# What if it can be shown that Bush knowingly lied? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2003, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022 "2003-12-25T17:38:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/21 "2003-12-26T03:04:57Z")
Here’s another quote from the same article: > [@](#): > > People who are indignant that he lied about sex with “that woman” were silent when he deceived the nation about the need to bomb a “nerve gas plant” in the Sudan. His Administration could produce no evidence that the plant was anything but what the Sudanese government said it was–a plant that produced medicines for the Sudanese people. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/22 "2003-12-26T08:06:34Z")
Let’s also not forget the genocide that wasn’t in Kosovo. And then there is the bombing of Iraq for the same reason Bush invaded it, not to mention the continued sanctions that killed possibly a million people under Clinton’s watch. In any case, unless I get real proof, I’m not inclined to believe either Clinton or Bush lied. They have a responsibility to protect this country from foreign enemies, in fact it is their primary responsibility. They can almost never have absolute proof of anything. They have to act on the basis of evidence that is anything but airtight. Sometimes they will be wrong. But that’s all they are: wrong. Being wrong does not make you a liar. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/23 "2003-12-26T13:31:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sanja \* > how many times does it need to be pointed out that bush said “we cannot afford to wait until the threat is imminent”? Until it becomes clear to the apologists that there was no real threat at all, either in the present or the foreseeable future. > [@](#): > > when does stretching the truth become a lie? When it’s done in an attempt to mislead the target audience. > [@](#): > > and when can it be said that critics’ failure to see the forest for the trees is an act of bad faith? Not until it can be shown that there is, in fact, a forest. > [@](#): > > does a general analysis of iraq as rogue state, seen through the lens of our [national security strategy](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) justify such marginal consideratons as iraq’s current WMD inventory? When the “general analysis” is _derived from_ false or filtered or self-deceptive analysis of such “marginal considerations” (which were, after all, THE STATED REASON FOR THE WAR, remember?). > [@](#): > > a courageous and good faith position of dissent from bush policy would address specific elements of our national security policy and argue for a better alternative. This has been done extensively on this board as well as in many other areas. You’re insisting that the overall assessment of the situation is true, despite the lies told to support it. What _facts_, IYHO, are still there to support your assessment? What real trees remain in the forest you insist you can see? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/24 "2003-12-26T13:32:44Z")
**adaher** , are you stating that ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was not, in fact, occurring? Or that the UN sanctions were Clinton’s responsibility, not the UN’s? ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/25 "2003-12-26T16:11:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Er, _aluminum_ tubes. You know, the ones with no other possible use except enriching uranium in centrifuges. \*\* The claim that they had “no other possible use” was never made- IIRC it was that the tubes were considered “dual use” and, as such, were prohibited. I think several of you don’t recall specific incidents leading up to the war- -Iraqi scientists refusal to meet with weapons inspectors without Saddam’s goons present -the Iraqi who tried to give weapons inspectors a notebook (which they didn’t accept and led to Hans Blix IMHO disgusting quote that people with info for inspectors could find "more elegant ways’ of getting it to them) and was imprisoned and slated to be executed until US forces invaded Iraq -Former head of weapons inspections Richard Butler’s (no friend of the Bush administration) [claim](http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6511381%255E1702,00.html) that Iraq had WMDs and probably destroyed them before the war. -For those of you hung up on yellowcake and Niger (two words that Bush never used in his speech) and the debunked document, The Guardian [reported](http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,798497,00.html) that Iraqi agents were possibly trying to obtain uranium from the Congo. The bottom line is that most people agreed that at some point Saddam had WMDs, he was definitely not complying with weapons inspections, and bad things happened to people who did comply. A declassified US intelligence doc on the subect can be found [here](http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html). To claim that Saddam was going along with inspections or that the US “knew” Iraq was no threat is untrue. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/26 "2003-12-26T16:34:41Z")
minty green: > [@](#): > > But when we’re talking about the Bush admin’s dishonesty, we’re not just talking about their conclusion that Iraq had WMDs. There was plenty of reason to believe that Saddam had Bad Shit squirreled away somewhere or other. I can’t fault the Bushies for so concluding. Fine, then you and I are in agreement about the line in the OP which indicates that the only possible way to read good faith into Bush’s WMD would be incompetence. That’s the point I’m trying to make. **DSeid** , in his OP, is just framing the issue so there’s no possible way that Bush could be a good president - either he was intentionally lying, or he was telling the truth as far as he knew but that was due to incompetence. That is the point I’m taking issue with. DSeid: > [@](#): > > Only Bush and Blair claimed to know. Others had opinions that they believed were likely true. No, the others did not claim to be less certain…just less willing to act on that level of certainty. Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/27 "2003-12-26T16:51:56Z")
