# 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:** 8
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/141 "2009-09-23T17:41:07Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Maybe the Clinton admin’s claims were true in 1998. What does that have to do with Bush five years later? Because while you are apparently inclined to judge Clinton favorably while condemning Bush for saying the same things, it is now thought that the claims were as untrue in Clinton’s time as they were in Bush’s time. (Considering that 1998 was when the Iraq inspection program stopped, you would have to think if anything there was a higher likelihood of WMD in 2002 than in 1998.) > [@](#): > > Why are the intelligence reports from 2002 and 2003, the ones that describe the US’s claims as ‘garbage’, not relevant? Perhaps you can point to those reports. But in any event, they did not represent anything close to a consensus of the intelligence community. It appears that the prevailing opinion of intelligence community at the time was that Iraq had an active WMD program. > [@](#): > > 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? My understanding is that congressional leaders of both parties have independent access to intelligence reports and senior personel. ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/142 "2009-09-23T17:44:20Z")
[Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html) Bush and Cheney lied and sent their spokesmen all over to spread more of the same. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/143 "2009-09-23T18:00:25Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s not what those quotes say. He (& fellow Democrats) believed that Iraq currently had WMD and was continuing work on WMD programs. No, that’s not what the quotes say. Here’s the quotes from the actual members of the Clinton administration: > [@](#): > > “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. > > “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. > > “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. > > “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 > > “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. Like I wrote before, these are all talking about things Iraq did in the past and preventing him from doing those things in the future. Nowhere are they claiming Iraq has a WMD program now. Now look at all the later quotes on this list. Notice the dates. Quick historical quiz: what major political event occurred in 2000? After the year 2000, somebody began telling people that Iraq had current WMD programs. And people believed this because that someone was supposed to have access to secret intelligence. People like Kerry and Byrd and Kennedy and Gore are only guilty of believing George Bush when he told them lies. I was guilty of the same thing in 2003. But there’s a major difference between being a liar and being lied to. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/144 "2009-09-23T18:14:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Because while you are apparently inclined to judge Clinton favorably while condemning Bush for saying the same things, it is now thought that the claims were as untrue in Clinton’s time as they were in Bush’s time. Could be. What do comments in 1998 have to do with the situation in 2003 again? Is this an Us vs. Them thing? If Clinton said it I have to believe it or something? Maybe they were true in 1998, maybe they were not. They have no bearing on what was so in 2003; I can’t imagine why you brought them up. > [@](#): > > (Considering that 1998 was when the Iraq inspection program stopped, you would have to think if anything there was a higher likelihood of WMD in 2002 than in 1998.) I would? No, I would not. Because I know what inspectors in 2003 were finding, which is nothing. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you can point to those reports. But in any event, they did not represent anything close to a consensus of the intelligence community. What reports? What are you talking about? I said nothing about consensus, I said, or am about to say, that it’s disingenuous to point to out-of-date intelligence to justify Bush’s actions. Why? Because what was said in 1998 has no bearing on what was so in 2003. > [@](#): > > It appears that the prevailing opinion of intelligence community at the time was that Iraq had an active WMD program. Canada’s official position was along the lines of “maybe a few rotten shells are sitting abandoned somewhere”. I have an out-of-date link to that report, but the Harper government redesigned the government websites so they look written on Conservative letterhead and it has vanished. It has already been shown that France, Germany, and the UN inspectors did not agree with your man Bush either. So don’t try to tell me that the US’s opinion was prevalent. > [@](#): > > My understanding is that congressional leaders of both parties have independent access to intelligence reports and senior personel. Personnel like Rumsfeld? Or people who took orders from Rumsfeld? ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/145 "2009-09-23T18:42:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, that’s not what the quotes say. Here’s the quotes from the actual members of the Clinton administration:Like I wrote before, these are all talking about things Iraq did in the past and preventing him from doing those things in the future. Nowhere are they claiming Iraq has a WMD program now. That ignores the plain meaning of the words, as well as the context, which was warning about an imminent threat that required action at that time (i.e. Operation Desert Fox). And even then, Madeline Albright said that they [didn’t think they eliminated all of Iraq’s WMD](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/albright_12-17.html). > [@Madeline Albright](#): > > SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, what we’re - the purpose of the use of force here is to degrade Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, his ability to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction, and his ability to continue to threaten his neighbors. > > So the targets are related to that. They are those to do with weapons of mass destruction facilities with a security - command and control. And so the purpose of this is specifically to do with degrading his ability to - as I said - > > JIM LEHRER: Sure. Degrading is the word that you have used; the president used. What does that word actually mean in this context? What do you mean “degrade?” Bombing to degrade-bombing is destroying, is it not? > > SEC. