In many topics on AD, as well as in the media in general, many people claim the President Lied about WMDs. It seems that many believe that the intelligence was manipulated by the Administration to fool the public into thinking going into Iraqi was justified. THe point to statements made like these:


[quote=President George W. Bush - January 28 2003]Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. [/quote]


[quote=Secretary of State Colin Powell - February 5 2003]We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. [/quote]


However, both houses of Congress had access to the same intelligence and historical information and voted to approve the presidents uses of force based on it. Some of those who politically opposes the President in general said:


[quote=from a Letter to President Bush - Signed by: Sen. Bob Graham (D FL) and others - Dec 5 2001]"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. Carl Levin (D MI) - Sept. 19 2002:]"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."[/quote]

[quote=Former Vice President Al Gore - Sept. 23 2002]"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."[/quote]

[quote=Former Vice President Al Gore - Sept. 23 2002]"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. Ted Kennedy (D MA) - Sept. 27 2002]"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. Robert Byrd (D WV) - Oct. 3 2002]"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. John F. Kerry (D MA) - Oct. 9 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."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D WV) - Oct 10 2002]"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."[/quote]

[quote=Rep. Henry Waxman (D CA) - Oct. 10 2002]"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"[/quote]

[quote=Sen. Hillary Clinton (D NY) - Oct 10 2002]"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. Bob Graham (D FL) - Dec. 8 2002]"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."[/quote]

[quote=Sen. John Kerry - Jan 23 2003 ]"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." [/quote]


Let us also not forget:

[quote=Former President Bill Clinton - Feb. 4 1998]"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."[/quote]

[quote=Former President Bill Clinton - Feb. 17 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."[/quote]

[quote=Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright - Feb 18 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."[/quote]

[quote=Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger - Feb 18 1998]"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."[/quote]

[quote=From a Letter to President Clinton - signed by: Democratic Senators Carl Levin Joe Lieberman Dianne Feinstein Barbara A. Milulski Tom Daschle John Kerry and others - Oct. 9 1998]"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."[/quote]

[quote=Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D CA) - Dec. 16 1998]"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."[/quote]

[quote=Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright - Nov. 10 1999]"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."[/quote]


No my questions for Debate:

If President Bush Lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into the war in Iraq then did not all of the people quoted above do the same?

Is it not more likely, considering how many people on both sides of the Aisle believed Saddam had WMDs and programs to produce more, that the Intelligence was flawed, outdated or even more likely, based on bad assumptions including the fact that Saddam regularly claimed to have these weapons himself?

When we lay blame for this solely on the President are we not ignoring the fact that both house of congress approved this war and believed (based on their own words above) that it was justified?

When we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?

Are we doing a disservice to the country by claiming people lied about WMDs rather then looking at the mistakes made and the possibility that the mistakes are likely due to the lack of human intelligence, the gutting of intelligence agency budgets and the miles of red tape that the intelligence community has to negotiate?

Edited to remove an unnecessary question, add a different question, correct some typos and correct the quote formatting now that I finally figured out how to do it.

How appropriate on this week's anniversary of the invasion of Iraq to raise these questions. The resistance in Iraq is marking the occasion by killing six U.S. soldiers in roadside bomb attacks.

Technically speaking, Overland Sailor, this isn't a war. Congress is the only entity in this nation that can declare a war and once again they failed to exercise their Constitutional responsiblity, choosing instead to "stand with the President" and give him a blank check to go after the guy that tried to kill his daddy.

Your questions are posed in a somewhat slanted manner, but I'll try to answer them anyway.

1. No. The fact that others shared Bush's concerns does not make the case for war. It is disingenuous to quote only the remarks that supported Bush's call for war and exclude other remarks (often made by the same Democrats you quoted) in opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But even so, what of it? Bush himself has said he doesn't listen to polls or what others say before making his decisions. HE is the President of the United States and the final responsibility rests on him and him alone. Listing a few quotes by Democrats (why just Democrats, Overland Sailor?) doesn't mean they share in the responsiblity and the ramifications of Bush's decision.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.

---- President Jimmy Carter

2. Possible, but not necessarily likely. There was considerable evidence that containment had worked and Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD's. But let's grant your proposal that the intelligence was wrong. Why hasn't Bush fired anyone in the CIA, NSA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department or anyone else involved in providing the intelligence. Maybe calling it "intelligence" is the wrong word. Maybe it's more like "ignorance" posing as intelligence. The fact is you don't go to war on a "maybe." A 100 percent certainty is not always possible, but there were numerous examples provided by the intelligence agencies to provide a reasonable doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

The claims of Saddam Hussein don't make the case for war either. After all, who believes the claims of "a madman?"

3. The fish rots from the head down. Aren't YOU ignoring that the President is the only person in government that can ask for a declaration of war and Congress either says "yea" or "nay?" As the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States the "blame" or the "credit" will ultimately rest on the shoulders of the President. You are arguing that the process that leads to a war (or a "liberation") makes all involved equally culpable. This is not a shared responsibility.

4. When in doubt, drag poor Bubba back into the mess, huh? President Clinton may have thought Iraq was dangerous and bombed them when he thought they were cheating on weapons or violating the No-Fly Zones around the country. But saying that Clinton's mistakes justify Bush's mistakes is just silly. Most former Presidents carefully avoid directly criticizing their successors' policies. It's not considered in good taste, but even if Clinton supports Bush on the invasion of Iraq, so what?

At the end of the day it's on Bush43, not Clinton and not Bush41, as to what occurs on his watch. We can argue whether the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or a bad thing. What there is no argument about is WHO was the guy in the Oval Office calling the shots.

