# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/161 "2005-03-25T15:45:59Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > I didn’t move halfway across the country only to do what I was doing in AR. I came to DC with a purpose. Check your board-listed email. **pervert** , I’ve tried. Please believe me I’ve tried. I would like nothing better than to be wrong and to be able to believe my elected officials were left with no other option than to start killing people. Every time I see the body count or see a report of women and children blown up at a marketplace I think “God in heaven I wish I could believe there was no other option than to create the situation which precipitated their deaths.” I was hoping for a report to come out of the senate committee saying “there was classified evidence which was very strong and had been checked for accuracy and the case for war was well-founded based on this evidence.” Now it looks like I won’t even get that, so I’ll continue to live in a state of unease because I can’t see an honest reason for why we’re at war at all. God damn it, I HATE feeling like a tin-foil hatter or conspiracy theorist, but I just don’t see any reality-based justifications that hold up. WMD was the “grave and gathering threat”. It was the cornerstone of the case for war both in the congress(which authorized force) and in the presentations to the electorate. The case for war does not stand without it, at least not for a large enough majority for it to be considered a legimitate exercise of the will of the people. Every analysis I’ve done has followed a decision making process similar to the scientific method. Start with as few assumptions as possible. Upon acquisition of new evidence, question those assumptions. Revise your theory as you go. Any decision-making process which is used on a matter as important as war, especially aggressive war, has got to be rigorous. I’ve tried it with a large number of starting assumptions and with every starting point I chose at some point one of those facts that I itemized earlier popped up. In general it was the “Inspectors followed the leads from the intel and found bupkis”. That one just kept jumping up and smashing the decision-making process in the head. It tears at the core assumption of “something is there”. Another especially problematic fact was the known animosity between Saddam and Osama. Saddam had actively tried to wipe out the Al Qaeda(Zarqawi) camps we knew about in Iraq(northern Iraq) but the no-fly zones stopped him. I haven’t been able to find a starting set of assumptions which could withstand analytical synthesis with the confirmed facts and still come out to “immediate war is the only way.” Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/162 "2005-03-25T16:35:46Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > We’re _obligated_ to expect more. > Not all “fighting for freedom” involves bloodshed. Not all vigilance is against external enemies. > > Not trying to lecture you, just my nickel’s worth. Couldn’t agree more. My sentence > [@](#): > > I does seem to me that we ought to be able to expect more of political leaders than that they couldn’t actually be convicted of perjury in court. would have been better had it read > [@](#): > > I does seem to me that we ought to expect more of political leaders than that they couldn’t actually be convicted of perjury in court. It does seem to me that the methods of the commercial marketplace, _i.e._ “as long as it sells, baby, use it,” have been brought to government to its detriment. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/163 "2005-03-25T16:44:53Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Just for the record, **PatriotX** , and **David Simmons** I never said that concluding that Bush did not lie meant exhonorating him of all wrong doing. I have many objections to the war and how it was carried out. But that we were tricked into it simply does not seem to be that reasonable to me. Again, JMHO. Whence the leaking of clasified, yet faulty, alarmist intel? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/164 "2005-03-25T17:00:16Z")
[The Senate Select Committee’s Report on pre-war WMD Intelligence](http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf)(PDF). It was published in mid '04 and points the finger directly at “the intelligence community”. The National Intelligence Estimate '02 specifically. None of this addresses the Office of Special Plans however. It also fails to explain why the NIE '02 was treated as gospel truth even after the inspectors were able to show that at least portions of it were clearly wrong. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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 25, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/165 "2005-03-25T17:24:19Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > The Senate Select Committee’s Report on pre-war WMD Intelligence(PDF). It was published in mid '04 and points the finger directly at “the intelligence community”. The National Intelligence Estimate '02 specifically. None of this addresses the Office of Special Plans however. It also fails to explain why the NIE '02 was treated as gospel truth even after the inspectors were able to show that at least portions of it were clearly wrong. I was looking at the various NIE’s that were used to support the war as well. Much of whats listed on the internet though is the unclassified portions. Unfortunately, especially with the NIE you listed, much of it remains classified. At least I can’t seem to find any of the classified parts listed on the internet. From the unclassified parts I’ve found (I can cite them if anyone is interested…not very interesting though) I also don’t see why they were treated as gospel truth. BTW, I can’t read your link right now…I don’t have a PDF viewer where I am. When I get home early next week I’ll take a look. If you are up to it, I would appreciate if you could list some of the relevant sections here in the thread. I’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 UN…or even to find the meat of what that data was. Mostly just hints and inuendo wrapped in ‘its classified’. 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 I’ll have to backpedal on what I promised to Abe…I can’t find anything compelling that hasn’t already been shown (which I admit isn’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. I still think they are valid, I still think that Bush and the administration had SOME evidence they thought was solid…but I have to admit I’m much less sure than I was now that I’ve personally dug into what I could find. I’m also much more sympathetic to the position that Bush lied about the whole thing…I can much better understand why folks are so convinced this was the case. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/166 "2005-03-25T17:58:27Z")
