# 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:** 9
**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, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/161 "2009-05-01T14:26:23Z")
Also, here’s another good quote for you. From an interview on March 17, 2004: > [@](#): > > JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found? > > HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we…there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/162 "2009-05-01T14:27:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. The problem with your assertion is that nobody is saying that “the UN was about to give Iraq a clean bill of health”. There is a lot of middle ground between “yes, with all certainty Saddam Hussein DOES have WMD” which is what Bush was saying and “No he doesn’t” which few if anybody said. The point is that most of the informed opinions were very qualified and middle of the road but were not enough to support an invasion. An invasion required certainty which Bush claimed and which did not exist. ---
**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, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/163 "2009-05-01T14:32:56Z")
Also, here’s another good quote for you. From an interview on March 17, 2004: > [@](#): > > JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found? > > HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we…there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error. **sailor** : For the “clean bill of health,” I’m referring to **Elvis** ’s post #154 in which he claims that the UN weapons inspectors were about to blow the lid off the “WMD lie.” ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/164 "2009-05-01T15:00:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **sailor** : For the “clean bill of health,” I’m referring to **Elvis** ’s post #154 in which he claims that the UN weapons inspectors were about to blow the lid off the “WMD lie.” My point is that to blow the lid off Bush assertions that Saddam Hussein most certainly possessed WMD the UN did not need to say “he most certainly does not”, it was sufficient for them to say, “NO, we do not have that certainty”. Which is pretty much what they were saying all along. This is like the burden of proof in a criminal trial, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The defense does not need to prove the accused did not do it, it is sufficient to show the accusation has not been proven. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/165 "2009-05-01T15:21:43Z")
It was easier than finding Osama Bin Laden, and there was an election coming up. ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/166 "2009-05-01T15:49:09Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > My point is that to blow the lid off Bush assertions that Saddam Hussein most certainly possessed WMD the UN did not need to say “he most certainly does not”, it was sufficient for them to say, “NO, we do not have that certainty”. Which is pretty much what they were saying all along. > > This is like the burden of proof in a criminal trial, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The defense does not need to prove the accused did not do it, it is sufficient to show the accusation has not been proven. While I agree with you that the burden of proof ought to have been on the Bush Administration to show that Iraq was a real, not just imagined, danger, Blix had been saying for about two months prior to the invasion that he was unable to come to any conclusion about whether or not the WMDs existed, as well as criticizing the intelligence he had been provided. If we’re willing to say that the UN inspectors reporting inconclusive evidence on WMD and criticizing western intelligence as “blowing the lid off” of Bush claims, then I’m afraid all meaning of that phrase has been lost. That’s like saying that Fox News is going to run a special report blowing the lid off of the covered-up story that Obama is somewhat liberal. ---
**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, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/167 "2009-05-01T16:11:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Blix had been saying for about two months prior to the invasion that he was unable to come to any conclusion about whether or not the WMDs existed Not exactly. He stated his inability to prove a negative. His meaning was clear enough, although not as clear as Baradei’s. > [@](#): > > If we’re willing to say that the UN inspectors reporting inconclusive evidence on WMD and criticizing western intelligence as “blowing the lid off” of Bush claims, then I’m afraid all meaning of that phrase has been lost. Nope. That was the primary reason Bush was peddling, and the primary reason those who supported the war offered for supporting it. But the ordinary rules of proof didn’t apply. Confirming that the primary casus belli was not founded in fact would, _in terms of public opinion_, have blown the lid off the claim, and the remaining public support for Bush’s war would have collapsed. The war \*had \*to be started while it still could be. Remember what we’re discussing here - \*why \*Bush lied us into war. The inspections were a threat to his plan. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/168 "2009-05-01T16:19:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not exactly. He stated his inability to prove a negative. His meaning was clear enough, although not as clear as Baradei’s. May I suggest that you provide some cites for your statements? > [@](#): > > Confirming that the primary casus belli was not founded in fact would, _in terms of public opinion_, have blown the lid off the claim, and the remaining public support for Bush’s war would have collapsed. > > The war \*had \*to be started while it still could be. Remember what we’re discussing here - \*why \*Bush lied us into war. The inspections were a threat to his plan. Again, you keep offering the same unfounded claim that the UN weapons inspectors were on the verge of offering some finding that would dramatically change the situation. I have provided ample evidence that Hans Blix, in his own words, did not possess any substantially new information, and himself was unsure as of March 2003 whether or not there were WMD. Again, if you want to make these claims, you ought to provide evidence to back them up, as I have provided evidence to debunk your theories. ---
**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, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/169 "2009-05-01T16:32:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > May I suggest that you provide some cites for your statements? May I suggest you use some reading skills? > [@](#): > > Again, you keep offering the same unfounded claim that the UN weapons inspectors were on the verge of offering some finding that would dramatically change the situation. Where the hell do you get that from? The same place you get this stuff about how one can too prove a negative? Read Baradei’s report. They hadn’t found shit and would shortly be out of places to look. In a few months, tops, they \*would \*be out of places. Then there’d have to be an announcement and report. > [@](#): > > I have provided ample evidence that Hans Blix, in his own words, did not possess any substantially new information, and himself was unsure as of March 2003 whether or not there were WMD. Wrong, wrong, wrong. He had found quite a large amount of “new information”, along the lines of eliminating places where WMD’s could exist. That kind of information piles up to the point where the alternative possibility becomes unreasonable, does it not? The UN was almost there. They had to be prevented from getting the last bit of the way, so the last bit of the scare’s credibility could be preserved and the war rationalized. > [@](#): > > Again, if you want to make these claims, you ought to provide evidence to back them up, as I have provided evidence to debunk your theories. Better bone up on this “proving a negative” concept. ---
**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, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/170 "2009-05-01T17:00:00Z")
My reading skills apparently do not extend to finding anything where Hans Blix said he can’t prove a negative. Either my eyes are bad or he never said such a thing. What would clear the problem up is a citation from you in which Hans Blix says that he cannot prove that Iraq had disarmed, or something similar. I’m happy to provide multiple cites in which Blix says that, with sufficient time and cooperation, he would be able to determine whether Iraq has disarmed. Seriously, **Elvis** , why is it taken as such an affront when I say that a few of your claims ought to be backed up with citations? ---
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/171 "2009-05-01T17:09:12Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Seriously, **Elvis** , why is it taken as such an affront when I say that a few of your claims ought to be backed up with citations? Because they’re already right in front of your face. :dubious: ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/172 "2009-05-01T17:26:52Z")
Whatever. You have lots of opinions that you cannot back up with a coherent argument. How anyone can read, for example, the Jim Leher interview and come away with the opinion that Blix was soon going to expose the Bush lie is just beyond me. Blix has stated many, many times that he personally was unsure of whether Iraq had WMD. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/173 "2009-05-01T17:43:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Whatever. You have lots of opinions that you cannot back up with a coherent argument. They too are right in front of your face. :dubious: Come on now. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/174 "2009-05-01T17:58:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Whatever. You have lots of opinions that you cannot back up with a coherent argument. > > How anyone can read, for example, the Jim Leher interview and come away with the opinion that Blix was soon going to expose the Bush lie is just beyond me. Blix has stated many, many times that he personally was unsure of whether Iraq had WMD. > **[U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of...](https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml)** UC Berkeley 18 March 2004 > [@](#): > > BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has “the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past” — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion. > > “There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,” said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations’ chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something” - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the “tip of the iceberg” or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg’s past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year. > > Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of “critical thinking.” The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix’s team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America’s pre-emptive, unilateral actions “have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere.” ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/175 "2009-05-01T18:06:50Z")
IMHO Blix was not decisive enough, and I do think that he had to deal with lots of pressure; but other sources I saw also pointed that in the last round of inspections, based on the latest “intelligence”, the inspectors could not confirm what the administration was saying. I do think that if someone had waited a few weeks even people people like Blix would have come with an even more critical assessment of the situation. For an administration that was making the “facts” fit their preconceptions it was something that they could not allow, war needed to happen sooner rather than later. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/176 "2009-05-01T18:20:55Z")
Remember, too, that Blix is a diplomat and communicates like one. The quote you gave above (thanks) is about as direct a way as a diplomat will ever use to call someone a liar. ---
**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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/177 "2009-05-01T18:56:21Z")
So, when Blix said that Bush and Blair did not act in “bad faith,” he actually means he thinks they did? Geez, I work in foreign policy, and I’ve never heard diplo-speak THAT obtuse. ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/178 "2009-05-01T19:14:02Z")
That’s right. Think of a candidate in a debate saying “Now, I’m sure my opponent is an \*honorable \*man …” ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/179 "2009-05-01T19:32:33Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/180 "2009-05-01T19:44:12Z")
Well, he was probably worried about making him mad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=10)