And on his head rests the final decision. George W. Bush and nobody else.

I think all policymakers are to blame to some extent. Bush is the figurehead of the country, so he will obviously be the most visisble and easily available target. You pointed out that they all had access to the same intelligence, but that is not precisley the case. Carl Levin's committee position grants him access to information unavailable to other Congressmen.

In nighttimer's response, the argument that "Congress didn't authorize war" does little to justify their roles in giving Bush a "blank check." Congress has only authorized war five times in the history of America, and with the powers promulgated in the War Powers Act of 1967, Congress basically allowed the President to utilize his role as commander-in-chief. Congress didn't give Bush a blank check because people like Kerry refused to support the troops they put in harm's way.

This is, of course, not really an answer to what overlandsailor asked...

to clarify:

Not a question on shared responsibility in the present, but about the validity of all these statements in the past.

That said we have had variations on this excellent question in the past, and my answer has not changed.

If Bush lied about WMD then it is very likely (given what we know now) that years before Bush even came into office a number of prominent Democrats and Republicans (including John Kerry and Bill Clinton) did the same.

My guess is that no one lied and everyone was mistaken.

I have to ask myself why all these Democrats would lie in 1998, the pursuit of Iraqi oil?

I think not.


But if you're say Bill Clinton you bomb Iraq and likely kill a number of civilians on a "maybe"?


Of course it is, otherwise Congress wouldn't have signed on, all those who voted for war share some responsibility, that's the whole point of the vote! Some have more responsibility than others, but these guys were elected leaders of our nation. The legislative branch is no less responsible than the administrative.

This debate is not about whether or not the decision to go to war was right, but whether the people quoted lied or not...

I quoted what people said prior to or about their vote to support the President on the war in Iraq. Several of those quoted, Specifically Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are now saying that the president lied about WMDs. Yet when they saw the same history and Intelligence information they stated that Saddam both had them and was a threat as well. Is it not Hypocritical for those that stated publicly that they believed Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was Dangerous to now say Bush lied when he said the same thing?

Final Responsiblity rests with him? Our government is a Representative Republic with checks and balances between the branchs. Congress voted to support the war. Either they too believed that Iraq had WMDs and was dangerous, or they too lied to the American people, and worse, ignored their responsiblity to opposed an "unjust" war if they believed the WMDs did not exist and Iraq was not a threat.
They voted to support the war. If they did not believe the Intelligence at the time that Iraq was a threat then they had a constitutional responsiblity to oppose it.

Now people say that they didn't lie. So if they said that Iraq had WMDs, and Bush said Iraq had WMDs why are Bush's statements lies and the people quoted above not?

As for why I quoted what I did. I quoted all those I found that at the time of the decision making process in regard to Iraq, stated on the record that Iraq had WMDs. Re-read the first question of the topic. Why would other comments be relevant. We all know there were those that did not support the war from the beginning. I just find it highly dishonest for those who are quoted above to now come back and say that Bush lied to America when he said the same things that they said.






As a member of the military I agree when you say we should call it ""ignorance" posing as intelligence". Also, I agree that the question should be asked: Why has no one been officially reprimanded, or worse? It is a question I would like answered as well. I suspect it is because the Intelligence community did not have human intelligence assets to verify information about Iraq, so they had to base their assessments on Satellite images, local intelligence sources, the record of Saddam, and the statements of Saddam himself. And those numerous examples of a reasonable doubt you mention were in the intelligence briefs provided to the Intelligence committees in both houses of congress and yet the people listed above still chose to say Iraq had WMDs and voted to support the war.






Are you not ignoring Congresses Constitutional Responsiblity to act as the Checks and Balances to the White House? Are you suggesting that all those that voted in favor of the war should not be held accountable for their votes to support the war or their statements about Iraq? Their mistakes are OK but Bush's mistakes are Lies? Is this not hypocritical?






AM I a former President? As for the Relevance. I find it interesting that all those on the Democratic Side of the aisle, include President Clinton seem immune to the same charges made against Bush. Bush sees intelligence info, consults with experts, the cabinet, and the congress and decided Iraq is a threat. Now WMDs are not found in large numbers and some claim he lied. Yet the above listed Democrats had access to the same info, consulted the White house and cabinet, and decided Iraq was a threat and no one claims they lied.

I supported President Clinton in his actions in Iraq. He acted on intelligence information as well. Based on what we know now the intelligence he was acting on was likely wrong. Yet we hear no calls from anyone that he lied to justify his strikes against Iraq.

I have several problems with this situation. The biggest problem being why are we not addressing the obvious deficiencies in the intelligence community? What are we doing to expand Human intelligence so that we get the people we need to be able to verify intelligence information from other sources?

I also take issue with anyone who said Iraq had WMDs and was dangerous, just as the President did, that now claim the President was lying to the American people but somehow they were not.





That is true. Though both houses of congress had briefings from their Intelligence and Armed forces committees and determined based on the that as well as all their other sources how they would vote. Which you would think would include their decisions on what to say about their vote.

How far have we come from Truman saying "The buck stops here."...

If President Bush Lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into the war in Iraq then did not all of the people quoted above do the same?
There is evidence that the intelligence community was ordered to cook the date to fit what Bush wanted to see. That cooked data is what others were judging by.
Prior to the invasion, I believed that Iraq most likely had WMDs. I believe now that I was lied to.

Is it not more likely, considering how many people on both sides of the Aisle believed Saddam had WMDs and programs to produce more, that the Intelligence was flawed, outdated or even more likely, based on bad assumptions including the fact that Saddam regularly claimed to have these weapons himself?
It is even more likely that the data was shifted to fit the view Bush wanted to get across.