[OnTheIssues.org has these excerpts from the report.](http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Senate_Intel_War_+_Peace.htm) These are verbaitm transcriptions of some sections of the report. The report, like everything produced by the Govt, is public domain, so I am going to quote extensively. > [@](#): > > CIA mischaracterized Iraq WMD & abused intelligence position. > WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION > Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for WMD, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. > Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community (IC) did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the Oct. 2002 NIE. > Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This “group think” dynamic led IC analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding WMD programs. > Conclusion 4. In a few significant instances, the analysis in the NIE suffers from a “layering” effect whereby assessments were built based on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of the underlying judgments. > Conclusion 5. IC managers did not encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, accurately characterize the intelligence reporting, or counsel analysts who lost their objectivity. > Conclusion 6. The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq’s WMD activities, in particular that the IC had no sources collecting against WMD in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel. > Conclusion 7. The CIA, in several significant instances, abused its unique position in the IC, particularly in terms of information sharing, to the detriment of the IC’s prewar analysis concerning Iraq’s WMD programs. > Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq 04-SIC1 on July 7, 2004 > > Iraq-al-Qaida contacts, but no complicity or assistance. > IRAQI LINKS TO TERRORISM > Conclusion 90. The CIA’s assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate. > Conclusion 91. The CIA’s assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war. > Conclusion 92. The CIA’s examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question. > Conclusion 93. The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship. > Conclusion 94. The CIA reasonably and objectively assessed that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. > Conclusion 95. The CIA’s assessment on safehaven—that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control—was reasonable. > Conclusion 96. The CIA’s assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise. > Conclusion 97. The CIA’s judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach—al-Qaida—to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. > Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq 04-SIC10 on July 7, 2004 > > CIA knew State of the Union Iraq-Niger connection was false. > NIGER CONCLUSIONS > Conclusion 16. The language in the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that “Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake” overstated what the Intelligence Community (IC) knew about Iraq’s possible procurement attempts. > Conclusion 18. When documents regarding the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting [weakening the Iraq-Niger connection] became available to the IC in October 2002, CIA analysts and operations officers should have made an effort to obtain copies. As a result of not obtaining the documents, CIA Iraq nuclear analysts continued to report on Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Africa and continued to approve the use of such language in Administration publications and speeches. > Conclusion 19. Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union. > Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no CIA analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the “16 words” or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official’s original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words “Niger” and “500 tons” from the speech, is incorrect. > Conclusion 22. The Director of the CIA should have taken the time to read the State of the Union speech and fact check it himself. Had he done so, he would have been able to alert the NSC if he still had concerns about the use of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting in a Presidential speech. > Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq 04-SIC3 on July 7, 2004 > > Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program. > NUCLEAR CONCLUSIONS > Conclusion 27. The judgment in the NIE, that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence. The Committee agrees with the State Department’s alternative view that the available intelligence “does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution.” > Conclusion 29. Numerous intelligence reports provided to the Committee showed that Iraq was trying to procure high-strength aluminum tubes. The Committee believes that the information available to the Intelligence Community indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program. > Conclusion 31. The Intelligence Community’s position in the NIE that the composition and dimensions of the aluminum tubes exceeded the requirements for non nuclear