# Where is the evidence that Bush "lied"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983 "2009-09-21T19:39:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/101 "2009-09-23T00:59:51Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I didn’t start this thread for nothing. I want to be educated. To be honest, I heard that the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs. Educate me. Show me where other countries were telling us that he had nothing. That he was holding his dick in his hand and that was his only weapon. > > It just doesn’t jive with my memory, but I am open to being corrected. No snark. Not at all. The overwhelming majority in the USA did - including on this message board - and the UK was split 50/50 despite Blair’s fabricated ‘dossier’. The section of of the UNSC that was required to pass the Resolution was bought by the USA with grace and favour, no majority of any country or population believed in WMD other than the USA. You only need to look at the absurdity of the healthcare debate to observe the game is rigged. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/102 "2009-09-23T01:16:02Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > Saddam was set up by Clinton. It’s not exactly news. As Scott Ritter says, Clinton politicised that which should not have been ( the inspection process) because it served his own ends, both personal and political. > > Lest we forget Desert Fox began the day before the evidential hearing in relation to Monika Lewinski and ended the day after the hearing ended. He took the inspectors out of Iraq for that. > > Some cold shit from Clinton. Iraq kicked the inspectors out in August 1998. They were let back in in November. Iraq was still not fully cooperative, though. We launched Desert Fox in December, and of course pulled the inspectors out before the air strikes. The inspectors went back in around 2002. It wouldn’t surprise me of the timing with the Lewinsky scandal, but there was proper motive without it. What do you mean Saddam was set up by Clinton? Saddam was no spring chicken. In 1998, Saddam was either hiding something, or likely, as we now know, he was intentionally deceiving his capabilities (or lack thereof). It was a game of cat and mouse that went on for 12 years. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/103 "2009-09-23T01:22:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m sorry, this is just nonsense. Again, I’m not defending his decision, but the CIA signed off on a National Intelligence Estimate that said, in part:This is all part of the Tenet “slam dunk” comment. Of course, these judgments were also spectacularly wrong. > > But as to your claim that Bush was being told there was nothing there: you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. [Equipo Nizkor - CIA warned Bush of no WMD in Iraq: retired official.](http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/tyler.html) Nor are you. There were many in the CIA who told the truth. They were ignored or broomed. Most of the CIA originally told it like it was. But the Cheney babysitting and constant pressure to get whet they wanted ,wore them down. They politicized the CIA. That is a special kind of lie. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/104 "2009-09-23T02:34:16Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > 1998 - Congress stated, “It should be the policy of the US to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a Democratic government to replace that regime.” This was in response to Iraq’s kicking out Nuclear Weapons Inspectors. > > 1998 - Iraq quit cooperating with UNSCOM. Operation Desert Fox ensued in which numerous (100’s) Iraq targets were destroyed with missile attacks. No history of this is complete without pointing out that the reason Iraq gave for not cooperating with UNSCOM is that the U.S. and Britain were using it as a spy operation, [a claim that was later verified as fact in the American media on the basis of multiple sources in the U.S. government and the U.N.](http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html) (It was also accepted as fact by Hans Blix in [this](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1774066) Fresh Air interview when Blix talks of trying to keep the 2003 inspection regime more professional.) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/105 "2009-09-23T02:38:25Z")
By the way, [this](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml) story from a month before the start of the Iraq War is also worth reading. It shows that while it was hard for the inspectors to prove a negative…i.e., that Saddam had no WMD…what they were finding is that the U.S. intelligence of where WMD supposedly were was “garbage”. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/106 "2009-09-23T03:14:38Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Equipo Nizkor - CIA warned Bush of no WMD in Iraq: retired official.](http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/tyler.html) Nor are you. There were many in the CIA who told the truth. They were ignored or broomed. Most of the CIA originally told it like it was. But the Cheney babysitting and constant pressure to get whet they wanted ,wore them down. They politicized the CIA. That is a special kind of lie. It is interesting because what Drumheller has said seems to be at odds with what Paul Pillar has viewed as the failures of the intelligence agencies leading up to the Iraq war. Drumheller was apparently head of European operations at the time. Pillar was head of intelligence analysis for the Near East. Pillar has never said there was a smoking gun witness who disproved the case for war. Instead, Pillar has said that the Administration relied on suspicions of a WMD threat to believe what intelligence they wanted to, and disregard what didn’t fit into their view, that Saddam was a threat and had to be taken out. What I’m saying is there’s a difference between a zealot on the streetcorner and a faithless televangelist. Both say that Jesus is coming back soon and you better start believing. I wouldn’t say the zealot is lying. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/107 "2009-09-23T03:50:47Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Congress voted for, and approved the 2003 War in Iraq. see “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” > > It was not unconstitutional. Or, I don’t see what your reasoning is. The UN didn’t authorise the invasion. The US is a signatory to the UN charter. Ergo the war was illegal. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/108 "2009-09-23T03:58:27Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > No history of this is complete without pointing out that the reason Iraq gave for not cooperating with UNSCOM is that the U.S. and Britain were using it as a spy operation, [a claim that was later verified as fact in the American media on the basis of multiple sources in the U.S. government and the U.N.](http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html) (It was also accepted as fact by Hans Blix in [this](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1774066) Fresh Air interview when Blix talks of trying to keep the 2003 inspection regime more professional.) And the French and Russians I’m sure. There was thinking throughout the 90’s was Saddam needed to be removed and a democratic government installed. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/109 "2009-09-23T04:13:32Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > The UN didn’t authorise the invasion. The US is a signatory to the UN charter. Ergo the war was illegal. I stated previously the US relied on the authorization from the previous open-ended 1991 resolution. This is tenuous, but it’s the US stance for conforming to the UN principles of requiring authorization for war. The later resolution (#1441) was unclear whether it’s breach (which the Iraqi’s did) would mean war, or would mean you need to go back and get a new resolution for war. The US/UK did try to get a new clearer resolution, and as you correctly point out, this was was not authorized. #1441 states (generally): UN finds Iraq in material breach, stemming from the 1991 resolution. UN warned Iraq it would “face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.” War is illegal internationally in all circumstances unless the UN authorizes it (tenuous, but arguable), or you fight in self defense or helping someone fight in self defense (somewhat credible in 2003 by way of preventive self defense, not credible today). Domestically, it was perfectly legal. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/110 "2009-09-23T04:48:33Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I stated previously the US relied on the authorization from the previous open-ended 1991 resolution. This is tenuous, but it’s the US stance for conforming to the UN principles of requiring authorization for war. > > The later resolution (#1441) was unclear whether it’s breach (which the Iraqi’s did) would mean war, or would mean you need to go back and get a new resolution for war. The US/UK did try to get a new clearer resolution, and as you correctly point out, this was was not authorized. > > #1441 states (generally): UN finds Iraq in material breach, stemming from the 1991 resolution. UN warned Iraq it would “face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.” > > War is illegal internationally in all circumstances unless the UN authorizes it (tenuous, but arguable), or you fight in self defense or helping someone fight in self defense (somewhat credible in 2003 by way of preventive self defense, not credible today). > > Domestically, it was perfectly legal. Bush spent months trying to get a UN resolution to invade Iraq. When he failed he flip flopped and said he didn’t need authority to invade. The US was a rogue nation against the wishes of the international community, and international law. It wasn’t OK domestically, the US is a signatory to the UN constitution and so the UN constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. Bush is therefore an international war criminal. Posted on: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 War looms as Bush issues final warning By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen Washington Post WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the “full force and might” of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war. Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately. […] Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of “working the phones,” it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m. The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome. […] Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. “The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security,” he said. “The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will.” > **[War looms as Bush issues final warning | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's...](http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html)** > > Honolulu Hawaii News - HonoluluAdvertiser.com is the home page of Honolulu Hawaii with in depth and updated Honolulu local news. Stay informed with both Honolulu Hawaii news as well as headlines and stories from around the world. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/111 "2009-09-23T14:20:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I gotta ask. Did you make up your mind about the invasion without this “education”? Did you simply rely on what you “heard” and decide that was enough to garner your support for the invasion? Where was this concern for evidence back in 2003? Why didn’t you do this thread back when it could have made an ounce of difference? I supported the invasion in 2003 because my President told me that an enemy had a WMD program and was close to having a nuclear program. He said that this was an extension of the war on terror: If you allow a rogue dictator like Hussien to have these weapons, he will sell them to an Al-Qaeda agent and we will have a dirty bomb explode in NYC. We need to go into Iraq to control these weapons. And it wasn’t just Bush; I heard Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh say on MSNBC that he would bet the lives of his children that Saddam had these weapons. Jay Rockefeller saw the intelligence and said that he believed that there were WMDs. The only opposition, at least in this country, was by politicians who believed that we needed to let the inspectors do their job and that force was not necessary yet. Now, I understand that you can’t prove a negative, but I still haven’t seen where anyone has said that they believed that the fact that he had WMDs was nonsense. Sure, some countries thought that the reports might be overstating the amounts of weapons, and that there was disagreement over whether he was close to nuclear capabilities, but the belief was there and it was universal, as I recall. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/112 "2009-09-23T14:44:59Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I supported the invasion in 2003 because my President told me that an enemy had a WMD program and was close to having a nuclear program. And, again, we’re at the crux of the problem. Bush and his administration, were the only ones with all the intelligence and chose to share only that which supported the invasion and hid/ignored all the evidence to the contrary. The President, as President, has an enormous amount of credibility and respect. People want to trust him, people want to believe he is right. And it was that credibility, that respect, and that trust that made his claims of an imminent threat, believable. Unfortunately for us, it was ONLY those things and not the evidence. We, as a country, trusted our President, and he proved himself completely unworthy of that. He and his adminstration betrayed the American people. > [@jtgain](#): > > Now, I understand that you can’t prove a negative, but I still haven’t seen where anyone has said that they believed that the fact that he had WMDs was nonsense. I know I’ve pointed this out before, why just one post of mine ago, but here it is again: “Again, you seem to misunderstand the entire point. Nobody KNEW he had nothing, just like nobody KNEW he had WMD’s. The entire point is that Bush sold the invasion as if we did know, as if we were sure, Saddam was a imminent threat. It seems to me you’ve shifted the burden from justifying the deaths and dollars that come with an invasion, to proving that countries knew we shouldn’t invade.” > [@jtgain](#): > > Sure, some countries thought that the reports might be overstating the amounts of weapons, and that there was disagreement over whether he was close to nuclear capabilities, but the belief was there and it was universal, as I recall. You’ve been provided numerous cites. I suggest you read them. And, again, everyone agreed Saddam MIGHT have had WMD’s. Which is why there were weapon’s inspectors there. Which is why the UN was involved. But what Bush and his administration did was take that MIGHT that everyone agreed on and turned it into DOES. And he did it with very little, cherry picked and sometimes fraudulent “evidence”. And rather than make a reasoned decision about the MIGHT, and rather than letting the inspectors do their job, he made a decision that cost tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives, tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars, and more. And he took that decision to the American people and misled them into believing that Iraq was an imminent threat. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/113 "2009-09-23T14:51:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > the belief was there and it was universal, as I recall You had to have had some pretty strong filters in place to think that. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/114 "2009-09-23T15:14:11Z")