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that - you know - I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. > > It’s hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to - you know - Saddam Hussein had the capability to - with the VX agents - to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth. So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat, and what the president decided to do, I think, was very sound, very important for our national security and take action when he could, and what it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word. FWIW, here’s the [full Pelosi statement](http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm) which is also clear. I didn’t look up the rest of the full quotes, but they’re undoubtedly the same. > [@The\_Tooth](#): > > Could be. What do comments in 1998 have to do with the situation in 2003 again? Is this an Us vs. Them thing? If Clinton said it I have to believe it or something? Maybe they were true in 1998, maybe they were not. They have no bearing on what was so in 2003; I can’t imagine why you brought them up. One more time. The fact that Clinton and his people, faced with largely the same situation and relying on much of the same intelligence operation, arrived at the same conclusion as the Bush people, casts considerable doubt as to the likelihood that Bush and/or his political people manipulated the evidence in order to further their agenda. Occam’s Razor, I believe would apply. Either one phenomenon (intelligence consensus) explains both Bush & Clinton, or Bush lied/manipulated and Clinton had some mysterious other reason for saying the same thing (or better yet, let’s ignore him altogether). Simplest and most logical explanation is the former. > [@](#): > > What reports? What are you talking about? Why is this hard to understand? I quoted your post. You talked about “reports”. I asked about them. What’s missing? > [@](#): > > I said nothing about consensus But I did. See my first post to this thread. > [@](#): > > Canada’s official position was along the lines of “maybe a few rotten shells are sitting abandoned somewhere”. I have an out-of-date link to that report, but the Harper government redesigned the government websites so they look written on Conservative letterhead and it has vanished. It has already been shown that France, Germany, and the UN inspectors did not agree with your man Bush either. So don’t try to tell me that the US’s opinion was prevalent. I’m not claiming anything about foreign intelligence. It would be lunacy for a president to rely on foreign intelligence over US intelligence and I don’t believe any presidents do so. Re the UN inspectors, my understanding is that their position was that they had no hard evidence but [had suspicions](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html), although they thought inspections should be given more time to work. > [@](#): > > Personnel like Rumsfeld? Or people who took orders from Rumsfeld? No, actually people like (Clinton appointee) George Tenet, and people who took orders from him. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/146 "2009-09-23T19:02:26Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Because while you are apparently inclined to judge Clinton favorably while condemning Bush for saying the same things, it is now thought that the claims were as untrue in Clinton’s time as they were in Bush’s time. (Considering that 1998 was when the Iraq inspection program stopped, you would have to think if anything there was a higher likelihood of WMD in 2002 than in 1998.) Hmm…(bolding mine): > [@](#): > > In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — **an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.** > > SOURCE: [http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project\_home&context=overview&id=945](http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945) Seems neither Clinton nor Bush nor the intelligence community were in much of a fuss about this until it became crucial to Bush. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you can point to those reports. But in any event, they did not represent anything close to a consensus of the intelligence community. It appears that the prevailing opinion of intelligence community at the time was that Iraq had an active WMD program. Consensus? We are going to war over intelligence from a divided intelligence community? When did Bush & Co. let any of us (or Congress) know that there was serious dispute within the intelligence community? (bolding/underlining mine again) > [@](#): > > - On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” **In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ "** > > - In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” **In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.”** > > - On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” **Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”** > > - On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. **One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to.