When we lay blame for this solely on the President are we not ignoring the fact that both house of congress approved this war and believed (based on their own words above) that it was justified?
They were basing their decision on bad information. Bush most likely knew the information was bad, as he rejected reports that didn't say what he wanted to hear.

How can we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?
Passing the buck, much?

Are we doing a disservice to the country by claiming people lied about WMDs rather then looking at the mistakes made and the possibility that the mistakes are likely due to the lack of human intelligence, the gutting of intelligence agency budgets and the miles of red tape that the intelligence community has to negotiate?
There is plenty of evidence that the intelligence was intentionally twisted to fit what Bush wanted to see. Bush rejected more traditional intelligence which did not fit his needs.

I see lots of claims that Bush "cooked the books". We even go as far now to say there is "evidence" of this.

Well I for one would like to see this "evidence".

As for the claim that referencing the past is "passing the buck" you seem to miss the point. The question basically asked if Bush was lying when he acted on intelligence that now appears to be wrong then why was CLinton also not lying when he did the same in 1998? I don't think Clinton was lying back then anymore then I think Bush or Ted Kennedy was lying now. I merely ask the question, why are similar actions by different people treated so differently?

We only have the word of the agents on the frontline. We could also use common sense and acknowledge that the administration's rejection of intelligence data that doesn't mesh with their desired outcome sends a clear message to those compiling the data, and that having someone with a clear agenda looking over your shoulder while you do your job might also tend to suggest a desire for the outcome to match a pre-determined goal.
The difference here is that we don't have CIA agents complaining that the Clinton administration tweaked the evidence.
FWIW, I am no fan of Clinton and I do suspect the timing of some of his military actions was meant to distract from trouble at home.

The lie - the BIG LIE - in relation to Iraq is that Hussein's alleged WMD posed an immediate threat. Not one of the people quoted above made that assertion. The White House did. "Wait a minute!" I can already hear Bush supporters cry, "Bush never put the word 'imminent' next to the word 'threat'!"

Maybe not. But his National Security Council did. And it is entirely on that basis that we are in Iraq in the first place.

The invasion of Iraq was based on the notion of "preemption" - commonly known as the Bush Doctrine. That Doctrine - and therefore the invasion of Iraq - is predicated on "imminent danger" - "imminent threat" - "sufficient threat" - though it also asserts that we should not "use preemption as a pretext for aggression". The Bush administration, by using preemption as a pretext for aggression necessarily assumed an imminent threat - one which did not exist.

This is from the Bush Doctrine itself, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Section V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction, posted at the White House website:
The lie told by the Bush administration was not that Hussein might have had WMD, it was that those weapons posed a threat immediate enough to justify a "preemptive" invasion. If Hussein did not pose an immediate threat, then there was no justification - legal or illegal, moral or immoral - for the invasion Iraq. None.


If President Bush Lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into the war in Iraq then did not all of the people quoted above do the same?
No, they did not. None of the people you quote above "got us into the war in Iraq". Yes, they idiotically gave the Bush administration leave to do whatever it damned well pleased whenever it wanted - an egregious abrogation of their authority - but they did not launch the invasion. And, when Bush was about to do so, many of the people you cite opposed that action. Having already conceded their ability to deter the White House, though, there was nothing they could do to stop it. Were they grossly irresponsible? Absolutely. Did they lie in order to justify our invasion? Absolutely not.

Is it not more likely, considering how many people on both sides of the Aisle believed Saddam had WMDs and programs to produce more, that the Intelligence was flawed, outdated or even more likely, based on bad assumptions including the fact that Saddam regularly claimed to have these weapons himself?
The intelligence was not entirely flawed, it was just contradictory. The Bush administration chose to exaggerate the intelligence which supported its position and ignore the intelligence which did not. It was the exaggerated intelligence presented by the Bush administration on which many members of Congress based their opinions - on both sides of the aisle. Sure, they can be faulted for having been duped by the White House - but it was the White House which was doing the duping.

Also, if you look at your quotes, you will see many references to Hussein "seeking" or "developing" or "searching for" or "working to rebuild" weapons of mass destruction. What you will not see is anyone claiming that Hussein had WMD and that they posed an immediate threat to the United States. That lie was coming - solely and exclusively - from the Executive.

When we lay blame for this solely on the President are we not ignoring the fact that both house of congress approved this war and believed (based on their own words above) that it was justified?
I see one reference in your quotes to the use of force "if necessary". Those two words strike me as being highly significant. I see no one claiming that an illegal invasion of Iraq is "justified". That claim was made by the White House, not Congress. I'm certain that, when Congress passed H.J. Res. 114 and S.J. Res. 45, they were acting in good faith, assuming that (as those resolutions state) the president would use such force only if "necessary and appropriate".

Further, those resolutions state that the president must determine that "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq".

Are the members of Congress whom you quote guilty of trusting the White House? Hell, yeah - the idiots. But guilty of lying? I don't think so.

How can we claim that President Bush Lied to us on WMDs, are we not ignoring the fact the the previous administration also thought Iraq was dangerous and was in possession of WMDs and conducted surgical strikes against suspected WMD production sites?
Our previous administration did not launch an illegal invasion of Iraq on the basis of an imminent threat. Our current administration did. That is a very big difference. In fact, it makes all the difference.

Are we doing a disservice to the country by claiming people lied about WMDs rather then looking at the mistakes made and the possibility that the mistakes are likely due to the lack of human intelligence, the gutting of intelligence agency budgets and the miles of red tape that the intelligence community has to negotiate?
This is not a case of either/or. Obviously, we should look at the mistakes made. Yes, we should increase human intelligence. Sure, we should make sure that our intelligence agencies are properly funded (and those funds properly disbursed).