By the precedent of 1998, the House would impeach him, and the Senate acquit him. It would be my sincere hope that the Congessmen, of either party, would not descend to the partisan chicanery that the Republican leaders of that year felt incumbent on themselves. While I have nothing but loathing for the “a lie is OK unless it’s under oath” attitude, let me point out that the commitment of this country to a state of hostilities under a knowing lie would be a violation of the President’s oath of office, by any resonable reading of the two things he promises in that oath. In sum – **if** it can be shown that he knowingly and willfully lied, he should serve out his term, to avoid reinforcing a disgusting precedent, and then be replaced by all right-thinking citizens, of either party, as a man not fit to hold the high office to which he acceded. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/28 "2003-12-26T17:35:02Z")
Just one little historical point that changes _everything._ Clinton attacked Iraq also. Bush renewed Clinton’s WMD claims with greator vigor, not out of thin air. [Iraq, terror, WMDs…](http://www.dstc.edu.au/ListArchive/eclectika/archive/2003/02/msg00185.html) I’m glad the left wing knows we’re all safe if we just trust Jacques Chiraq. I wonder if my dogs can vote for Bush? BTW, I don’t claim to understand the shadowy world of nation-sponsored international jihadist terrorism. That’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/29 "2003-12-26T17:59:05Z")
What a fascinating link, **Beagle**! It takes a rare bit of courage to posit, with an apparently straight face, that Saddam was connected to the OK City bombing. I think your dogs make a fairly safe bet, given a canine instinct for blind loyalty and an ability to actually eat shit with relish. Humans oftimes resort to using their capacity for reason, and are therefore less reliable Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/30 "2003-12-26T18:38:45Z")
> [@](#): > > the others did not claim to be less certain…just less willing to act on that level of certainty. Oh, Chiam, c’mon. Do you forget so quickly? Do just a quick search for what others were saying. France led the charge. [http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/26/sprj.irq.france/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/26/sprj.irq.france/index.html) > [@](#): > > France wants proof of Iraq guilt > Sunday, January 26, 2003 Posted: 2:42 PM EST (1942 GMT) > PARIS, France – France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them. > Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told French radio Europe 1 on Sunday that she did not think this was the case and that the arms inspectors needed more time to conduct thorough searches. > “There would have to be an action showing that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and will under no circumstances eliminate them,” she said in response to a question asking what weapons inspectors would have to show to prompt military intervention from France. > “That would no doubt be an important element, but it doesn’t look like it will be the case,” she said. > France had asked the U.S. States for proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but Washington has failed to provide any, Alliot-Marie said. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/31 "2003-12-26T18:52:55Z")
Text of memorandum submitted by France, Russia, Germany Monday, February 24, 2003 to the U.N. Security Council [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/index.html) > [@](#): > > • While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field; ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/32 "2003-12-26T19:02:57Z")
Bush and Blair claimed to know, on the basis of evidence that was too sensitive to share, of course, (“trust me”) and on the basis of evidence that was false. No Chiam, this was either a lie or incompentance of the administration. Bush’s own Foreign advisory board leans torwards the incompetance spin, no surprise given the only other choice: [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/24/white.house.uranium/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/24/white.house.uranium/index.html) - Fact-checkers blamed for Bush’s uranium ‘goof’ From Dana Bash CNN Thursday, December 25, 2003 > [@](#): > > President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has concluded that his 2003 State of the Union address included information about Iraq’s weapons program that wasn’t checked carefully … “No one checked their facts carefully,” said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It was a mistake that propagated itself. They should have known better to check and ask more questions about the information.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/33 "2003-12-26T19:35:17Z")
“The President is not a fact-checker” - Condoleeza Rice ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/34 "2003-12-26T23:58:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mojo \* > The claim that [the aluminum tubes] had “no other possible use” was never made- IIRC it was that the tubes were considered “dual use” and, as such, were prohibited. Oh really? Allow me to quote the Condoleeza Rice, who claimed that the aluminum tubes [“are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/index.html) The motherfuckers _lied_, dude. Thank goodness their words are recorded for posterity, so that revisionists and apologists can’t merely waive their hands and claim they never uttered their lies. > [@](#): > > -For those of you hung up on yellowcake and Niger (two words that Bush never used in his speech) Allow me to quote the liar-in-chief: [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/) ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/35 "2003-12-27T05:26:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Allow me to quote the liar-in-chief: [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/sprj.irq.bush.sotu/) \*\* [Apologist mode on] See?, he didn´t say neither “yellowcake” nor “Niger” [Apologist mode off] ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/36 "2003-12-27T05:44:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > \*\* > My question is to conservatives: if the latter is shown to be true, would you be outraged? Would you call for impeachment? > \*\* I’m alrady outraged. Either way, I expect more, (naively one would presume), from the CinC. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > \*\* > Given that such is a real possibility would you call for an independent inquiry to ascertain the facts given that Clinton’s lie about something as inconsequential as a blowjob and a cigar was cause for outrage? One presumes that a lie that gets us into war is more critical. > \*\* This isn’t easy for me to understand. I assume you’re asking I would like anindependent inquiry into the pre-war agitprop etc, right? If this is so then I would have to say that I await the chance to welcome such an inquiry. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > \*\* > But the lack of outrage amazes me. > \*\* Losing your faith in humanity only hurts for a while at first. You get used to the amazement sorta. The best case for a clear cut lie I’ve seen is the “imprecision” of Bush’s report that there was an IAEA report that said Iraq was just sixmontha away from making The Bomb. Oddly enough, there’s no such report. Mr. Fleischer explained thet Mr. Bush’d been imprecise. > [@](#): > > [whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/2002](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020907-2.html) > THE PRESIDENT: AP lady. > > Q Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear – new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein? > > THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied – finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic – the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need. > [@](#): > > [_Auntie Beeb_](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3109538.stm) > Standing next to Tony Blair at Camp David, he declared that Saddam Hussein was only “six months away” from developing a nuclear bomb. > > He claimed to be quoting an IAEA report, but the IAEA appeared never to have made such a claim. > > A White House official later said that the president had been “imprecise”… Of course there’s also the claim that he can “speak Mexican.” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/37 "2003-12-27T05:55:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmkeller \* > \*\* > Yes - that the intelligence failure on Iraq was not indicative of a failure that was specific to the Bush administration due specifically to (supposed) Bush administration incompetence, but was a common one amongst Western governments in general. > > To single out the Bush administration as incompetent for that, as you did in your OP is wrong. > \*\* The decision to undertake such a massive foreign policy venture on the basis of intel that was amply qualified and the decision to engage in this same foreign policy venture that the CIA, among others, warned would actually _increase_ the chances of intl terrorists and other bad actors getting their hands on whatever banned weapons Hussein had, these bad decisions are particular to the current admin. While the judgements of the likelihood of Iraq’s posession of banned weapons are’nt unique to this admin, the decisions and actions taken, (ostensibly on the basis of these judgements), are, in fact, unique to GWB’s current admin. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/38 "2003-12-27T05:59:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sanja \* > \*\* > how many times does it need to be pointed out that bush said “we cannot afford to wait until the threat is imminent”? > \*\* Because we wouldn’t be politley put on notice. But if you’ll notice, Oct, IIRC, 2002 Bush tyold us that Iraq _had_ put us on notice. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sanja \* > \*\* > does a general analysis of iraq as rogue state, seen through the lens of our [national security strategy](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) justify such marginal consideratons as iraq’s current WMD inventory? > \*\* The section of the NSS you’re discussing defines how the concept of imminent threat has changed. As you yourself noted, Iraq was said to fit well within the new expanded definition of imminent threat. FWIW, Rumsfeld specifically defended the idea that Iraq presented and “imminent threat” to the US. To pretend that the admin didn’t sell the threat to the US from Iraq as imminent is to engage in basest of sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/39 "2003-12-27T06:08:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > \*\*We now know that Bush spoke untruth when he claimed that Iraq had WMD’s that were an imminent threat against us. \*\* Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because President Bush did _not_ say that they were an imminent threat to the United States. To the contrary, he said in his State of the Union address in January 2003: > [@](#): > > Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/40 "2003-12-27T06:29:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because President Bush did _not_ say that they were an imminent threat to the United States. To the contrary, he said in his State of the Union address in January 2003: \*\* FYI, FWIW, Here’s the thread on this debate: [Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=219080&highlight=imminent) And here’s the answer to GWB’s question, "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? " October 7, 2002 when, in the words of GWB, [Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html). > [@](#): > > **President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat** > “The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.” Granted, Hussien’s actions didn’t _politely_ put us on notice, but it’s the thought that counts. There’s a plenty in that thread showing how the “concept of imminent threat” _must_ be adapted to “the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.” To pretend that the admin didn’t sell the threat to the US from Iraq as imminent is to engage in basest of sophistry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022.md?page=3)