I’ve not seen the slightest shred of evidence that Bush cherry picked anything, let alone lied. Intelligence gathering is always an uncertain process, and there will virtually always be conflicting opinions which disagree about interpretation of evidence. At some point a decision has to be made, and it will of necessity involve picking one particular viewpoint as the likeliest one. How do you distinguish that from cherry picking? It’s not enough to show that alternative viewpoints were out there. You need to show that these opinions were the dominant ones, shunted aside by Bush based on his agenda. Otherwise you have nothing. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/115 "2009-09-23T15:30:58Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve not seen the slightest shred of evidence that Bush cherry picked anything, let alone lied. :rolleyes: Maybe you should try paying attention. Read the thread. > [@](#): > > Intelligence gathering is always an uncertain process, and there will virtually always be conflicting opinions which disagree about interpretation of evidence. At some point a decision has to be made, and it will of necessity involve picking one particular viewpoint as the likeliest one. How do you distinguish that from cherry picking? When you consistently refuse to listen to evidence that disagrees with your preconceived notion, and instantly accept without question anything that agrees with said notion, and especially when your associates put pressure on those presenting the evidence to present only evidence that agrees, then you’re at the very least cherry picking. > [@](#): > > It’s not enough to show that alternative viewpoints were out there. You need to show that these opinions were the dominant ones, shunted aside by Bush based on his agenda. Otherwise you have nothing. It has been shown. Try to keep up with the rest of the class. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/116 "2009-09-23T15:32:01Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I know I’ve pointed this out before, why just one post of mine ago, but here it is again: "Again, you seem to misunderstand the entire point. Nobody KNEW he had nothing, just like nobody KNEW he had WMD’s. The entire point is that Bush sold the invasion as if we did know, as if we were sure, Saddam was a imminent threat… I thought I remembered Bush saying the the threat was NOT imminent. I looked it up it found where he acknowledges that it was NOT imminent.[Here:](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/) > [@](#): > > Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. > > Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. > > We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. > > 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. (emphasis mine) I’m no Bush fan, but it seems that the notion that Bush lied by claiming the threat was imminent is either a lie or just a good old fashion mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/117 "2009-09-23T15:38:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m no Bush fan, but it seems that the notion that Bush lied by claiming the threat was imminent is either a lie or just a good old fashion mistake. Except we then have this press conference [four months later](http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html): > [@](#): > > Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these – **because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States**? Isn’t that true? > > MR. FLEISCHER: **Absolutely.** One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. So which is it? ETA: Focusing on phrases like “imminent threat” is frankly irrelevant. The tone of the speech you quoted is the same: we _must_ act now before it’s too late. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/118 "2009-09-23T15:38:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Equipo Nizkor - CIA warned Bush of no WMD in Iraq: retired official.](http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/tyler.html) Nor are you. There were many in the CIA who told the truth. They were ignored or broomed. Most of the CIA originally told it like it was. But the Cheney babysitting and constant pressure to get whet they wanted ,wore them down. Oh, come on. There are always dissenting voices. President has to choose which ones to go with. Just because he does so doesn’t mean those opinions that his action are in conflict with were “ignored” or “broomed”. If that’s the case then virtually every decision by every president can be painted the same. > [@gonzomax](#): > > They politicized the CIA. That is a special kind of lie. When you so cling to certain premises that it causes you to conclude and say things like this—that something that is not a lie is a “special kind of lie”—it’s time to rethink your premises. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/119 "2009-09-23T15:40:50Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > :rolleyes: Maybe you should try paying attention. Read the thread. […] It has been shown. Try to keep up with the rest of the class. No it hasn’t been shown. Your confusion apparently lies in your inability to distinguish between assertion/opinion and evidence. Try again with that distinction in mind. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/120 "2009-09-23T15:42:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m no Bush fan, but it seems that the notion that Bush lied by claiming the threat was imminent is either a lie or just a good old fashion mistake. To, me that last bit uses the word imminent to mean ‘seconds from happening’. He’s basically saying ‘they can strike at any time, we don’t know when, so we have to get them before they get us’. The ‘they can strike at any time’ bit can also be taken to mean the threat is imminent, for a slightly different usage of the word. Besides, they didn’t know Saddam had any of the things they were claiming made the threat. He linked the events of 911, which had nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq, and some imagined threat and said that have to get them before they get us. So we get two lies for the price of one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983.md?page=7)