# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/141 "2009-04-30T11:50:00Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I assume if you’re not a lier like that murdering sociopathic monster of an expresident, that you’ll cough up a cite about how Iraq “posed a clear and present danger”, as was the war criminal’s words. Come on; tone it down. This is supposed to be a discussion. Rants should be posted in the Pit. Accusations of lying should avoid implying that they refer to another poster. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/142 "2009-04-30T12:29:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Nice attempt to change the subject while not engaging with any of the actual facts, especially like ignoring the fact that the American social, cultural and sexual landscape changed radically in the second half of the last century. Plus you tossed out an absurd strawman, nice! Neato! > > First, your claim that things had changed, while obviously they hadn’t has not been retracted. You simply ignored that. Cool. > Second, as European nations had had troops/colonial outposts in the region for quite some time, you’ve provided not even a hint of a reason why American troops would somehow be substantially different. You haven’t even attempted to begin to explain how having Europeans occupy the ME was fine and provoked no Jihadi response, but American non-combatant peace keepers deserved death, ASAP. > Third, you’ve ignored the fact that at the time, Hezbollah was not a Jihadi organization and was, instead, set up by Iran in order to advance Iranian political goals. > > Nifty. My position is simple. Islamic terrorist attacks against American targets came immediately after American troops were deployed in the Middle East. As bonus evidence, Islamic terrorists have stated that they oppose American troop presense in the Middle East. Your counterargument involves non-American forces attacking the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century and the sale of Coca-Cola. If this debate has gotten absurd it’s because you brought absurdity to the table. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/143 "2009-04-30T12:46:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Come on; tone it down. > > This is supposed to be a discussion. Rants should be posted in the Pit. Accusations of lying should avoid implying that they refer to another poster. > [/Moderating] Very well. Than I’d like him to either provide this evidence or retract his assertion. Sorry I just have a real low opinion of the war criminal. He’s responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people, the torture of god knows how many, and damaged the country in so many ways. He’s worse and more evil then Osama. People like that person I quoted are why this monster gets away with his crimes against humanity. The vast sea of crying families of the dead; from Bush’s lies, and the agonized screams of mercy by the tortured going unavenged are thanks to people like the poster I quoted. I won’t say what they are but I hate them so much for their enabling of this evil monster. They’re his accomplices at the very least. Accomplices to someone worse for America than Osama. It angers me so. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/144 "2009-04-30T12:47:36Z")
But **Little Nemo** , the tent of Freedom is the [biggest tent in the world.](http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Jim_DeMints_big_tent_of_freedom.html) Surely you can see the plain truth of that? And once you see that, everything else falls neatly into place. ---
**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:** [April 30, 2009, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/145 "2009-04-30T13:41:42Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I assume if you’re not a lier like that murdering sociopathic monster of an expresident, that you’ll cough up a cite about how Iraq “posed a clear and present danger”, as was the war criminal’s words. > > Remember the monster said clear, not hypothetical. I did not support Bush at all, and opposed the war from day 1, but it is my opinion that Bush deceived himself into actually believing all his rhetoric. I do not believe that he knew what he was saying was wrong, instead, per the George Costanza rule, it isn’t a lie if you really believe it. My opinion is that Bush was not lying, but he was wrong. Totally wrong, on nearly every single thing he said about Iraq, from WMD to connections to terrorism to the need for the war to the need to stay, and everything in between. I know there’s a lot of people who do believe he lied, and I think that this will be an issue debated by historians for a long time. I do not believe there will be any evidence discovered that will settle the case conclusively one way or another. However, I think that some people prefer to call Bush a liar because it is a more incriminating charge against him. My view, however, is that a fool can be just as bad as a liar. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/146 "2009-04-30T16:14:12Z")
I think it is quite clear he cooked the evidence to suit his predetermined decided outcome. Which is the same as lying. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/147 "2009-04-30T16:40:49Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Nope, Shodan claimed certainty that such statements did not exist. That leaves it up to him to prove their absence. As I said, my memory is good enough for **me** to believe, and I don’t really care enough about what **Shodan** believes in this case to do any work for him. Now if you, **glee** , care enough, you’re welcome to waste your morning digging around in old article archives. As Shodan knows full well, that’s a pain in the ass, which is why he thinks he can get away with dismissing the assertion. What he’ll refuse to admit, is that his dismissal has at most no more value than Bosda’s original claim. I think you’re missing the point about ‘proving non-existence’. :smack: But fortunately for you I had the morning off and have searched **the entire Internet**. 🆒 And your memory is faulty. Those statements do not exist. I have proved it. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/148 "2009-04-30T16:47:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I did not support Bush at all, and opposed the war from day 1, but it is my opinion that Bush deceived himself into actually believing all his rhetoric. I do not believe that he knew what he was saying was wrong, instead, per the George Costanza rule, it isn’t a lie if you really believe it. My opinion is that Bush was not lying, but he was wrong. Totally wrong, on nearly every single thing he said about Iraq, from WMD to connections to terrorism to the need for the war to the need to stay, and everything in between. > > I know there’s a lot of people who do believe he lied, and I think that this will be an issue debated by historians for a long time. I do not believe there will be any evidence discovered that will settle the case conclusively one way or another. However, I think that some people prefer to call Bush a liar because it is a more incriminating charge against him. My view, however, is that a fool can be just as bad as a liar. There’s no need for historical debate. [Here is clear evidence in a public statement by a senior member of the UK Government (with full access to the classified information) that the US and UK **knew** there were no WMDs in Iraq before they went to war](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm): - For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. - Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? ---
**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:** [April 30, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/149 "2009-04-30T17:39:42Z")
Wait, you summarize Robin Cook’s speech by saying that “the US and UK **knew** there were no WMDs,” and then quote him in saying that Iraq “probably” had no effective WMD, and “probably” had some toxins left laying around. You have either misunderstood or misrepresented his statement. But the larger point is taken: there are certainly people within the US (and most likely UK) government who had different, and more accurate, views of the non-existence of Iraqi WMD. In my view, rather than believing that those analysts were right, and deciding that their views must be covered up in order to perpetrate a lie, Bush, Cheney, and others decided that those analysts were wrong because they weren’t saying what Bush, Cheney and others wanted to hear. In my book, that is a horrible, damnable mistake, for which they ought to be held accountable, but I do not believe it to be a lie. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/150 "2009-04-30T17:58:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In my view, rather than believing that those analysts were right, and deciding that their views must be covered up in order to perpetrate a lie, Bush, Cheney, and others decided that those analysts were wrong because they weren’t saying what Bush, Cheney and others wanted to hear. Except that the war was rushed because it was becoming more and more clear to the general public that those views were correct. So it was not a matter of just being wrong, even deliberately being wrong, it was a matter of knowing what they were saying was wrong and becoming more and more obvious to the world so they rushed into the invasion before their position was just untenable. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/151 "2009-04-30T19:06:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My position is simple. Islamic terrorist attacks against American targets came immediately after American troops were deployed in the Middle East. I know, your position is very simple, you will do your utmost to ignore the actual facts to distort the issue and then strawman my position. For instance, you’ve now totally ignored the fact that the marine barracks bombing was, in fact, a politically motivated attack by Iranian forces and not a “terrorist attack.” And, for that matter, that the marines in the theatre were noncombatant peace keepers and not combat troops. As well as all the other things you’ve ignored. You’re also steadfastly ignoring that your earlier formulation of “freedoms no troops = no terrorist attacks” is blatantly, absurdly false. If you are actually here to debate, try explaining the Achille Lauro and Kuwait Airways Flight 221. How about the AMIA bombing or the Panamanian airliner bombing. I eagerly await a rational explanation of how those fit into your narrative. I shouldn’t hold my breath, should I? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Your counterargument involves non-American forces attacking the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century Again, it would be ever so helpful if you had a clue what you were talking about. The Ottoman Empire fell in World War I. Not the 19th century. Wrong _century_. Its dissolution at the hands of European powers saw most of our modern ME nation states carved out of the wreckage, often at the whims of the European powers. In fact this situation led to a rising tide of Arab nationalism around WW II, but curiousously enough, _not jihadism_. It wasnt until Qutb went to America and became disgusted with social, cultural, sexual, political, etc… freedoms that he determined that fundamentalist Islam was the only answer. But of course, you probably won’t address that, either. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > and the sale of Coca-Cola. Do you know what it means when your opponent cannot address your actual position and has to use strawmen almost exclusively? It means they aint got nuthin’. I rather clearly pointed out that a sore spot was cultural diffusion which has accelerated during the information age and which allowed American culture and the ‘American brand’ to spread into many other nations who had previously been able to stay isolated. The fact of the matter is that the issue is a matter of importance in many parts of the world. It’s often referred to as “American cultural imperialism.” But of course, you’d prefer not to address how complaints of cultural imperialism might interrelate with people who want to impose strict theocracy via the barrel of a gun. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If this debate has gotten absurd it’s because you brought absurdity to the table. Right. Tell ya what, when you actually address the issues, retract your mistakes or manage to figure out what century the Ottoman Empire fell in and why, and what the following events were, then maybe you can begin to actually attack my argument. You up for a debate, or just more of the same? ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/152 "2009-04-30T19:07:37Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > If it was wall about the oil–so what? Is that such a bad thing? Countries compete for resources all the time, that’s how it works. 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. ---