applications, is incorrect. > Conclusion 33. The suggestion in the NIE that Iraq was paying excessively high costs for the aluminum tubes is incorrect. In addition, 7075-T6 aluminum is not considerably more expensive than other more readily available materials for rockets as alleged in the NIE. > Conclusion 34. The analysis that the material composition of the tubes was unusual for rocket motor cases was incorrect, contradicted information later provided to the Committee, and represented a serious lapse for the agency with primary responsibility for conventional ground forces intelligence analysis. > Conclusion 38. The CIA’s initial reporting on its aluminum tube spin tests was, at a minimum, misleading and, in some cases, incorrect. The fact that these tests were not coordinated with other Intelligence Community agencies is an example of continuing problems with information sharing within the Intelligence Community. > Conclusion 39. Iraq’s performance of hydrostatic pressure tests on the tubes was more indicative of their likely use for a rocket program than a centrifuge program. > Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq 04-SIC4 on July 7, 2004 > > Iraq was not developing its biological weapons program. > BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS > Conclusion 48. The assessment in the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that, “We judge that all key aspects—research & development, production, and weaponization—of Iraq’s offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War” is not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. > Conclusion 49. The statement in the key judgments of the NIE that “Baghdad has biological weapons” overstated what was known about Iraq’s biological weapons holdings. The NIE did not explain the uncertainties underlying this statement. > Conclusion 50. The statement in the NIE that “Baghdad has mobile transportable facilities for producing bacterial and toxin biological weapons agents,” overstated what the intelligence reporting suggested about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons effort and did not accurately convey to readers the uncertainties behind the source reporting. > Conclusion 53. The statement in the key judgments of the NIE that “Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq’s offensive biological weapons program” is not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. > Conclusion 55. The NIE misrepresented the United Nations Special Commission’s (UNSCOM) 1999 assessment concerning Iraq’s biological research capability. > Conclusion 56. The statement in the key judgments of the NIE that “Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered biological weapons agents,” overstated both the intelligence reporting and analysts assessments of Iraq’s development of genetically engineered biological agents. > Conclusion 57. The assessment in the NIE that “Iraq has … dry biological weapons (BW) agents in its arsenal” is not supported by the intelligence information provided to the Committee. > Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq 04-SIC5 on July 7, 2004 > > Iraq was not developing its chemical weapons program. > CHEMICAL CONCLUSIONS > Conclusion 58. The statement in the key judgments of the October 2002 Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction National Intelligence Estimate that “Baghdad has … chemical weapons” overstated both what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons holdings and what intelligence analysts judged about Iraq’s chemical weapons holdings. > Conclusion 59. The judgment in the October 2002 Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq was expanding its chemical industry primarily to support chemical weapons production overstated both what was known about expansion of Iraq’s chemical industry and what intelligence analysts judged about expansion of Iraq’s chemical industry. > Conclusion 61. The Intelligence Community’s assessment that “Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 metric tons of chemical weapons agents — much of it added in the last year,” was an analytical judgment and not based on intelligence reporting that indicated the existence of an Iraqi chemical weapons stockpile of this size. > Conclusion 62. The Intelligence Community’s assessment that Iraq had experience in manufacturing chemical weapons bombs, artillery rockets and projectiles was reasonable based on intelligence derived from Iraqi declarations. > Conclusion 63. The National Intelligence Estimate assessment that “Baghdad has procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and equipment sufficient to allow limited chemical weapons production hidden within Iraq’s legitimate chemical industry” was not substantiated by the intelligence provided to the Committee. > Conclusion 64. The National Intelligence Estimate accurately represented information known about Iraq’s procurement of defensive equipment. > Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq 04-SIC6 on July 7, 2004 > > Iraq was developing missiles, but not to reach the US. > DELIVERY CONCLUSIONS > Conclusion 65. The Intelligence Community (IC) assessment that Iraq retains a small force of Scud-type ballistic missiles was reasonable based on the information provided to the Committee. The estimate that Iraq retained “up to a few dozen Scud-variant missiles,” was clearly explained in the body of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to be an assessment based “on no direct evidence.” > Conclusion 66. The assessments that Iraq was in the final stages of development of [missiles] which exceed the 150-km UN range limit, were reasonable judgments based on the intelligence available to the Committee. > Conclusion 68. The IC assessment in the key judgments section of the NIE that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) “probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents” overstated both what was known about the mission of Iraq’s small UAVs and what intelligence analysts judged about the likely mission of