BUT none of this means that we should also ignore the BIG LIE: that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat of such immediacy that we had no option but to preemptively invade his country in an illegal war of aggression. Find me some senators making that claim and you might have a case...

The word you have there is not from "agents on the front line" but from a retired agent who claims he speaks for agents on the front line. There is a difference.



So you're suggesting that the Intelligence agents "cooked the books" to please the administration, without direct pressure to do so. And we hold Bush responsible for their actions?



In this article some people say they felt pressured to a certain outcome and others say they welcomed the involvement of VP and other officials. Not very conclusive.

Seems to me that article shows that there is no EVIDENCE of this pressure since just as as many people expressed thanks for the involvement and saw no intent to manipulate intelligence as those who felt they were being steered.

Of course that all depends on how much weight you are willing to give to "unnamed government sources".

These two stories fall short of "Evidence". It is a strong word, and should only be used when it actually exists.

The backpedaling and back[I]stabbing by those who agreed with, accepted, endorsed and authorized actions based on available intel reports is nothing but politics at its worst. Particularly since the issue involves the safety of our own troops as well as the security of our own citizens.

Bush didnt lie and truth be told, those who accuse him of it know he didnt. They themselves came to similar conclusions based on the same info. These wimps remind me of the 10 year old who calls another kid names, then runs and hides behind mommy's skirt. Or daddy's as the case might be. GWB has more courage and fortitude than all these panty-waists combined.

Wait a second....

A statement has been made as true which is not. And the rest of the debate seems to presume the "fact".

Bush and the administration had more information than everybody else. Rockerfeller stated (ll try to find the quote) that nobody had the same information as Bush. Bush had far more.

There would be no inquiries if everybody knew the same thing.

Bush provided much of the information the intelligence committe and everybody else used to make their decisions. But he left out much of the contrary evidence - the crux of much of this debate.

So, my answer was no because the question for debate assumes a level playing field.

A level playing field did not exist.

Even if this it true under the current administration, Clinton administration officials had full access when they were in power, and they said pretty much the same thing as Bush about the existence of Iraqi WMD...

IMO it did not take courage to look presidential by taking a hardline stance and using the United States army in another country where it was sure to succeed in ousting Hussein.

It takes a lot more courage to join up in the armed forces and put yourself in a position to be deployed by someone who might act too hastily.

Did Bush lie? I don't know. I think he looked at bad intelligence and employed an agenda backed by many people who helped put him in office. I think the fact that the White House set up its own shop for analyzing intelligence called the Office of Special Plans and that the conclusions tended toward the worst case scenario compared to the analysis put forward by the CIA and other sources of information, make the Bush administration more accountable for acting hastily.

(The above link is a very informative article that investigates the handling of intelligence in Washington. It leans to the left, but it does present a eight of evidence that the reader should be able to independently interpret.)

What I don't like about the implication of this question is that it puts members of Congress on the same level of accountability as the president. I do not think many of the members of Congress had the level of access to information as the president had at his disposal. Heck, I was convinced that Hussein had to be up to continuing his work in developing WMDs. I was also convinced by the rhetoric on the issue that the inspections had not been successful.


What I do like about the implication of the above question is that the WMD basis, which was the reason for going to war so quickly and independently, is implied to have been a false one.

Lie? No. Intelligence was interpreted. The Bush administration chose to use a worst case scenario.

Congress was put in a difficult position in the fall/winter of 2002. It was asked by the president to put their faith in him to look at the situation in Iraq and give him the power to wage war if he deemed it necessary.

This is a truly difficult position, and I believe a very important point to remember is that that Congresspersons who voted to authorize most likely felt that Iraq intended to develop WMD programs and was in the process of doing so.

Our intelligence was inconclusive. It was presented by those who had access to our best intelligence (including members of Congress) as conclusive.

The political decision for Democrats especially was a tough one and I think too many caved at that time. Vote or not vote to support the president. To vote down his request at that time, or more likely to vote in large numbers against made it a risk to show Hussein that he could ignore the United States on this issue.

Then, with that blank check, we rushed to war. I am appalled how little concrete evidence we had when we went to war. Do I think it was a heroic decision that panty waists could not have made? No. I think it was a relatively easy decision to make. It would have been much more difficult to achieve change in Iraq through diplomacy, by rallying countries behind our view and forcing transparency or a regime change.

Congress as a whole did not have access to the full intelligence that Bush did. However, the Intelligence communities has access the most if not all of the estimates made by the civilian agencies. The Intelligence Committees have access to vast amounts of intelligence, briefings and the like from the Intelligence community itself. Their oversite of the intelligence community grants them access to vast amounts of classified information. If those estimates were much less grave then the estimates coming from the pentagon or the white house I find it odd that the intelligence committee members made no mention of it.

After reading the article you link (thanks BTW ) it would appear that the intelligence communities estimates were less severe then those coming from the Pentagon. That being the case I would think the committees would question what they were hearing from the White House if it was far worse then what they were hearing from the Intelligence community.

What was happening was that the Pentagon and the White house was focused on worst case scenarios (a tactic that is generally a good idea when planning anything) while the Intelligence community was focused more on realistic threats.

The article clearly states that the intelligence community made some bad assumptions about Iraq. It also says that the white house focused on the worst of those assessments. This is surly a problem, and something that will hopefully be addressed.

