I have a question about Bush's WMD lies...

[ImpeachBush2004]

I live in Southern Louisiana, and of course I am surrounded by right-wing, moral born-agains. I was also watching the O'lielly factor last night and a question popped into my mind... Did Bush really LIE about Iraq's WMDs??? I know that Bush, Clinton, Blair and Putin all believed that Iraq might actually have WMDs. I know that Bush lied about the other reasons for going to war... but this one I am kind of wondering about.

People are telling me that it would have been "irresponsible" to just assume that Iraq didn't have WMDs and the preemptive war was a good idea, which I blatantly disagree with, but I'm wondering if Bush was at all misinformed about the WMDs... What do you guys think are some good responses to "Bush was confronted with evidence that Iraq had WMDs and responsibly decided not to take the chance of Saddam having them."

Of course, I am pro-Kerry, but I am just wondering about this...

[truthspeaker]

1. He lied. He made specific claims that were known to be false

1) Uranium from Niger

2) Aluminum tubes

3) Mobile weapons labs


Most importantly, he ordered the invasion after UN inspectors had gone back into Iraq and found nothing, even when they followed up on leads given to them by US intelligence.

[blm]

2. If he was "confronted with evidence" it would be one thing

but there were news reports as early as Oct 2002 that agents within the CIA were complaining of the White House trying to get analysts to "cook the intelligence books"...surely you haven't forgotten that .

[Bush was AWOL]

3. Reconstituted nuclear program

imminent threat. He definitely lied to make his case.

[seabeyond]

4. he did lie about 9/11, imment threat, nuclear weapons

country would not of supported him on just wmd's and we all knew it. he also lied about the tubes for nuclear and the trucks that were mobile biological or nuclear labs,..........they were ice cream trucks

the inspectors were in and getting info

he was told to send 250k - 300k soldiers in and he went on assumptions there would be no battle after and would be welcome and sunni, shi ite and kurds would get along

so i dont have to argue the weapons. there is more than enough info to know it was not well planned or executed. that is the bigger issue for me

also both condi and powell are on record that saddam was contained as many many many others said world wide. a handful of white males decided they were right and the whole world was wrong. another trait indicitive that he is not a good leader

[BayouBengal07]

5. He may have been misled by intel

But he also manipulated intelligence.

Cheney set up an office in the White House called the "Office of Special Plans", which was charged with the task of circumventing intelligence around the CIA and FBI (so they can't debunk it) to use it for positive spin. Ask somebody else around here about it, they can give you more info.

They wanted this war, they've wanted it for years. The UN weapons inspectors had to leave the country early because Bush was going to invade. France wanted a UNSCR to allow the weapons inspectors just 30 MORE DAYS to do their work, but the US said no.

BTW, where in South Louisiana are you from? I'm from New Orleans.

[Lerkfish]

6. bush lied...

.. don't let the slippery semantics confuse you

1. Bush claimed the intelligence was ironclad, beyond dispute
2. now Bush blames the faulty intel as being wrong

1 and two are mutually exclusive: he lied, then or n ow -- take your pick

[KC21304]

7. I don't feel he should have invaded even if he THOUGHT

they had WMD. We should have let the inspectors do their job. Bush/Cheney/PNAC couldn't allow that because if the UN would have seen for sure Saddam did not have WMD, they would have had to lift the sanctons. And then the cabal would never get their hands on Iraq's oil or their route to the Caspian sea, or what ever hell else they wanted.

[KC21304]

8. Dupe

[kentuck]

9. Chalabi was the one that confronted them with evidence...

The inspectors were there up to the point Bush was ready to invade and they found nothing. There was no credible evidence, contrary to the claims that the Administration put forth. As for all the leaders "believing" that Saddam "might have" WMDs is not sufficient reason to invade another country. You should go to war on more than just a hunch, don't you think?

[The Crazy Canadian]

10. Office of Special Plans

The invasion of Iraq was already planned to go ahead. They had to find a good reason like WMD, It was a good way to scare the public and rush into this war before weapon inspectors can complete their jobs.