Iraq’s small UAVs. The Air Force footnote which indicated that biological weapons (BW) delivery was a possible, though unlikely, mission more accurately reflected the body of intelligence reporting. > Conclusion 70. The IC’s assessment that Iraq’s procurement of US-specific mapping software for its UAV “strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the US” was not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. > Conclusion 71. The CIA’s failure to share all of the intelligence reporting regarding Iraq’s attempts to acquire US mapping software with other IC agencies left those analysts with an incomplete understanding of the issue. This lack of information sharing may have led some analysts to agree to a position that they otherwise would not have supported. > Conclusion 72. Much of the information provided or cleared by the CIA for inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect. The full report is 30 pages and some of it is redacted. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/167 "2005-03-25T18:26:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I still think they are valid, I still think that Bush and the administration had SOME evidence they thought was solid…but I have to admit I’m much less sure than I was now that I’ve personally dug into what I could find. I’m also much more sympathetic to the position that Bush lied about the whole thing…I can much better understand why folks are so convinced this was the case. Thank you. I mean it. Do you now think there should be further consequences? Or, at the very least, a _complete_ investigation into the case for war as was presented? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/168 "2005-03-25T18:34:07Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’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 UN…or even to find the meat of what that data was. Mostly just hints and inuendo wrapped in ‘its classified’. 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 I’ll have to backpedal on what I promised to Abe…I can’t find anything compelling that hasn’t already been shown (which I admit isn’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. > > I still think they are valid, I still think that Bush and the administration had SOME evidence they thought was solid…but I have to admit I’m much less sure than I was now that I’ve personally dug into what I could find. I’m also much more sympathetic to the position that Bush lied about the whole thing…I can much better understand why folks are so convinced this was the case. Welcome to my world of two years ago. The existance of the OSP and the involvement of exiles like Chalabi pushed me over the edge into thinking the evidence cherry-picking and refusal to see anything but what they wanted to see was deliberate. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/169 "2005-03-25T18:50:12Z")
**xtisme** , you are a mensch. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/170 "2005-03-25T19:26:02Z")
Hmmmm. Yellow Pages or Dex Online, maybe have to Google for it…“fatted calf, local, discount…” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/171 "2005-03-25T20:03:16Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Do you now think there should be further consequences? Or, at the very least, a _complete_ investigation into the case for war as was presented? Considering a fair number of our elected leaders were all oh so willing will get the ball rolling on an impeachment movement when the President of the United States made misleading statements about something as _trivial_ as his personal sex life, I’d like to believe that the consequences for making misleading statements that led to war would be proportionately more serious. Unfortunately, I know that ain’t likely gonna happen in my lifetime. ---
**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 25, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/172 "2005-03-25T20:16:57Z")
I am very impressed **xtisme** , and would hope to be as strong as you, were I in a similar position. I regret using such a snarky tone earlier in this thread, and I regret having such pessimism about, well, people these days. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/173 "2005-03-25T21:13:39Z")
**xt** ’s a good sort. He just thinks that some of the folk around here fly off the handle into the deep end rhetoric-wise. I’m still gonna pulverize him as soon as I get Total War though. ---
**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 25, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/174 "2005-03-25T21:40:07Z")
Well, at least you guys didn’t torture me TOO much. 🙂 I have to admit that I thought the Bush Lied camp was more rhetoric based than it turns out to be. And I’m personally embarrassed I never looked more closely into the actual evidence that was available. I was looking at the NIE’s MUCH more superficially. > [@Mtgman](#): > > Welcome to my world of two years ago. The existance of the OSP and the involvement of exiles like Chalabi pushed me over the edge into thinking the evidence cherry-picking and refusal to see anything but what they wanted to see was deliberate. I’m appearly most stuborn (or more gullable, or perhaps stupider…not sure at this point) than you are. > [@PatriotX](#): > > I’m still gonna pulverize him as soon as I get Total War though I think not, baby puppy. 🙂 My obvious embarrassment over this will not mean I’m not going to destroy your armies and sow salt in your fields… -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/175 "2005-03-25T21:51:08Z")