One problem I do have with the article is on the Nuclear program estimates. The intelligence community believed Iraq could have nuclear weapons within 5-7 years if they had to develop the material themselves, and in as early as 1 year if they got he material from outside sources. The suggestion in the article is that getting the material from outside sources was very unlikely. Yet we have all heard the horror stories of "misplaced" and unaccounted for fissionable material in the various states that formally made up the USSR. It would seem reasonable to me to be concerned about Iraq getting material from sources like that.

It one way we can be sure it will be addressed. As the writer of the article said:



This mistake, will force analysts and politicians alike to consider all angles of threat assessment and intelligence much more closely in the future.

The article is points to the mistakes of the author, the intelligence community, the pentagon and the White House. What it points out is mistakes and mis-judgements by all parties. It does not support accusations of Lying, by anyone.

Hopefully we shall learn from this, and take some of the authors advice to correct the problems in the intelligence community, and the handling of assessments. The best suggestion, is to re-organize the community under the DCI to ensure that there is a central office to control the community that will likely help promote the sharing of information that we all know has been a problem a problem within the "empire building" community for a long time.

True, but Clinton didn't preemptively invade a country either.

This is very similar to a court room issue- a prosecution with-holding "exclusionary" evidence- knowing full well that it might harm thier case, and might even be pointing out the real criminal, even though the guy they are charging may have a list of priors, so they jumpt to the conclusion, despite the "exclusionary" evidence, that they are correct.

The Bush regime knew that the Niger document was forged, and went ahead anyway.

Clinton perhaps played a political game with Iraq, forcing them to comply with fly-overs or inspections for a while, wanting to keep the inspectors in the country etc- but the evidence he had did not warrant going to war, and I bet he knew this.

So, prosecuter Clinton used his evidence to keep the suspect under survielence and gather more evidence, while prosecutor Bush threw out the evidence, or even hid, the evidence, that might prove him wrong, to got to war and punish the possible criminal.

You're right. And Clinton never acted on faulty intel.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/07/28...a.tm/index.html

I don't know how many times I have to point out that Tenet said that the analysts had mixed feelings on the Saddam regime capabilities. Some thought that it was more of an imminent danger than others. So Bush acted on the intel he was given. No one is at fault here. Can the US government improve it's intel assesment methods or standards, of course.

And as far as 'the buck' stopping with the president, tell that to Bush if congress ever overrides a veto or declares war.

Now that’s an oversimplification. We imposed sanctions which resulted in the starvation of (supposedly) a million Iraqis during that decade. We maintained a troop presence in Saudi, in order to police Iraq, which enraged the middle east and had a lot to do with 9/11. We had a pilot shortage and morale problem directly related to those extensive deployments. Our fighter planes lost several years off of their projected lifespan. This is keeping the suspect ‘under surveillence’? I would expect the ‘suspect’ that is considered dangerous enough to have to be monitored for over a decade, at the cost of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to be more than a “possible criminal”. This is all before 9/11, by the way.

Strangely, the Iraqis improved their anti-aircraft weapons capabilities and started firing doubly on our planes by February 2001. We did a small bombing campaign during that time, but it wasn’t very effective because they moved many of their SAMs to civilian populated areas, which we wouldn’t strike to avoid casualties. Bush was (by May 2001) looking at options to cut back on the number of troops deployed, and missions over Iraq.

So…You really think Clinton would have done it differently? He used this intelligence to sanction Iraq, occupy their airspace, and occasionally bomb them for over a decade. We knew that camping out in Saudi was enraging the Muslims at that time. But, we would have pulled out of Iraq after 9/11…even though Iraq’s anti-aircraft weapons capabilities had increased and (suspiciously) they had doubled the amount of shooting at our aircraft?

IMO, the real liar here and the main cause of the Invasion of Iraq is Saddam himself. If he had destroyed all of his known WMD, then why didn't he cooperate fully with inspectors in 1998 and again in 2002? Knowing the Sec Council demanded documentation, why didn't Saddam document the destruction of his WMD and present said documentation to UN Inspectors in 1998 or 2002?

IMO, it was Saddam's desire to appear strong before his oppressed people and his neighbors that led him down the path he choose. That, and most likely French and Russian promises they would not allow the United States and Great Britain to attack.

If you are looking for the lying culprit, look no further then Saddam.

IMO, If you are still blaming GW, then you are probably really just advancing your political agenda.

1SG

Really? Hussein said that he had destroyed all of his WMD, and he was telling the truth. He provided extensive documentation that he had destroyed all of his WMD, and was told that this was not sufficient. Iraq tried to explain to the world that it had documented most of the destruction of WMD, but it could not account exactly for WMD contained in sites destroyed during the war (remember, the US specifically targeted WMD production sites in the first Gulf War)

Yes, they were belligerant and obfuscating to inspectors in 1997-1998, but they were not to inpectors in 2003. The inpectors themselves claimed to have been surprised by Iraq's newfound openness, and not ONCE were they ever denied acess to a site or a location they sought to investigate.

The US on the other hand presented facts about the WMD programs that turned out to be entirely false. They claimed they knew exactly where WMD sites were, yet refused to provide this information to the Inspectors (One of Blix's most common complaints). They created links to Al Quaida which did not exist, they spoke of links to 9/11 they were later forced to withdraw. The list goes on.


I do not believe Bush 'lied' in the sense of deliberatly lied in opposition to what he knew. I think rather he showed astonishing credulity towards a course of action he was already resolved to take, not really bothering to investigate alternatives or contrary evidence because it did not support his world view.

I recommend reading the February 2004 issue of the Atlantic, containing two articles: one a mea culpa from Kenneth Pollack, one of the strongest pre-war advocates of an attack on Iraq stating he was mistaken. The other by James fallows about how Bush refused to heed analysis about the dangers of post-Hussein Iraq and went so far as to forbid more research into the outcome of war in Iraq because it could be considered 'anti-war'.