**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:** [April 30, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/153 "2009-04-30T19:16:31Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Except that the war was rushed because it was becoming more and more clear to the general public that those views were correct. So it was not a matter of just being wrong, even deliberately being wrong, it was a matter of knowing what they were saying was wrong and becoming more and more obvious to the world so they rushed into the invasion before their position was just untenable. I think the war was rushed because General Franks was saying that if we didn’t go in March, we’d have to wait until the fall because it would get too hot for our troops to fight well. My problem with the idea that Bush was watching the polls, saw support eroding, and therefore had to go on March 19, is that I know of no evidence for that position, and Bush simply doesn’t strike me as a big poll watcher. (ETA) Rove and others, yes, but not Bush. And I’m not about to take seriously that Karl Rove called the shots on when to go to war. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/154 "2009-04-30T19:41:32Z")
Yes, he had to start the war RIGHT THEN because it would soon have been too late. But the deadline seemed to have a lot more to do with the imminent completion of the UN WMD inspection teams’ work (just two weeks work remained, IIRC). The conclusion they were going to reach, and of course publicly announce, would have exposed the enormity of the WMD lie (with a side of mushroom cloud) that the administration had been peddling. Another argument was stated more than once in this very forum: that the war \*had \*to be started because the invasion forces were already in place and couldn’t be kept waiting much longer. :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [April 30, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/155 "2009-04-30T20:00:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The conclusion they were going to reach, and of course publicly announce, would have exposed the enormity of the WMD lie (with a side of mushroom cloud) that the administration had been peddling. The problem with all these grand pronouncements that the UN was about to give Iraq a clean bill of health is that it is an allegation that is made up. From Hans Blix’s book, “Disarming Iraq” > [@](#): > > Personally, I tended to think that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction, but I needed evidence. Perhaps there were not many such weapons in Iraq after all. Ultimately, it’s clear from Blix’s statements that he had serious doubts about the intelligence, and Iraq was also unable to produce convincing evidence that there were no WMD. I believe Blix’s report would have said that there was neither the evidence to conclude that there were WMD, nor that there had been a disarmament. That likely would have meant that inspections would have had to continue until more evidence was gathered. While I think that would have been a great idea, clearly Bush et al did not want to be locked into inspections with no completion in sight. Not because the UN was going to give Iraq a clean report card, but because inspections were limiting on their preconceived solution of taking Saddam out. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/156 "2009-04-30T20:19:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Iraq was also unable to produce convincing evidence that there were no WMD. How could they, or anybody? You can’t prove you don’t have them, either. You’ve repeated the warhawk position that stands logic on its head. [El Baradei’s UN reports 14 Feb 03](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/) > [@](#): > > Mr. President, to conclude, we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. However, our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program. > > "These few months, in my view, would be a valuable investment in peace because they could help us avoid a war. We trust that we will continue to have your support as we make every effort to verify Iraq’s nuclear disarmament through peaceful means and to demonstrate that the inspection process can and does work as a central feature of the international nuclear arms control regime. ---
**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:** [April 30, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/157 "2009-04-30T21:19:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How could they, or anybody? You can’t prove you don’t have them, either. You’ve repeated the warhawk position that stands logic on its head. I was talking about Hans Blix’s view. Are you calling him a warhawk? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/158 "2009-04-30T21:22:32Z")
Point of fact: the IAEA has said that via its Additional Protocols it is able to credibly verify the absence of nuclear weapons programs. I trust their expertise over those who aren’t nuclear inspections experts and who claim that it cannot be done. ---
**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, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/159 "2009-05-01T13:30:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I was talking about Hans Blix’s view. Which you presented as the reverse of what he said. Read it again. ---
**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, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/160 "2009-05-01T14:13:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Which you presented as the reverse of what he said. Read it again. Are you saying that Hans Blix knew that Iraq had disarmed? If so, explain how I’m reading this quote wrong, and then provide a cite for your bare allegation: > [@Disarming Iraq](#): > > On March 7 [2003], I did not answer the question whether or not Iraq had disarmed. I did not know. Rather, I gave a mixed picture based on our inspections. Cooperation had accelerated, but I noted that it had not come immediately… [and] it had not straightened out any of the question marks. It was left to the Council to assess, on the basis of the detailed factual report I had presented, to what extent Iraq had complied or not complied with Resolution 1441… That Hans Blix was on the verge of giving Iraq a clean bill of health, as el Baradei had correctly done some time earlier on nuclear issues, is a myth. It is perfectly clear through all of Blix’s statements, both at the time and in retrospect, that he believed he did not have the answers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=9)