Look into the neocons setting up this special unit in the Pentagon to sell this war using WMD as the main reason.

[myrna minx]

11. Colin Powell's UN speech taken from Bliar's false dossier...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,891577,00.html



Downing St admits blunder on Iraq dossier

Plagiarism row casts shadow over No 10's case against Saddam

Michael White, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday February 8, 2003
The Guardian

Downing Street yesterday apologised for its failure to acknowledge that much of its latest dossier on Iraq was lifted from academic sources, as the affair threatened to further undermine confidence in the government's case for disarming Saddam Hussein.

MPs and anti-war groups were quick to protest that other features of Whitehall's information campaign are suspect at a time when MI6 and other intelligence agencies are privately complaining at the way No 10 has been over-egging intelligence material on Iraq.

It emerged yesterday that the dossier issued last week - later found to include a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student - was compiled by mid-level officials in Alastair Campbell's Downing Street communications department with only cursory approval from intelligence or even Foreign Office sources.

Though it now appears to have been a journalistic cut and paste job rather than high-grade intelligence analysis, the dossier ended up being cited approvingly on worldwide TV by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, when he addressed the UN security council on Wednesday.

[spanone]

12. 'Mushroom Cloud' get real he's one lying MoFo.

Remember the exact TONNAGE that Colin Powell informed us of??????????????????? LIES LIES LIES LIES.......

He also LIED about the costs of Medicare. LIED to the PEOPLE and to CONGRESS. Had it been Bill Clinton he would be in a stockade today. Iraq was a done deal from January 2001.

[nyhuskyfan]

13. This was after the invasion...

But he gave a speech with Kofi Annan standing next to him. Where he said that the United States needed to invade because Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in. The entire world knew full well that Saddam had already let them in, but Bush told them to leave so he could start reducing his bomb inventory.

He lied standing right next to the leader of the UN, in front of the whole world.

[nostamj]

14. read the SOTU speech

he LISTS specific amounts of gas, toxins, etc.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. The truth about launching a war.....

that you don't have to...

>>It was an early morning in late June, I was reading the paper, and in the middle of a long article about Iraq, one of the Bush Administration folks was quoted, speaking about "programs for weapons of mass destruction" and how sure he was that they would find “programs.” I got a knot in my stomach and a feeling of deep concern. We did not go to war for a program. A program can be a paper, a blueprint, some notes.<<

www.truthuncovered.com


get the dvd.. shut them up. It won't be hard... all they have to do is watch it... the rest takes care of itself.

[Cat Atomic]

15. This is a repeat of the Reagan era "what did he know and when

did he know it?" question.

It's ultimately meaningless, because like Reagan, Bush Jr. is just a puppet who regurgitates what he's been fed.

The Bush ADMINISTRATION most certainly lied to sell the invasion. No doubt about it. They made definitive claims based on evidience the intelligence agencies insisted was not definitive. They used intelligence that had been disproven, and they did it repeatedly.

Did BUSH know all this? Who knows? He's not very bright, and he only knows what his advisors tell him. Perhaps he really DIDN'T know he was repeating falsehoods. Perhaps Reagan really didn't know that his administration was so corrupt, either.

[DoomFook]

16. I Got A Problem With All War Mongers

I'm voting for Kerry, but morally, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich were the only ones straight up on the WMD stuff. Kerry said on the floor of the Senate in Oct, 2002 - "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." I wish he hadn't, but anything to get rid of chimpy. I hate this war stuff though; The DLC is in command.

[sadiesworld]

18. Lots of people thought Saddam might have some chemical and

biological weapons lying around. But Bushco lied repeatedly in order to convince the American people that Iraq WMDs presented a threat to US. There were three ways that we could reasonably be at risk:

1) Saddam was actively engaged in creating a nuclear weapon,

2) Chemical weapons could reach America through drones/unmanned aerial vehicles and/or,

3) Saddam was in cahoots with AQ and AQ would bring biological (and possibly chemical) weapons to our shores.

Bushco lied about each of these scenarios.

[lumpy]

19. Bottom line

Bush lies, convolutes, spins, fakes it and so do his Bushco Buddies.