Well;





http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj....ranscript.blix/

The transcript above is of Blix detailing Iraq's cooperation.

I voted for the third choice (mistakes were made) to avoid this whole issue about bald-faced lies coming from our government.

Our government has done it before, and it is still capable of such.

The first mistake that was made was forgetting how much our (and 100% of other govs) government lies to us. The majority of the US population was gullible. More folks are seeing this, I suspect, and as human nature goes, the blame has to be projected on the leader.

That's rotten for President Bush's chances of reelection.

Having lived through this whole episode as everyone else has, I can at least say that Bush & Co. didn't fool me. They had me going with the Powel presentation to the UN. Directly afterward, I was willing to buy invasion with Iraq.

But after sleeping on it and checking out AD members' takes on the evidence, my natural suspicion of government returned.

So mistakes were made. It is wearing on Bush's support.

The evidence to justify attacking Iraq was like a size 16 bathing suit tried on by someone with a size 20 body--the truth was "stretched" to fit the situation.

There were mistakes made, but I also believe that there was some wilful misrepresentation on the part of the Bush administration in their eagerness to get the ball rolling in accordance with the 2000 Republican platform to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. The fact that our country was reeling from the attacks on 9/11 was fortuitous for their agenda. The complicity of Iraqi citizens on 9/11 has never been proven, but that did not stand in Bush's way.

I voted no, by the way. Either the Congresspeople believed the President (so they were mistaken, not lying), or they were intimidated into voting for measures to enable the President to carry on the war.

I think that culpability should be passed out by matter of degree. Who stood to gain the most by attacking Iraq?

I believe Congress was terribly hasty to give war powers over the the President post 911. I place some of the blame for the war on them. It was seen as patriotic, but it was the wrong thing to do. I saw it as cowardly myself. Passing the buck in case it all went wrong, and it somewhat has.

Someone lied. Either O'Neil lied when he said Bush asked him to drum up evidence against Iraq 10 days into his presidency and Tenet lied when he said the intelligence had always been inconclusive and Wilson lied when he said the Niger documents were forged and that he met with Cheney and reported to him firsthand......or Bush and admin lied about WMD, links to Al-Quaeda and imminent threat.
Someone is to blame, and with recent evidence, that would be the President and his Admin.

The thing I find most interesting is how many of the common people were NOT fooled. A good part of the world turned out to protest an invasion, despite Powells flimsy presentation, and the UN did not agree that an invasion was justified at that time. Many in the US opposed the war also. Looking back to forums of the time, we were told that the 'government' had more information than 'we' had and we simply had to trust them; we were accused of being Anti-American time and time again.

There was, without a doubt, a Rush to War, which was suspicious in and of itself. That no evidence was provided that Hussein had anything to do with 911, that there was no aggression on Iraqs or Saddam Husseins part, that the coalition was weak in support with major European players and Russia not in agreement, mass world protest, conflicting, forged and outdated, plus accusations of 'sexed up' British intelligence (lifted from a students term paper), all of this was overlooked and brushed aside as unimportant, and that was just what we, the commoners knew about. It was enough for plenty of factions, common and political, to ask for more time, unheeded.

How is it that suddenly the President is not responsible for leading a country into war as Commander in Chief, no matter who agreed with him? He had exclusive war powers. Who is then? Noone? (Clinton and the Democrats?) Well thats certainly a precedent, kudos to political weasels everywhere.

Artemise

"I believe Congress was terribly hasty to give war powers over the the President post 911. I place some of the blame for the war on them."

Actually the war powers act was passed long before GW Bush though of becoming President. Congess using the same intelligence that was given to the administration voted to support Bush in getting rid of Saddam.

wanderer

"Hussein said that he had destroyed all of his WMD, and he was telling the truth. He provided extensive documentation that he had destroyed all of his WMD, and was told that this was not sufficient."

Really? Why then was the UN Security Council saying that Saddam was still in possession of tons of Chem WMD??? What about the Intell coming in from the French, British and Canadian Intell Services? Please provide any link you have proving Saddam's documentation of Iraq's destruction of all the material you cite, it would be usful to the discussion..

IMO, too many folks are blaming Bush for political reasons not because they truely believe his has lied to the nation.

1SG

Dunno if you confused me with someone else but;

My post was to illustrate, from Hans Blix's own mouth, that the Iraqis were not cooperating fully with the newest round of inspectors.

The same sentiment might well be applied to those who so casually give Dubya a pass on the faulty intelligence that was used to make the case for war.

The problem I see with the original questions as put forth by Overland Sailor is that it takes it on faith that both the Executive and Legislative branches of government are equally culpable in committing our forces to war. This is not the case.

The President has the resources of the FBI, CIA, NSA, Defense and State Departments, foreign governments, and more intelligence agencies and analysts than you can shake a stick at. Congress gets all of this secondhand and usually after its passed through the Administration first. That means a lot of information that is unfavorable to the case the Administration wishes to make will never see the light of day.

No matter how powerful or influential a Senator or Representative is, that power and influence pales in comparison to even a weak President. The powers of persuasion available to the Chief Executive far outstrips that of a Congressman and his staff.

It's hard to resist a President that is spoiling for a fight. The natural inclination of most Americans is to close ranks and rally around the president even when we're not totally convinced as to the danger he is warning us is clear and immediate.

Now add to that power when it's clearly established that a top priority of the Bush43 Administration was getting rid of Saddam. If September 11, 2001 had not occurred something else would have provided a pretext to invade Iraq. Making a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and terrorism wasn't a hard sell for a nation that wanted someone to pay for 9/11. We just happened to have Saddam's address.

