. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/76 "2005-03-23T00:33:05Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And the administration should have trusted Saddam at his word…why exactly? Especially after all the deceptions and outright hostility, the harsh rhetoric and fist shaking? And all the "no WMD found yet"s reports of the weapons inspectors… that turned out to be correct, because there was nothing there. It´s not that hard, at the time the war broke, Bush was saying “Saddam has this nasty stuff”, Saddam," No bad mojo here!", facts collected on the ground so far showed a complete lack of WMD; let´s see, who I would trust in this dilema, the guy saying things not supported by known data or the guy stating things that match the reality on the ground. How boy, though choice!\* [sub]Now for the easily offended, that doesn´t mean I find Saddam a trusthworthy fellow, but even a crook can tell the truth sometimes, specially when he´s own survival depends on fessing up[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/77 "2005-03-23T00:40:35Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > And all the "no WMD found yet"s reports of the weapons inspectors… that turned out to be correct, because there was nothing there. Except that all of those reports also said that they had not looked everywhere and that there was evidence of Iraqi prevarication. Just as the CIA reports contained ass coverage so did the inspector reports. It was not until almost imediatly before the war that Blix started saying he thought nothing was there. And even then he would say things like “We haven’t found anything, but that does not mean nothing is there.” Oh, and you’ve got some of this wrong as well > [@](#): > > It´s not that hard, at the time the war broke, Bush was saying “Saddam has this nasty stuff”, Saddam," No bad mojo here!", But Saddam was also saying if you come in or try to look anywhere else we will kill many of you. And just for fun he was shooting at Americans enforcing the no fly zones every once in a while. Hardly the prtestations of an innocent person. > [@](#): > > facts collected on the ground so far showed a complete lack of WMD; Well, absence of evidence and so forth. Meanwhile those same “forces on the ground” had said that no nuclear programs existed before the gulf war. We found out afterward that there had been significant programs. There was a precident for disbelieving them. (I note that the pre gulf war UN inspectors did not have the range or power that post war inspectors did.) > [@](#): > > let´s see, who I would trust in this dilema, the guy saying things not supported by known data or the guy stating things that match the reality on the ground. How boy, though choice!\* Come come, let’s not quibble you chose to believe the side which matched you political motives. Many of us did. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/78 "2005-03-23T01:16:16Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Except that all of those reports also said that they had not looked everywhere and that there was evidence of Iraqi prevarication. Just as the CIA reports contained ass coverage so did the inspector reports. It was not until almost imediatly before the war that Blix started saying he thought nothing was there. And even then he would say things like “We haven’t found anything, but that does not mean nothing is there.” So what do you do when you get contradictions on a report? A) State that you know, for certain, that one of the posibilities is true, contradictions be damned. B) Keep looking for complete, well constructed and fact based conclusion. Which is the crux of the whole affair, isn´t it?. > [@pervert](#): > > Oh, and you’ve got some of this wrong as well > But Saddam was also saying if you come in or try to look anywhere else we will kill many of you. And just for fun he was shooting at Americans enforcing the no fly zones every once in a while. Hardly the prtestations of an innocent person. Cite?, (about the first part) As for the second, what does the shooting of (unguided) missiles have to do with all this? > [@pervert](#): > > Well, absence of evidence and so forth. Meanwhile those same “forces on the ground” had said that no nuclear programs existed before the gulf war. We found out afterward that there had been significant programs. There was a precident for disbelieving them. (I note that the pre gulf war UN inspectors did not have the range or power that post war inspectors did.) Well, good for you notting that out. Kind of important note, you know, having access to Iraq´s documents to actually check out stuff and corroborate against suspicions and speculations. > [@pervert](#): > > Come come, let’s not quibble you chose to believe the side which matched you political motives. Many of us did. Oh, and what political motives that may be? No, really, make a guess. Gee, I didn´t know I had _polititcal motives_, that sounds so ominous it creeps me. I always thought I cared more about people´s actions and their inherent morality regardles of what slogan, colour, creed or party they claim to profess, but was I wrong!, it´s all _political motives_ for me. Thanks for the tip. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/79 "2005-03-23T02:11:04Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Cite?, (about the first part) I’m assuming you asked Pervert for a cite on hostility in the no fly zone (which many feel was enough to justify a war btw…though I would disagree myself). Anyway [here](http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html) is a quick and dirty history of this little know aspect of the conflict: > [@](#): > > Page Summary: > > In the years since the Gulf War (1990-1991), the United States and Iraq have engaged in a state of continued hostility. Under the terms of the armistice, which ended the war over Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to allow United Nations weapons, inspectors to search for and destroy suspected weapons of mass destruction, (WOMDs). Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are included in this category, and Iraq is known to have previously used chemical weapons in warfare with Iran and with Kurdish rebels. In 1981, Israel launched an air attack on the Iraqi nuclear weapons research site of Osirak, thereby publicizing the early stages of Baghdad’s nuclear program. > > In order to force Iraq to comply with these restrictions on weaponry, the United Nations and the United States have conducted an economic embargo of Iraq, which has devastated the economy, and the infrastructure of the nation. Iraq claims several hundred thousand children have died of malnutrition and poor medical care resulting from these economic sanctions. > > Periodically, this “cold war” erupts into open warfare, as the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein defies the UN and the U.S., prompting military responses. If you want a cite about Saddam threatening the weapons inspectors before tossing them on (I think it was in '98 if memory serves) I’m sure one can be dug up easily enough. Or if you were looking for how controlled the weapons inspectors were (i.e. told where they could and could not go), again I’m sure a cite would be fairly easy to find for you. Based on your next statement I decided to assume you wanted info on the no fly zone. > [@Ale](#): > > As for the second, what does the shooting of (unguided) missiles have to do with all this? Where did you get the impression the missiles were unguided…or that the Iraqi’s only shot missiles at the US for that matter. There were air to air dog fights that took place in the no fly zone too. Oh, and the missilies were not unguided, whatever that means to you. No one shoots unguided missiles at air planes. > [@Ale](#): > > And all the "no WMD found yet"s reports of the weapons inspectors… that turned out to be correct, because there was nothing there. Yes, it turned out they were correct. Hindsight is a great thing. However, as I’ve pointed out before, Bush et al didn’t have a magic time machine to check it out ahead of time. So, we are back to…did Bush BELIEVE the reports? Did they feel the inspectors were doing a good and complete job? Did they TRUST the inspectors? > [@Ale](#): > > It´s not that hard, at the time the war broke, Bush was saying “Saddam has this nasty stuff”, Saddam," No bad mojo here!", facts collected on the ground so far showed a complete lack of WMD; let´s see, who I would trust in this dilema, the guy saying things not supported by known data or the guy stating things that match the reality on the ground. How boy, though choice!\* Well, again you are overly simplifying all this to the point of ridiculousness. There was no compelling evidence that WMD existed…it was all circumstantial. However, there was a LARGE body of such circumstantial evidence that was pretty widely accepted. There was also a body of evidence that no WMD had been found in Iraq by the new inspector regime…yet. However, even the inspectors were saying at the time they hadn’t visited everywhere, and they were qualifying their own statements. Then you had Saddam’s statements. Of the three, he would be the LEAST credible. Hell, even today I’d almost be willing to bet against anything the man had to say…and we pretty much know that Iraq didn’t have the things. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/80 "2005-03-23T02:26:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > However, even the inspectors were saying at the time they hadn’t visited everywhere, and they were qualifying their own statements. Yes. Unlike certain politicians I could name, they were waiting until all the facts were in. But they never said they had found any, or found a hint of any, and toward the end the Iraqis were cooperating reasonably well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=5)