** The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].” > > SOURCE: [http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project\_home&context=overview&id=945](http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945) > > In April 2001, however, the Energy Department had concluded that, “while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production.” During the preparation of the September 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the Energy Department and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated their belief that Iraq intended to use the tubes in a conventional rocket program, but the Central Intelligence Agency’s contrary view prevailed. > > \ > > In September, the CIA circulated a draft report titled Iraqi Support for Terrorism, which found “no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.” On September 17, CIA Director George Tenet reiterated this point in testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “The intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points have discussed safe-haven, training, and reciprocal non-aggression,” he said. “There are several reported suggestions by Al Qaeda to Iraq about joint terrorist ventures, but in no case can we establish that Iraq accepted or followed up on these suggestions.” > > \ > > In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” > > What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush’s radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done. > > The CIA put the NIE together in less than three weeks. It proved to be false. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later concluded, "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. > > SOURCE: [http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project\_home&context=key\_false\_statements&id=946](http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946) Lots and lots and lots more to be had at that very thoroughly done web site. Go check for yourself. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/147 "2009-09-23T19:23:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Consensus? We are going to war over intelligence from a divided intelligence community? When did Bush & Co. let any of us (or Congress) know that there was serious dispute within the intelligence community? As noted previously, it’s the nature of intelligence gathering that the conclusions tend to be in dispute. > [@](#): > > Lots and lots and lots more to be had at that very thoroughly done web site. Go check for yourself. I don’t see anything in most of what you’ve cited to this point that goes beyond dissenting opinions, and the Al Qaeda stuff is misleading. The first item is suggestive, though. If this website’s claims are true, and if Cheney relied on the CIA for his statements, then he lied. ---
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/148 "2009-09-23T19:27:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. I recently read Drumhellers book. He makes it clear that Cheney and Bush were forcing the intelligence to go where they wanted it. Standing up to them would have cost your career. If they suspected you were not on board enough you were transferred out. Gross came in afterwards and cleaned out any resistance. They politicized an agency that was created to be exempt from it. Others have tried ,but nothing on this scale this was ever tried before. The neocons were in charge and knew where they wanted it to go. They should be exposed and on trial. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/149 "2009-09-23T19:47:09Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Because while you are apparently inclined to judge Clinton favorably while condemning Bush for saying the same things The difference being, the consequences of error are much smaller when you’re just talking, or maybe hitting a few military targets from the air, than when the words are to win support for, and justify, launching a full-scale invasion and occupation. If Clinton was wrong, what were the consequences? If Bush was wrong, what were the consequences? Which one had, or should have had, a much greater burden of having done due diligence? ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/150 "2009-09-23T19:51:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As noted previously, it’s the nature of intelligence gathering that the conclusions tend to be in dispute. And I repeat, when/where/how did Bush & Co. make its citizens and/or Congress aware of disputed intelligence? I posted earlier where Bush and others spoke of the imminent threat posed by Iraq. How did Bush & Co. come to this conclusion when such a conclusion was clearly in doubt? Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the intelligence provided was honestly given and Bush acted in good faith on intelligence that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US with WMDs why wasn’t the CIA gutted when it was shown the intelligence was faulty? Mind you we are not talking about a goof here or there. We are talking (again assuming the CIA was providing its best analysis that Saddam was building nukes and WMD) _massive_ intelligence failures. Colossal. Epic. I am not one for scapegoating but then I would expect our intelligence services (and military and so on) to be provably effective. If they fell down so utterly, so completely, were so invariably wrong I would start firing a lot of people and rebuild the agency. Certainly I would not want such incompetence to be left to continue. Apparently though Bush felt they did such a bang up job he awarded former CIA Director George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom (our highest civilian award). :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I don’t see anything in most of what you’ve cited to this point that goes beyond dissenting opinions, and the Al Qaeda stuff is misleading. Al Qaeda stuff is misleading? How do you mean? I am misleading you or Bush & Co. was misleading us? ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/151 "2009-09-23T19:51:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That ignores the plain meaning of the words, as well as the context, which was warning about an imminent threat that required action at that time (i.e. Operation Desert Fox). And even then, Madeline Albright said that they [didn’t think they eliminated all of Iraq’s WMD](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/albright_12-17.html).FWIW, here’s the [full Pelosi statement](http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm) which is also clear. I didn’t look up the rest of the full quotes, but they’re undoubtedly the same. > > One more time. > > The fact that Clinton and his people, faced with largely the same situation and relying on much of the same intelligence operation, arrived at the same conclusion as the Bush people, casts considerable doubt as to the likelihood that Bush and/or his political people manipulated the evidence in order to further their agenda. It does no such thing. One more time: it has no bearing on the matter. Unless you’re arguing that Bush’s claims were based on statements Clinton had made five years earlier, of course. That is not an argument I’d make if I wanted to defend the Bush Admin’s claims. > [@](#): > > Occam’s Razor, I believe would apply. Either one phenomenon (intelligence consensus) explains both Bush & Clinton, or Bush lied/manipulated and Clinton had some mysterious other reason for saying the same thing (or better yet, let’s ignore him altogether). Simplest and most logical explanation is the former. No. The argument “if Bush lied then Clinton must have also lied five years previously” makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe Clinton was lying. Maybe Clinton was honest, but wrong. Maybe he was right. This has nothing AT ALL to do with whether Bush’s claims five years later reflected reality and to what degree. > [@](#): > > Why is this hard to understand? I quoted your post. You talked about “reports”. I asked about them. What’s missing? Ah, sorry. I have to devote some brain cells to my job, so I was skimming. I referred to UN inspection reports, yes. I could provide them tonight when I have time to dig them up six years after the fact, I suppose. Would it make a difference? You yourself admit that they do not support Bush’s claims, and that is what I would be trying to show by posting them. > [@](#): > > But I did. See my first post to this thread. The consensus - such as it was - was forced. Intelligence was provided by Rumsfeld’s Office of Special Plans, which existed to make the case for invading Iraq. Any intelligence that didn’t support Bush’s policy of invasion and conquest was dismissed. > [@](#): > > I’m not claiming anything about foreign intelligence. It would be lunacy for a president to rely on foreign intelligence over US intelligence and I don’t believe any presidents do so. But I do, and reports from non-US sources made it clear that Bush’s claims about Iraq were false. Bush used British intelligence regarding Uranium purchases in Niger despite the CIA’s determination no such purchases were made, so I submit the US does rely on foreign intelligence over American. If such intelligence tells the US what it wants to hear, anyway. And since the US was warned by Germany that Curveball was a bullshit artist, I suggest doing so is not lunacy. > [@](#): > > Re the UN inspectors, my understanding is that their position was that they had no hard evidence but [had suspicions](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html), although they thought inspections should be given more time to work. But Bush and his Administration didn’t say they had suspicions. They said Iraq posed a threat. They said they knew where the weapons were, sort of. Although “north, south, east, or west of Tikrit” describes pretty much every place on earth. > [@](#): > > No, actually people like (Clinton appointee) George Tenet, and people who took orders from him. Head of the CIA? Where Cheney made regular pilgrimages to before the invasion and occupation of Iraq? The same CIA whose agents had their cover blown out of pique because one of their operatives didn’t support the Bush administration’s lies? I’m sorry, but the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq. Judging from the occupying of the Oil Ministry Building, Wolfowitz’s (or was it Bremer’s) claims that the debacle would be paid for with Iraqi oil money, Bush’s plea to Iraqis not to destroy their oilfields, PNAC’s plea, written by future Bush Administration executives and apologists, to Clinton years earlier to invade Iraq for its resources, and the attempts to pass the Iraqi Petroleum Law, I’ll go out on a limb and say it was about oil. I could be wrong. But regardless of the motive, weapons were the excuse. When it failed, terr’ was the excuse. I think Freedom was probably mentioned sometime too, as if Bush was doing Iraqis a favour by ruining their country and their lives. But the plethora of weaker and weaker excuses (it’s okay to invade because of X, in fact even though X is not so it’s still okay) coupled with the total lack of both hindsight and foresight tells me that weapons were just an excuse, and it was chosen because weapons are scary and Americans were all set to be protected from what scares them. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/152 "2009-09-23T20:05:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It would be lunacy for a president to rely on foreign intelligence over US intelligence and I don’t believe any presidents do so. Oooh…I missed this one. Lunacy you say? A president would never do that you say? Well… > [@](#): > > **How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of ‘Curveball’** > > The Iraqi informant’s German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was ‘not proven,’ and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches. > > \ > > Five senior officials from Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. > > According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said. > > \ > > “This was not substantial evidence,” said a senior German intelligence official. “We made clear we could not verify the things he said.” > > The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. “He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy,” said a BND official who supervised the case. “He is not a completely normal person,” agreed a BND analyst. > > Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate prewar U.S. accusations that Baghdad had biological weapons, a commission appointed by Bush reported this year. > > \ > > At the Central Intelligence Agency, officials embraced Curveball’s account even though they could not confirm it or interview him until a year after the invasion. They ignored multiple warnings about his reliability before the war, punished in-house critics who provided proof that he had lied and refused to admit error until May 2004, 14 months after the invasion. > > After the CIA vouched for Curveball’s accounts, Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had “mobile biological weapons labs” designed to produce “germ warfare agents.” Bush cited the mobile germ factories in at least four prewar speeches and statements, and other world leaders repeated the charge. > > Powell also highlighted Curveball’s “eyewitness” account when he warned the United Nations Security Council on the eve of war that Iraq’s mobile labs could brew enough weapons-grade microbes “in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people.” > > The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball’s case said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball’s claims as a justification for war. > > “We were shocked,” the official said. “Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven… It was not hard intelligence.” > > SOURCE: [How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-curveball20nov20,1,4762658.story) (I encourage you to read the article…very lengthy and in depth…the above it just the upshot) Guess that makes Bush a lunatic. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/153 "2009-09-23T20:35:58Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Which one had, or should have had, a much greater burden of having done due diligence? Again, that’s not what we are discussing (see the title of this thread). I am not going to keep on responding to this. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > And I repeat, when/where/how did Bush & Co. make its citizens and/or Congress aware of disputed intelligence? I posted earlier where Bush and others spoke of the imminent threat posed by Iraq. How did Bush & Co. come to this conclusion when such a conclusion was clearly in doubt? I don’t think the conclusion was clearly in doubt (although in retrospect it was clearly wrong). As I’ve said repeatedly, intelligence by nature tends to lend itself to different interpretations. If you act the way you suggest, you could never act on anything. The way these things work is that more senior people have the job of sifting through the competing viewpoints and making a decision. Once that decision is made, that becomes the assumption, and you don’t necessarily keep acting like there’s some doubt (unless the decision is in fact that there is some doubt). > [@](#): > > I am not one for scapegoating but then I would expect our intelligence services (and military and so on) to be provably effective. If they fell down so utterly, so completely, were so invariably wrong I would start firing a lot of people and rebuild the agency. Certainly I would not want such incompetence to be left to continue. > > Apparently though Bush felt they did such a bang up job he awarded former CIA Director George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom (our highest civilian award). :rolleyes: What’s your point with this? That Bush realizes that he lied and it wasn’t the fault of the CIA? I think if Bush went and purged the CIA in response to the intelligence failures people would be screaming like mad that Bush is scapegoating others for his own failures. I imagine individual careers might have been helped or harmed by being right or wrong on WMD, and it’s possible that there was some sort of review to see where things went wrong (there was certainly an [internal review of the curveball breakdown that you cited](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08intel.html)), but I don’t know that you can make a case that Bush lied based on lack of a CIA purge. > [@](#): > > Al Qaeda stuff is misleading? How do you mean? I am misleading you or Bush & Co. was misleading us? Your cite is misleading. It presents “there is some sort of relationship” as if it were a contradiction to “we don’t know the exact nature or extent of the relationship”. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Lunacy you say? A president would never do that you say? Yes, absolute lunacy. Other countries have their own interests in mind. No US president in his right mind would ever do such a thing, and I submit that you, Whack-a-Mole - a man who I disagree with about much but does not appear to be a lunatic - would not, were you president, rely on other countries’ intelligence operations over your own. But important - this does not mean that countries don’t rely on intelligence gathered by other countries’ spy operations. To the contrary, intelligence sharing goes on all the time. This is well known. But in terms of drawing ultimate conclusions, every country draws its own, using or rejecting the intelligence and conclusions of other agencies based on their own judgment. So again, if you were the president and the CIA chief said “we believe X, based on intelligence gathered by Israeli intelligence” sure you would act on it. But if the CIA chief said “We believe X but Israeli intelligence disagrees with us” you’d be a lunatic if you acted on the conclusions of Israeli intelligence over the US. > [@The\_Tooth](#): > > It does no such thing. One more time: it has no bearing on the matter. Unless you’re arguing that Bush’s claims were based on statements Clinton had made five years earlier, of course. That is not an argument I’d make if I wanted to defend the Bush Admin’s claims. > > No. The argument “if Bush lied then Clinton must have also lied five years previously” makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe Clinton was lying. Maybe Clinton was honest, but wrong. Maybe he was right. This has nothing AT ALL to do with whether Bush’s