It's dead easy to blame Shrub for the folly in Iraq. After all, he was "just advancing a political agenda" too.

Pardon me for not making myself 100% clear. I meant authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------

"The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress."

"Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress. "

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9843

But they did, and thats what I think was wrong.


War powers Act of 1973

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. ©
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

None of this applies to Iraq.

I found an edited version of Pollack's article: How did we get it so wrong?. It's definitely worth a read.

From the article:

What's the difference?

When GW does it - it is "creative ommision"- when Clinton did it = it was lying LOL

To conservatives, it only matters WHO is telling the lie, not WHAT the lie is about.

That's remarkably unconstructive. Who has accused Clinton of lying about intelligence? In point of fact, posters are simply noting the inconsistency in suggesting the BUSH is lying, when Clinton espoused the exact same thing.

I thought the article was informative, nothing more, nothing less. The readers are free to form their own opinion. It isn't complimentary towards Bush. I thought this was interesting:

CruisingRam

"To conservatives, it only matters WHO is telling the lie, not WHAT the lie is about."

BAH! The real question is: "was a lie told?" From everything that has come out, there was no lie. The "Big Lie" is a figment of Pharleftistani imagination.

The gathering and analysis of Intelligence is not an exact science by a long shot. Like economists, Intell analysts will find different answers in the same data. Kay has reported that every analysist (that he talked to), that had a part in Iraq intell thought the WMDs were there.

So if the intell coming to the end user, in this case the Comander In Chief, indicates a likelyhood of Saddam having WMDs, coupled with the knowledge that he has no compunction about using said WMD, and realizing that Saddam does not see the world as we do, coupled with the evidence, at that time, of links between Saddam's Intell people and al-Qaeda operatives: What action should be taken???

IMO, GWB put it well when he said "we cannot wait for a smoking gun. A smoking gun means it's been fired. How many American or Spanish, or British lives is the Pharleft willing to sacrifice while waiting for the smoking gun??? That no WMD have been found so far is meaningless.

Suppose the Intell had been right???

1SG

"Last week, even CIA Director George Tenet admitted that he had privately disputed public statements made by top government officials who had twisted intelligence reports.'
---------------------------------------
"In a memorable July 6, 2003, New York Times opinion essay, Joseph W. Wilson, a career diplomat, broke his silence by disclosing that he had found no evidence that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq, and concluded that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
------------------------------------------------------
'Today, we also know why there was a so-called "intelligence failure." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and company established their own private Pentagon intelligence unit -- the Office of Special Plans -- to seek evidence that confirmed only what they believed. CIA Director George Tenet, for his part, failed to expose the administration's manipulation of intelligence. '
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"In "The New Pentagon Papers," published last week on Salon.com, Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired lieutenant colonel formerly assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, writes, "I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to the Congress."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDGLU4UDP51.DTL

'George Tenet's Senate testimony this week made the CIA director look like a one-man clean-up crew hurrying after Vice President Dick Cheney with a broom.

Why, just last Monday night Tenet discovered that Cheney - supposedly the wise man of the administration on matters of national security - had been incorrectly opining about Iraq once again. Cheney had overstated evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda to a Colorado newspaper earlier this year.'
-----------------------
'With help from sharp questioning by Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, Tenet put the administration on notice that he won't take the blame for White House hyperbole.'
---------------------------------------
'Analyzing intelligence data is difficult work, filled with unknowns and best guesses. Mistakes are inevitable. Where President Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials can be seriously faulted on Iraq, however, is in their efforts over the last year to inject a phony sense of certainty into murky questions.

Thus Cheney did not simply say in January that the still-mysterious trailers in Iraq had been worrisome. He described them as smoking guns, conclusive evidence of a perilous weapons program.

Cheney's performance is particularly unsettling because he is supposed to be one of the administration's most knowledgeable experts on national security and foreign policy. The picture Tenet paints is one in which this experienced, supposedly savvy counselor to the president can't get his facts straight - or just doesn't want to.'
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/...ial/8162240.htm


I guess none of this suggests LYING? Or just 'creative omission'.

Here is a written statement from Tenet, defending the assessment of the NIE. Perhaps someone could point to me the ambivalence, or 'White House hyperbole' for which he refuses to take blame.

Edited to add: I would say this line is the proverbial moment of truth If he has said something since to contradict that statement, he has completely discredited himself.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030131-23.html



So what action should be taken???? Apparently if you don't have any evidence or believe there is any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda(as Bush answered) then you do nothing.

As to your "smoking gun". Evidently your gun has not been fired.

As for the question, Yes Bush lied and the Congress believed what he told them and fell for it hook,line and sinker.

Why do you think that his credibility is in a FREE FALL.



Evidently it is a figment of quite a few American people. Especially in the polls where it concerns Bushs credibility in the Iraq FIASCO. Or maybe people are becoming better informed these days.

Mrs P.
That statement is coming as self-defense, as the Senate has just found Tenet responsible for 'creative interpretation' of intelligence.

WASHINGTON — A classified Senate investigative report says U.S. intelligence agencies turned vague, incomplete information into firm warnings about the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

In a pivotal, Oct. 1, 2002, National Intelligence Estimate sent to Congress just before votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq, U.S. intelligence said Iraq "has chemical and biological weapons" and "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." That judgment in the estimate's opening lines came even though no Western official had seen an actual chemical or biological weapon in Iraq since 1995.