Is that for guys who can’t deal with Civ III? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/176 "2005-03-25T21:55:52Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > I’m sorry, I should have been more specific. Would you kindly refer me to any person who agreed with the invasion and agreed before the invasion that if no WMD were present that would constitute a lie on the administration’s part? Any person you care to name will do. But this to recourse to legalisms is a petty tactic that more than anything confirms the truth of the basic charge. Secondly it reflects ill on those who attempt it. Lastly there is a full rejoinder in legalism and I have it, however I’m not prepared to entertain the tactic further. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/177 "2005-03-25T22:20:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, at least you guys didn’t torture me TOO much. 🙂 I have to admit that I thought the Bush Lied camp was more rhetoric based than it turns out to be. And I’m personally embarrassed I never looked more closely into the actual evidence that was available. I was looking at the NIE’s MUCH more superficially. Both **PatriotX** and I have both said that we believe rational ignorance is completely understandable. I KNOW what I went through pre-war to dig out and evaluate the evidence. To analyze the case for war with the additional evidence coming from new sources daily was exhausting. At one point I damn near said “Fuckit! I’ll just let them do whatever they’re going to do and vote against every single incumbent in the next election. This actual ‘trying to get to the bottom of it’ stuff is exhausting.” > [@xtisme](#): > > I’m appearly most stuborn (or more gullable, or perhaps stupider…not sure at this point) than you are. Or you’ve got less free time on your hands to read dry intelligence reports from about eight different agencies over a period of five or more years. Like I said, I don’t fault anyone for not doing what I did. It was tough and it took a lot of time and energy that I would have rather spent in many other, more enjoyable, ways. But I felt that the issue of a possible aggressive war was important enough to justify the legwork. About the only people I feel animosity towards are the ones which say “Well, good for you. Your knee-jerk America-hating ass lucked into a situation where the US was actually wrong about something. Bet you wank off over it each night.” And yes, there are actually people who say crap like that. That opposition to the war and the Administration must have been based on partisanship or America-hating assholery. They’re pretty tiresome. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/178 "2005-03-26T01:10:12Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > To analyze the case for war with the additional evidence coming from new sources daily was exhausting. I don’t think it was necessary to pour over every scrap of pre-war data to get a suspicion that the Bush Administration’s case was not on the up-and-up. For instance, when the “Coalition of the Willing” was being assembled, it wasn’t hard to ask oneself the question, “If the Administration really had solid proof that Saddam has WMDs, why don’t they share it with the nation’s allies – especially France and Germany – and convince them to get on board the bandwagon?” There was a lot of stuff pre-war that didn’t pass the smell test, but the Bush Administration was pushing for an invasion anyway. That behavior should have raised warning flags in people’s minds… ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/179 "2005-03-26T03:21:51Z")
I’ve got to agree with **rjung** on this one. Although I was somewhat like you, in the sense that I spent an inordinate amount of time pouring over all sorts of minutea – all part of the swinging lifestyle of a middle-aged, twice divorced man – I don’t think it was necessary for everyone else to do the same. The information, in abridged form, was always out there. Yes, it wasn’t readily available through the mainstream press – so much for the “liberal media” epithet – but just about anyone with an internet connection and a basic distrust for authority had the means to get the information. Having said that, I do think this whole affair also showed just how incredibly easy it is to manipulate a whole nation – and just how disgusting the practise is. Like you, **Mtgman** , I’ve been called all sorts of names for not lining up with the official stand. Ironically enough, America had always been my bright and shining light while growing up, the nation – and people – I admired most. Not any more. I realize now that I’d become victim to the same generalizations I criticize in others. And while I am far from an “America-hater,” I see you now as I always should have. Namely, a nation with good, bad and a mixture of the two…not the impossible Nirvana I’d made you out to be. Obviously I can’t blame such faulty thinking on anyone but myself, I do think the Bush Cabal represents some of the worst you have to offer. So much so that I have to keep reminding myself that they are **not** representative of either, the America I made up, or the America _I lived in_ for so many years. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. I wish you all the best in getting back there as soon as possible. * * * **Xtime** , nunca es tarde si la dicha es buena. My apologies if I’ve been overly curt as of late. But as someone who truly gives a shit about your country – and my son’s – I am simply fed-up with what I’m seeing…and more importantly the willful blindness of those that refuse to see what is rather well documented. Thus my “lying eyes” comment to you upthread. Now, I don’t expect for a minute for you to share in any number of progressive ideas that make me the “pinko commie” that I am in the eyes of many, _however_, I do expect you to leave partisanship behind in the interest of patriotism. And in order to so, I don’t think I need to tell you what needs to be done. Get craking then. Un saludo afectuoso, ~Javier. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650/180 "2005-03-26T04:09:14Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > There was a lot of stuff pre-war that didn’t pass the smell test, but the Bush Administration was pushing for an invasion anyway. That behavior should have raised warning flags in people’s minds… Perhaps. However, there’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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-tell-me-why-you-claim-bush-lied-about-wmd/295650.md?page=10)