claims five years later reflected reality and to what degree. OK, I disagree as above, and have nothing further to add. > [@](#): > > Ah, sorry. I have to devote some brain cells to my job, so I was skimming. I referred to UN inspection reports, yes. I could provide them tonight when I have time to dig them up six years after the fact, I suppose. Would it make a difference? You yourself admit that they do not support Bush’s claims, and that is what I would be trying to show by posting them. I claim they provide partial support for the Bush claims. The UN was not in the intelligence gathering business. They were in the inspection business. They said there was a lot of unaccounted for material. Your claim was that these reports described US claims as “garbage”. That’s a pretty strong statement and seems to contradict the CNN report that I cited earlier. > [@](#): > > The consensus - such as it was - was forced. Intelligence was provided by Rumsfeld’s Office of Special Plans, which existed to make the case for invading Iraq. Any intelligence that didn’t support Bush’s policy of invasion and conquest was dismissed. I’m aware that this is the claim being made. Continued assertions don’t add anything. > [@](#): > > But I do, and reports from non-US sources made it clear that Bush’s claims about Iraq were false. Bush used British intelligence regarding Uranium purchases in Niger despite the CIA’s determination no such purchases were made, so I submit the US does rely on foreign intelligence over American. I discussed this earlier. Bush thought it had been cleared with the CIA, per Tenet (see link above). > [@](#): > > But Bush and his Administration didn’t say they had suspicions. They said Iraq posed a threat. They said they knew where the weapons were, sort of. Although “north, south, east, or west of Tikrit” describes pretty much every place on earth. See above re UN. ---
**Author:** ![Death\_of\_Rats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a6a055/32.png) [@Death\_of\_Rats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Death_of_Rats)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/154 "2009-09-23T20:45:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not tu quoque at all. 🙂 > > For me, I think he started out with a belief, and he cherry-picked evidence that sustained that belief. When data came across his desk that contradicted his belief, it was subject to intense scrutiny and near-impossible demands for standards. When information came along that confirmed his belief, it was readily accepted with no skepticism or scrutiny at all. > > This makes it an exercise in intellectual dishonesty… but not really actual, lying-type dishonesty. How he got to the belief was not a lie. That he actually did believe it may also be true. That he presented it to the American people as established fact and not a hotly contested opinion made it a lie. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/155 "2009-09-23T20:57:30Z")
Not being able to find the weapons the US claimed were there does not support the US’s claims. Whether the UN is in the intelligence gathering or not (they were in the business of acting on it) their continued inability to verify Bush’s claims is something I consider evidence that Bush was lying. One could argue he was mistaken, but just being mistaken doesn’t explain the skullduggery with the NYT, the continued excuses for invasion once the WMD’s didn’t show up, the failure to secure suspected weapons sites while making sure the Oil Ministry was safe and sound, and so on. The magic 16 words were pulled out of the speech in which they were uttered several times on the grounds they were false, but someone insisted they be put back in. This is not honest. As for the Office of Special Plans and their mission to make the invasion of Iraq look just, it’s not just jawing, a Lt. Colonel working in intelligence at the time says she watched it happen. The things she says explains the facts, why should I doubt her? Her name is Kwiatkowski if you’re interested in looking this up. I could say more, as I’ve said before I followed the Bush trainwreck with some interest, but there’s no point and nothing to be gained from it. And I certainly wouldn’t deny the possibility that gross incompetence rather than dishonesty is to blame, but this does not seem to be the case. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/156 "2009-09-23T21:12:54Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t think the conclusion was clearly in doubt (although in retrospect it was clearly wrong). As I’ve said repeatedly, intelligence by nature tends to lend itself to different interpretations. If you act the way you suggest, you could never act on anything. The way these things work is that more senior people have the job of sifting through the competing viewpoints and making a decision. Once that decision is made, that becomes the assumption, and you don’t necessarily keep acting like there’s some doubt (unless the decision is in fact that there is some doubt). I understand and agree that rarely, if ever, does a government get 100% flawless intel from which to make a decision. Clearly they have to go on the incomplete info they have and make decisions. What you seem to keep missing though is that the intel we had that Iraq had WMDs and/or was trying to build them was not remotely good intel. Indeed a great deal of the intel, cited profusely earlier in this thread, directly contradicted Iraq had/was getting WMDs. The evidence for it was remarkably thin. Going to war is a Big Deal[sup]thm[/sup]. Extraordinary measures should require extraordinary proof. We had nothing remotely approaching that level of proof…not within light years. There was a lot of evidence to the contrary. > [@](#): > > What’s your point with this? That Bush realizes that he lied and it wasn’t the fault of the CIA? > > I think if Bush went and purged the CIA in response to the intelligence failures people would be screaming like mad that Bush is scapegoating others for his own failures. I imagine