# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/121 "2009-09-23T15:45:07Z")
Bush avoided the term imminent as if it were the plague. His term of choice was [“grave and gathering danger”](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43466). By happy coincidence his choice of a sloppy and ill defined phraseology allowed him to skate around the stricter requirements for something to be defined as imminent, while still working the gullible right into a terror frenzy. Of course there are those of us who think Bush’s phrasing was part of a calculated strategery on Bush’s part. A strategery calculated to mislead Americans, just as the emphasis on questionable intelligence as stone cold truth was calculated to mislead. ---
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/122 "2009-09-23T15:45:51Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Except we then have this press conference [four months later](http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html):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. If you re going to call Bush a liar, I think you have to go with what HE actually said. Fleischer was in a press briefing asking questions. The Questioner tried to characterize the President’s position as something other than what it was, and Fleischer gave an inaccurate/loose/lazy/too-quick answer. We know this because we have Bush’s own words. In ascertaining if someone is lying, wouldn’t you say that their own words are the primary things to be evaluated? If we did have him commenting on imminence directly, I’d be more apt to agree with your assessment. ---
**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, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/123 "2009-09-23T15:48:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. Really? The Downing Street memo? Bush’s use of the yellow cake report he already knew was false? These don’t qualify as evidence to you? A quick review of this thread provides plenty of cited evidence. Now if you continue to simply dismiss what’s here out of hand without anything to back it up, then I’m clearly not the one who needs to try again. ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/124 "2009-09-23T15:49:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you re going to call Bush a liar, I think you have to go with what HE actually said. Fleischer was in a press briefing asking questions. The Questioner tried to characterize the President’s position as something other than what it was, and Fleischer gave an inaccurate/loose/lazy/too-quick answer. We know this because we have Bush’s own words. In ascertaining if someone is lying, wouldn’t you say that their own words are the primary things to be evaluated? If we did have him commenting on imminence directly, I’d be more apt to agree with your assessment. I don’t know about that. Since the press secretary is acting as the voice of the administration, I think it’s fair to hold him accountable. This is one context in which it’s difficult to say “but it’s only one man.” Even granting what you say, we’ve still got Bush going, “Well, it’s not imminent, but that just means we must act immediately, before it becomes imminent.” I’m just not seeing much difference there. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/125 "2009-09-23T15:55:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you re going to call Bush a liar, I think you have to go with what HE actually said. Fleischer was in a press briefing asking questions. The Questioner tried to characterize the President’s position as something other than what it was, and Fleischer gave an inaccurate/loose/lazy/too-quick answer. We know this because we have Bush’s own words. In ascertaining if someone is lying, wouldn’t you say that their own words are the primary things to be evaluated? If we did have him commenting on imminence directly, I’d be more apt to agree with your assessment. Ok…(bolding mine): > [@](#): > > The Administration used the word imminent and similar words to convey an impression of an imminent and grave threat. > > “No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02) > > **“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”** President Bush (09.26.02) > > **“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death”** President Bush (10.02.02) > > “There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.” (10.02.03) > > **“There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.”** President Bush (10.07.02) > > **“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”** President Bush (10.16.02) > > \*\*“There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein.” \*\* President Bush (10.28.02) > > **“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”** President Bush (11.01.02) > > **“Today the world is…uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.”** President Bush (11.01.02) > > **“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”** President Bush (11.23.02) > > In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Barlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.” > > In January 2003, Vice President Cheney stressed that Hussein “threatens the United States of America,” “is a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies,” and poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.” > > **“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American…Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”** President Bush (01.03.03) > > “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore…In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.” Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (01.20.03) > > “Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (01.29.03) > > In February 2003, McClellan himself said “[t]his is about [an] imminent threat.” > > **“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”** President Bush (03.16.03) > > In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMDs were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.” > > Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.” White House spokesman Scott McClellan (07.17.03) > > “There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.” White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan (08.26.03) > > CIA Director Tenet testified to Congress that he never told the administration that Iraq was an “imminent threat” and corrected Bush and/or Cheney on three occasions. (78) > > SOURCE: [http://www.bushlies.net/iraqlies.html](http://www.bushlies.net/iraqlies.html) Now, are you going to say he didn’t use the word “imminent”? Because despite that the language is clearly warning of an imminent threat even without using that word. > [@](#): > > ``` > * Main Entry: im·mi·nent > * Pronunciation: \ˈi-mə-nənt\ > * Function: adjective > * Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminēre to project, threaten, from in- + -minēre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) — more at mount > * Date: 1528 > > ``` > > : ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head \ > > SOURCE: [IMMINENT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent) Yep…the shoe fits nicely. ---
**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, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/126 "2009-09-23T16:00:25Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > 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. It’s the same thing as the nitpicking over what constitutes a “lie”. As if showing that Bush never used the exact word “imminent” or the statements he and his adminstration weren’t REAL lies makes a real difference. ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/127 "2009-09-23T16:04:22Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > 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. > > … > > [http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html](http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html) I think we’ve covered everything, so we can just let it go. You’re article just describes the last effort to get a clear authorization for war from the UN, which I referred too. It also describes the President saying we could attack in self-defense without UN authorization, which I also referred too. All I’m saying is it’s currently the view of the United States that the resolution in 1991 gave us the authorization to invade Iraq in 2003 because it never expired (the same reasoning we used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998). And domestically, the Congress authorized the war and kept funding it, and is still funding it. I’m not sure what you mean that the “UN Constitution is the supreme law of the land in US.” Did you mean the US Constitution? ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/128 "2009-09-23T16:05:08Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Bush avoided the term imminent as if it were the plague. > His term of choice was [“grave and gathering danger”](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43466). With a side order of “mushroom cloud”. Can’t leave that out. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/129 "2009-09-23T16:06:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You had to have had some pretty strong filters in place to think that. Not really. To be fair the MSM was parroting whatever the White House told them. I strongly encourage you to watch [Buying the War](http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html) on Bill Moyer’s Journal. It explores the failure of the MSM to call bullshit when there was bullshit. Indeed some few were waving the red flag in the MSM but they were shunted to the side and barely given credence if published at all. Heck, the New York Times even issued an [apology](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html) (sort of) for its coverage leading up to the war in Iraq. As such it is not surprising that many Americans were all gung-ho on the war. Their president said so, the MSM was saying so. How else were they to get information showing otherwise? Some was out there yes but required a concerted effort to dig up and was swamped by the deluge of White House water carriers. ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/130 "2009-09-23T16:09:20Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Really? The Downing Street memo? The memo referenced the assessment of the British Intel head that this was being done, but he doesn’t say (to my knowledge) that this was being done by Bush. In addition, the participants in that same meeting assumed as a matter of fact that Iraq had WMD (they considered Iraq’s use of these as one possible outcome of an attack). So what this guy was saying was that things were being shaded around the edges. > [@](#): > > Bush’s use of the yellow cake report he already knew was false? Apparently he didn’t know it was false and [relied on the CIA](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/). ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/131 "2009-09-23T16:10:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not really. > > To be fair the MSM was parroting whatever the White House told them. One would have to have pretty strong filters to pretend there were no dissenting or questioning voices, as our friend’s use of the word “universal” implies. One would not have had to resort to the MSM exclusively not to at the very least be aware that there had to be some actual targets of all that coward/traitor/Dixie-Chick-fan invective. But yes, the failure of the reporting “profession” was comprehensive. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/132 "2009-09-23T16:15:33Z")
One thing that argues strongly against the “Bush lied” or even “Bush cherrypicked” idea is that the assessment of the Iraqi danger of the Bush people does not seem to have been substantially different from that of the [Clinton people](http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp). ---
**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, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/133 "2009-09-23T16:16:18Z")
Except for the minor detail of Clinton not using it as a pretext for war. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/134 "2009-09-23T16:22:11Z")
True. It’s a minor detail, in the context of this discussion. But to the extent that it has a bearing, it argues that Bush did not lie. Because if Clinton and his security people - who were not looking for a pretext for war - nonetheless made the same assessment as the Bush people, then it’s likely that pretext for war was not the basis for this assessment when Bush did it. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/135 "2009-09-23T16:28:25Z")
> [@](#): > > One thing that argues strongly against the “Bush lied” or even “Bush cherrypicked” idea is that the assessment of the Iraqi danger of the Bush people does not seem to have been substantially different from that of the Clinton people. As Elvis pointed out, Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. He saw the evidence that Iraq had WMD programs in the past and knew that Iraq would almost certainly try to revive those programs if it could. So he maintained pressure on Iraq throughout his administration. And we can now see this worked. Iraq was unable to revive its WMD programs and produce any WMDs between 1991 and 2003. Clinton’s policies did the job. Then Bush was elected and decided they hadn’t been working. Bush claimed that Iraq had been able to revive his WMD programs in secret and make WMDs. Bush then used this as the main justification for invading Iraq. And Bush was wrong. Clinton and Bush saw the same problem. Clinton handled it. Bush failed. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/136 "2009-09-23T16:34:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As Elvis pointed out, Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. He saw the evidence that Iraq had WMD programs in the past and knew that Iraq would almost certainly try to revive those programs if it could. That’s not what those quotes say. He (& fellow Democrats) believed that Iraq currently had WMD and was continuing work on WMD programs. > [@](#): > > Clinton and Bush saw the same problem. Clinton handled it. Bush failed. That’s not what we’re talking about in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/137 "2009-09-23T16:35:20Z")
If Bush didn’t lie then he was cirtminally careless in incompetent. When you are the Commander in Chief and you want to expnd thousands of soldiers lives, tens of thousands of civilian lives and billions of dollars of treasure, you better be 10,000% sure. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/138 "2009-09-23T16:40:23Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > With a side order of “mushroom cloud”. Can’t leave that out. That was the _point_ of the phraseology. To trigger all sorts of horrible scenarios in people’s heads _without_ also triggering a requirement for the due diligence that calling something an “imminent threat” would have brought on. Instead of going to war in the real world, we went for it with a “pre-emptive strike” in the Tom Clancy zone. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/139 "2009-09-23T16:45:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > One thing that argues strongly against the “Bush lied” or even “Bush cherrypicked” idea is that the assessment of the Iraqi danger of the Bush people does not seem to have been substantially different from that of the [Clinton people](http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp). Maybe the Clinton admin’s claims were true in 1998. What does that have to do with Bush five years later? Why are the intelligence reports from 2002 and 2003, the ones that describe the US’s claims as ‘garbage’, not relevant? As for comments made during the Bush Administration, where did the quoted politicians get their information? From the Bush Administration. Were they basing their comments on what they thought had been true years previously or just repeating what the Bush War and Torture people told them? I see no strong argument here. ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/140 "2009-09-23T17:18:48Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Instead of going to war in the real world, we went for it with a “pre-emptive strike” in the Tom Clancy zone. You could call it the Pearl Harbor zone too. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not what we’re talking about in this thread. Sure it is. What, you want Bush’s actions to be considered in isolation from any context or relevant comparison? Why, pray tell? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983.md?page=8)