# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 166
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567)._