individual careers might have been helped or harmed by being right or wrong on WMD, and it’s possible that there was some sort of review to see where things went wrong (there was certainly an [internal review of the curveball breakdown that you cited](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08intel.html)), but I don’t know that you can make a case that Bush lied based on lack of a CIA purge. I am saying IF (note big “if”) the CIA was presenting its best evidence analysis and that led to war and later that evidence was shown to be profoundly wrong (all of it) how do you not hold them accountable? That is a good job in your view? Maybe you do not fire people but you certainly endeavor to see what went wrong and fix it. How could you rely on an agency that is so important that screwed up so completely (again we are assuming Bush just didn’t demand the evidence he wanted but rather the CIA did its best and Bush made a decision innocently believing the intel)? How…in…the…hell do you give the Medal of Freedom to the Director that oversaw such a colossal failure? A “whoops”, here’s a medal is cool with you on this level of screwup? Point is I think it is evidence Bush & Co. were demanding evidence that supported their preconceived desire. I have given evidence above that people who were trying to say, “Hey, wait a sec, this is not right” were pushed out. The yes men got to stay. You give men who fucked up the Medal of Honor to keep them quiet. Put them on the chopping block and they will spill the beans. Bush could not have that so the CIA gets a pat on the back. > [@](#): > > Your cite is misleading. It presents “there is some sort of relationship” as if it were a contradiction to “we don’t know the exact nature or extent of the relationship”. Go to the link I provided. There is LOTS of evidence showing Bush & Co. trying to link Al Qaeda to Saddam/Iraq. Hell, it started two days after 9/11 when Bush told Richard Clarke to find such a link. Clarke told him he’d of course look again but the fact was they already had and there was none. They looked again and, guess what, there was none. Despite no link at all over half the US in 2005 (or 2006?) believed bin Laden was in cahoots with Hussein. Wonder how they formed that opinion? In a vacuum where no one was mentioning it? > [@](#): > > Yes, absolute lunacy. Other countries have their own interests in mind. No US president in his right mind would ever do such a thing, and I submit that you, Whack-a-Mole - a man who I disagree with about much but does not appear to be a lunatic - would not, were you president, rely on other countries’ intelligence operations over your own. > > But important - this does not mean that countries don’t rely on intelligence gathered by other countries’ spy operations. To the contrary, intelligence sharing goes on all the time. This is well known. But in terms of drawing ultimate conclusions, every country draws its own, using or rejecting the intelligence and conclusions of other agencies based on their own judgment. > > So again, if you were the president and the CIA chief said “we believe X, based on intelligence gathered by Israeli intelligence” sure you would act on it. But if the CIA chief said “We believe X but Israeli intelligence disagrees with us” you’d be a lunatic if you acted on the conclusions of Israeli intelligence over the US. Of course countries (friendly ones) share intelligence. Makes sense and is smart. No problems with that at all. Interesting that you find it ok to believe evidence based on a foreign intelligence service but find it not ok to believe evidence that contradicts what you believe from a foreign intelligence service. Two sides of the same coin in my view. You take their assessment under advisement either way. However, in the case of Curveball: 1. He was a linchpin in Bush and Powell’s assertion for bio weapon production. Not some sideline…the main basis for the info. 2. The CIA _never_ spoke to the guy (at least not till well after the war had started). 3. The intelligence was provided by the Germans (fine). 4. The Germans told the CIA the intelligence was not good. 5. The Germans told the CIA the guy was not exactly sane. How would you assess that info? If you were a president and contemplating war wouldn’t you want something a bit better than the word of a nutjob who even your own intelligence service never interviewed? That is enough for you? ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/157 "2009-09-23T21:42:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What you seem to keep missing though is that the intel we had that Iraq had WMDs and/or was trying to build them was not remotely good intel. Indeed a great deal of the intel, cited profusely earlier in this thread, directly contradicted Iraq had/was getting WMDs. The evidence for it was remarkably thin. > > Going to war is a Big Deal[sup]thm[/sup]. Extraordinary measures should require extraordinary proof. We had nothing remotely approaching that level of proof…not within light years. There was a lot of evidence to the contrary. After the big game it seems obvious that Team A was going to win and Team B had weaknesses that the other guys exploited. But it’s a lot easier to look smart writing about it after the fact than to be successful putting money on the line in advance. Hindsight is always 20/20. > [@](#): > > How…in…the…hell do you give the Medal of Freedom to the Director that oversaw such a colossal failure? A “whoops”, here’s a medal is cool with you on this level of screwup? Possibly Bush thought it was the fault of people further down the chain of command. > [@](#): > > Go to the link I provided. There is LOTS of evidence showing Bush & Co. trying to link Al Qaeda to Saddam/Iraq. Hell, it started two days after 9/11 when Bush told Richard Clarke to find such a link. Clarke told him he’d of course look again but the fact was they already had and there was none. They looked again and, guess what, there was none. Trying to find a link is not the same as publically lying about it which is