# So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567 "2009-04-27T23:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**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:** [May 1, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/181 "2009-05-01T20:11:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Now that I look at what Blix said about Bush et al not acting in bad faith, but acting like fools, it seems that that is exactly what I have been arguing. > > Thank goodness someone is here to explain that Blix doesn’t agree with what we both are saying! Well, you are saying now that Blix was not going to expose the Bush lie. However, after reading the information it is clear to me that Blix was going to report soon that the intelligence regarding WMD of the USA and England was just shit. (I remember an inspector coming close to say that when asked about what the latest inspections showed regarding the places to look thanks to the “intelligence” the US and England claimed to have.) I do not believe that it was just foolishness that the USA decided to not risk getting a “no” vote at the UN for the second resolution to approve military action and to also ignore that the last inspections were showing virtually no WMDs in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/182 "2009-05-01T20:15:25Z")
And let’s not forget unleashing the vilification of France for their “cowardice” in wanting the inspections be completed before voting in the UN to authorize war. That stench hasn’t entirely dissipated _yet_. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/183 "2009-05-01T20:35:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, you are saying now that Blix was not going to expose the Bush lie. I’m saying that there was nothing imminent that would have blown the Bush case to shreds. When Blix reported to the Security Council on March 7, there were efforts ongoing to define a list of benchmarks to define the completion of UNMOVIC’s work. In his book, he estimated that doing the job right would take an additional four months. (Four months that would have been well spent, IMHO.) There was some talk of trying to finish inspections under some to-be-developed benchmarks in a matter of weeks. Would there have been some breakthrough during that time that would have resulted in a clean bill of health? The answer to that is speculation. I don’t know. It is possible. But it wasn’t like Blix was holding a smoking gun that showed that Bush was lying. Again, at the time, Blix’s personal view was that Iraq probably was hiding something, but he had increasing suspicions that the Western intelligence wasn’t panning out. Furthermore, in his addresses of February and March, he was determined not to announce any conclusion, but allow the facts of what he found lead countries to their own conclusions. > [@](#): > > However, after reading the information it is clear to me that Blix was going to report soon that the intelligence regarding WMD of the USA and England was just shit. (I remember an inspector coming close to say that when asked about what the latest inspections showed regarding the places to look thanks to the “intelligence” the US and England claimed to have.) This is true. In fact, Blix had already complained about it. > [@Speech from February 2003](#): > > Intelligence information has been useful for UNMOVIC. In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found. In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found. … The presentation of intelligence information by the US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection. Our reservation on this point does not detract from our appreciation of the briefing. There were similar comments made in March, IIRC. > [@](#): > > I do not believe that it was just foolishness that the USA decided to not risk getting a “no” vote at the UN for the second resolution to approve military action and to also ignore that the last inspections were showing virtually no WMDs in Iraq. No, of course it wasn’t. Bush didn’t want to look like he was thumbing his nose at the UN, when he really was. There was certainly a bald-faced lie when Nicholas Negroponte said of UN Resolution 1441 that it had no “hidden triggers for war,” and then the US went to war because 1441 “allowed” the US to do so. But I think the concern from Bush was not that UN inspections were going to disprove the WMD claim, it was that the inspections would go on forever with no conclusive end. Bob Woodward wrote extensively on this point. As far as France goes, I think the stench that people smell is the foul-odored cheese breath that goes along with laughing about being in the right while her ally goes marching off to folly. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/184 "2009-05-01T21:47:02Z")
> [@ChrisBooth12](#): > > **So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?** Short answer: He’s a guy. It’s in our nature to lie to get into things. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/185 "2009-05-02T02:17:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Lots and lots and lots. The majority of them, actually. Historically, it’s the “ethics don’t matter people” who tend to end up finding themselves weakened or ruined, militarily or otherwise because everyone avoids them or attacks them. Or simply because they ruin themselves; ethics exist for good reasons. You continue to persist in your belief that “ethics” is some universal set of rules that everyone feels that everyone else should abide by. This is simply and demonstrably not true. I agree that Country A may send its military to attack Country B if the Country A believes that Country B has done something unethical. But the Country A will make its own determination about whether Country B has done something unethical. Country A won’t care whether or not Country C also thinks Country B has done something unethical. Also, Country A can decide on a variety of responses to unethical behavior by Country B–sending the military is not the inevitable response even if it decides that Country B has acted unethically. Also, when deciding on a course of action, a country should consider the likely responses by other countries. Determining whether the action would be regarded as “unethical” is unnecessary–the salient point is what action other countries will take. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/186 "2009-05-02T02:21:16Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > IMHO, Randians seem to make a virtue of evil. Of ruthlessness, of selfishness, of sociopathy. They define such things as ethics, caring for others, scruples as wrong, and then accuse good people of being dysfunctional or evil. A sort of inverted morality; what’s bad is good, and what’s good is bad. Of course you would think this. You disagree with what I value. You value other things. Doesn’t mean either of us is “unethical” or “immoral.” If either of us were “unethical” or “immoral,” then so what? There’s no impact to it, so deciding whether that is the case is nonsensical and irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/187 "2009-05-02T02:28:01Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Good lord, even Ayn considered it to be wrong. Ya know, I think she might even have written a few books about the illegitimacy of taking things by force, especially by governments. 1. I am not Ayn Rand. Many of my views differ from hers. 2. How one society acts toward another is a completely different subject from the best way to set up a society. Therefore, it’s perfectly fine and consistent to argue that the government should not forcibly move value from the productive to the unproductive while also arguing that there are no “moral” or “ethical” rules that prevent one society from using force to take things from another society. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/188 "2009-05-02T07:03:53Z")
Either there are or there are not ethical and moral rules but you cannot say lying, cheating, stealing, raping, torturing and killing are moral and ethical depending on whether the victim is your immediate neighbor or lives further up the street. In reality you are saying there is no morals or ethics and that might makes right and it is OK to do whatever you can get away with. Even Bin Laden has better morals than that. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/189 "2009-05-02T07:30:16Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Either there are or there are not ethical and moral rules but you cannot say lying, cheating, stealing, raping, torturing and killing are moral and ethical depending on whether the victim is your immediate neighbor or lives further up the street. > > In reality you are saying there is no morals or ethics and that might makes right and it is OK to do whatever you can get away with. Even Bin Laden has better morals than that. It sounds like the weasel’s version of “might makes right”. Or maybe “It’s OK if it’s a stranger/outsider”. That’s a hell of a moral compass there. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/190 "2009-05-02T13:47:08Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 1. I am not Ayn Rand. Many of my views differ from hers. > > 2. How one society acts toward another is a completely different subject from the best way to set up a society. Therefore, it’s perfectly fine and consistent to argue that the government should not forcibly move value from the productive to the unproductive while also arguing that there are no “moral” or “ethical” rules that prevent one society from using force to take things from another society. 1. This is the central tenet of Objectivism. You are of course free to differ from her views, I just find it odd that you would choose your user name and hold views fundamentally opposed to everything Ayn wrote. 2. See, what your arguing for is that totalitarianism or colonialism and the seizing of the goods of others from the barrel of the gun by the government is acceptable. Again, you’re perfectly free to hold this vile belief. It is, however, fundamentally at odds with everything Ayn Rand wrote. So why the user name? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/191 "2009-05-02T14:57:31Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > In reality you are saying there is no morals or ethics and that might makes right and it is OK to do whatever you can get away with. Even Bin Laden has better morals than that. “In reality” is exactly right. That’s what I’m saying because that’s how it is (ETA: in dealings between two societies). When the Europeans showed up in force to colonize North America, did it matter whether there is some ethical or moral rule saying “don’t take land belonging to other people?” Nope. Same with the US’s involvement in Iraq. The U.S. could drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad if it wanted to. It doesn’t matter whether that would be “immoral” or “unethical.” If the U.S. did that, debating about whether it was “immoral” or “unethical” would just be empty words because there would be no impact to deciding one way or another. Of course, other countries can decide to respond in different ways (immediately and in the years to come) to the U.S. nuking Baghdad, and the U.S. should take those possible responses into account when deciding whether to nuke Baghdad. But saying “Nuking Baghdad would be unethical so the U.S. shouldn’t do it” can’t serve as a proxy for actually doing the work of analyzing other countries’ possible responses and the effects those responses would have. All of your “shoulds” and “oughts” don’t amount to a little beany walkway to the receiving center on the entry ramp to the hill of beans. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/192 "2009-05-02T15:00:37Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > 1. This is the central tenet of Objectivism. You are of course free to differ from her views, I just find it odd that you would choose your user name and hold views fundamentally opposed to everything Ayn wrote. > > 2. See, what your arguing for is that totalitarianism or colonialism and the seizing of the goods of others from the barrel of the gun by the government is acceptable. Again, you’re perfectly free to hold this vile belief. It is, however, fundamentally at odds with everything Ayn Rand wrote. So why the user name? The “illegitimacy of taking things by force” is not the central tenet of Objectivism. Ayn Rand believed that a government taking from the productive to give to the unproductive was a bad thing. That says nothing about her views on whether it was “immoral” or “unethical” for one society to take things from another. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/193 "2009-05-02T15:04:43Z")
And that all has \*what \*to do with why Bush lied, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/194 "2009-05-02T15:10:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And that all has \*what \*to do with why Bush lied, exactly? Some people said that Bush lied to get the US into Iraq to steal oil (or insure a supply, or something). These people believe that is “immoral” or “unethical.” I’m saying that there’s no such thing as morality or ethics when it comes to one society dealing with another, so if the Iraq war was “all about oil” then that is not necessarily “a bad thing” and does not necessarily mean that the U.S. did something wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/195 "2009-05-02T15:42:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Some people said that Bush lied to get the US into Iraq to steal oil (or insure a supply, or something). These people believe that is “immoral” or “unethical.” All of em believe that? I’m thinking that it’s quite possible tothink Bush lied to get the US into Iraq, _without_ sticking those lies into an arbitrary moral framework. Truth or falsehod is NOT universally dependent on morality. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/196 "2009-05-02T15:54:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I’m saying that there’s no such thing as morality or ethics when it comes to one society dealing with another, so if the Iraq war was “all about oil” then that is not necessarily “a bad thing” and does not necessarily mean that the U.S. did something wrong. IOW “He lied because he did not consider morality or ethics.” Got it. I wouldn’t go quite that far myself, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/197 "2009-05-02T16:22:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > IOW “He lied because he did not consider morality or ethics.” Got it. > > I wouldn’t go quite that far myself, actually. I don’t know what you are saying here, but it appears that you are trying to paint me as a Bush supporter and then show that I have hung myself by my own petard. I am not a Bush supporter. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/198 "2009-05-02T16:52:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The “illegitimacy of taking things by force” is not the central tenet of Objectivism. Ayn Rand believed that a government taking from the productive to give to the unproductive was a bad thing. That says nothing about her views on whether it was “immoral” or “unethical” for one society to take things from another. Wow - you have actually _ **read** _ Ayn Rand, right? Here’s a cliff notes version of [John Galt’s speech](http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1721-OutlineofGalt'sSpeech.aspx) for you in which Ayn outlines her philosophy. Take note of the number of times she discusses morality. Take note of the reason Ayn believes that the government taking things is a bad thing. Hint: it’s because it is taken by force or the threat of force: > [@](#): > > The proper means of interaction with others is trade. The initiation of physical force is evil; force and mind are opposites. Force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who start its use. Here’s Ayn [defending capitalism](http://atlasshrugged.com/book/morality-of-capitalism.html) on its morality and addresses governmental use of force, please take note of the bolded part: > [@](#): > > Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. > > The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. **The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use** ; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. One last link that might come in handy for you: [http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145](http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145). It’s a good read, you might like it. ---
**Author:** ![Jetblast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/71c47a/32.png) [@Jetblast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jetblast)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/199 "2009-05-02T16:52:03Z")
The Iraq Invasion occurred at a time when our Venezuelan source for oil was being compromised, as was our Nigerian source. China and India presented possible threats to an unlimited supply as competiton. Russia was jailing oil grabbers who existed under the free market. All these things, and the fact 9-11 triggered an old Nixon-era emergency plan of invading the middle east as a national security move for energy security, culminated in the Invasion . Myself, I don’t think it too ridiculous to suggest if things got really bad we could pump Iraqi oil for ourselves and pay them for it under emergency circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/200 "2009-05-02T17:07:50Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > it appears that you are trying to paint me as a Bush supporter Not a supporter necessarily, but certainly an excuser. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=11)