what we are discussing. > [@](#): > > Despite no link at all over half the US in 2005 (or 2006?) believed bin Laden was in cahoots with Hussein. Wonder how they formed that opinion? I know what [Adlai Stevenson](http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8384.html) would answer. > [@](#): > > However, in the case of Curveball: > > 1. He was a linchpin in Bush and Powell’s assertion for bio weapon production. Not some sideline…the main basis for the info. > > 2. The CIA _never_ spoke to the guy (at least not till well after the war had started). > > 3. The intelligence was provided by the Germans (fine). > > 4. The Germans told the CIA the intelligence was not good. > > 5. The Germans told the CIA the guy was not exactly sane. > > How would you assess that info? If you were a president and contemplating war wouldn’t you want something a bit better than the word of a nutjob who even your own intelligence service never interviewed? That is enough for you? Firstly, I doubt if Bush ever heard of Curveball. I don’t know that the president gets into that level of detail in intelligence. Tenet and McLaughlin dispute that they ever heard the German doubts about Curveball, let alone passed it along to Bush. Secondly, from what I understand about intel gathering, a lot of information that you get is highly imperfect, in much the same way as this guy or other ways. The job of the intel people is to put together the various pieces of info and figure which make more sense in the context of each other and the overall picture. The fact that any one piece is highly suspect is significant if the entire picture is based on that one guy. But if what the guy says is consistent with info that you’ve derived from multiple other sources - each one of which may be similarly imperfect on its own - and consistent with what you believe based on other types of info (e.g. political assessments) than the imperfections of any one guy is not necessarily a fatal flaw. (That said, it appears to be agreed that the CIA blew in on the Curveball guy - I’m only saying it’s not as egregious as it might appear). Look, I completely agree that the CIA & the Bush people certainly weighed the various evidence based on their overall assessments. Everyone does this and it’s both logical and unavoidable. People here who think based on other incidents that Bush is a liar are more likely to interpret the evidence in the WMD intel fiasco as showing Bush to have lied, more than people who otherwise believe Bush to be an honest man. So yeah, if you believed based on a bunch of other facts or reports that SH had a WMD program going, you were more likely to believe that this or that defector with mental problems was saying the truth about the WMD than you would be if you didn’t think the other evidence showed it either. But that’s not the question. The question here is if Bush lied about or cherry picked the evidence based on another agenda, unrelated to his assessment of which evidence was true or false? Did Bush/CIA highlight evidence that they thought was more likely true and consistent with other evidence and downplay evidence that they thought was less reliable? I can’t imagine they didn’t. ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/158 "2009-09-23T22:22:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ok…(bolding mine): > > 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. Well, you can interpret things any way you’d like, that doesn’t make them true. First, your post moves the goalposts. We were talking about Bush, while it talks about “the administration”. You do realize they are two different things, right? And given the exhaustive search on whoever put together that list, doesn’t it give you pause that they could not find one in which Bush himself says the threat is “imminent”? And doesn’t give you pause that that list omits the quote that I supplied, which is the ONLY one that offers insight as to Bush and whether the concept of “imminent”? It should. ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/159 "2009-09-23T22:33:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, that’s not what the quotes say. Here’s the quotes from the actual members of the Clinton administration:Like I wrote before, these are all talking about things Iraq did in the past and preventing him from doing those things in the future. Nowhere are they claiming Iraq has a WMD program now. > > Now look at all the later quotes on this list. Notice the dates. Quick historical quiz: what major political event occurred in 2000? > > After the year 2000, somebody began telling people that Iraq had current WMD programs. And people believed this because that someone was supposed to have access to secret intelligence. Wait, unless I’m misunderstanding you, don’t you’re own examples prove you wrong? (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop **weapons of mass destruction** and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. > > **“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.** > > “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. > > **“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998** > > **“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.** The bolded ones indicate an existing program, especially the last one. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983/160 "2009-09-23T22:35:36Z")
The eternal quest for wriggle room. The act of aggressive war is illegal unless a threat is “imminent”. Whether or not Bush ever used that specific word is not important. One can only legitimately go to war in defense against an imminent threat. Not a theory about a threat that may, someday, come about. By the very act of war, Bush stated that there was an imminent threat. The only other alternative is that he knew there wasn’t, and did it anyway. By the laws and standards that we, ourselves, insisted upon, Bush might well have been hanged. Does that give you pause? It should. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-is-the-evidence-that-bush-lied/510983.md?page=9)