The committee report criticizes Tenet and the CIA for consistently seizing on the worst-case scenario of the Iraq threat and overriding the views of intelligence agencies in areas where those agencies had expertise. U.S. Air Force intelligence, for example, disagreed with Tenet's finding that Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicles were for use in launching chemical or biological weapons attacks. The Department of Energy's nuclear weapons experts were overruled when they raised doubts that a shipment of aluminum tubes intended for Iraq was for use in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-cia-iraq_x.htm

This still does not adress what information the President had , or why Tenet 'cooked the books' to Congress, or why Cheney keeps linking Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda in public. Are they just stupid or liars?

In answer to your question:

The New York Times:

George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, told a Senate committee today that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice President Dick Cheney and others, and that he would do so again.

He identified three instances in which he had already corrected a public statement by President Bush or Mr. Cheney or would do so, but left the impression that there had been more.

On the Niger documentation:
"Senator, we did not clear the document," replied Tenet. "We did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document."

Tenet, who pointed out that the Pentagon, too, had disavowed the document, said he learned of the article Monday night, and he planned to speak with Cheney about the CIA's view of the Feith document.

Edited to remove belittling, inflammatory personal attack.

Popeye appears to be in much the same league with his "Evidently it is a figment of quite a few American people. Especially in the polls where it concerns Bushs credibility in the Iraq FIASCO. Or maybe people are becoming better informed these days."

Popeye is reading polls from somewhere but the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll ( March 6-8, 2004) says 64% of Americans believe should have taken military action to remove Saddam. 50% of Americans still believe the war has been worth the casualties and expense. 57% of America still believe Saddam had WMD prior to our invasion. 52% Of Americans believe GWB gave the nation the most accurate information before going to war, while 42% believe they were misled.

1SG

You bet. And who says Iraq had no WMD? Not David Kay and not the dozens of other experts , countries , and the UN. For example here are some quotes from the report Mr. Blix made to the UN in 2002.

Blix:
While Iraq claims, with little evidence, that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996.

One of three important questions before us today is, how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991 and possibly thereafter? The second question is, what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998 when the inspectors left.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.
Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared. There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to bd now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. Im encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assumed that these quantities are now unaccounted for

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.



These issues have never been resolved. Not by the UN or anyone else. The fact that we cannot find these WMD does NOT mean they did not exist and may very well still be out there.

You are still not addressing the real lie here - nor is anyone else. Whether the bulk of the intelligence was good or bad is irrelevant. Whether remnants of Husseins WMD programs remain or not is irrelevant. The statements made by Kay and Blix are wholly irrelevant.

The lie (as outlined above) - the BIG LIE - was the launching of a preemptive invasion on the basis of the Bush Doctrine - on the assumption that Saddam Hussein posed a serious and immediate threat by "forces that present an imminent danger of attack". Iraq did not pose a "sufficient threat" which placed the US in "immediate danger". And that should have been prerequisite - on the basis of the Bush administration's own security policy - for any kind of preemptive attack. The deadly immediacy which was the only thing which could possibly have justified exercising the new National Security Strategy was a lie.

I'm unfamiliar with this "Pharleft" term that you keep bandying about. Is it a synonym for "those with a grasp of the truth"? From now on, I guess we will have to read it as the opposite of "Phalseright".

OK, then based on that I assume then that you agree that all of the others who stated that Iraq was a threat and voted to support / authorize the Presidents use of force were also lying.

What I see in your argument is that regardless of differences in Intelligence none of the Intel showed America to be in Immediate risk. This is true. However, no one claimed America was in immanent danger from Iraq. They said Iraq was a threat to the stability of the region and the safety of our allies in the region. They said Iraq's programs could become an immediate threat to the US in the near future because he had WMDs and some ties to Terrorists. The WMDs seem at this point to be gone. The ties to terrorists did exist, though they were certainly not conclusive.

Everyone I quoted above called Iraq a Threat and said Iraq had WMDs. If as you say, the real lie is that we should not have "preemptively" struck Iraq as American soil was not immediately threatened then didn't everyone listed above lie as well? Or did they just make the same mistake? Our was it that they knew it was wrong but just chose to ignore there responsiblities to the constitution and the country because they didn't want to look "unpatriotic" or anti-military?

The fact is the Intelligence was flawed, severely. And on top of that the Administration choose to look at the worst case scenarios. I think I would look at worst case scenarios too after 9/11. Better to be safe then sorry.

Bush did not lie. The Bush administration focused on the worst that could happen to the US in regard to Iraq. Iraq is now on the path to being a free nation. Even if we never find WMDs we still eliminated a threat in the regions stability and freed a people that wanted to be free but were scared to death (they thought he had WMDs too) to move against Saddam.

I do not think there were lies here. I think there were some miscalculations on the part of intelligence, and some bad judgements calls made by the Administration but to suggest that the President and the Administration twisted the evidence just to get us into war with Iraq is wrong and without evidence.

Hard to say if Bush lied or was just cherry picking because he"knew" Saddam had weapons. Cheney has continued to misrepresent our intelligence to this day and has been corrected by Tenet on at least one occasion. Is Cheney lying? Maybe hes just so convinced hes right that hes less concerned with seeing facts that dont support what he already believes. Faith based intel.

I dont believe weve seen the actual reports so its hard to be 100%. Bush and Cheney will say the CIA was absolutely certain that Iraq had weapons while memebers of the intelligence community (and fmr Treasury Sec ONeill) say that the intelligence reports were carefully qualified to say that we dont know for sure.

Lying, willful ignorance, self-delusion or the truth? I cant be sure but id say some of all four.

With all the evidence I've read I do believe someone in the administration lied. But who?

And what evidence do I mean? The same stuff I've always posted which is so quickly rejected by the hardcore "Bush can't do no wrong" supporters.

The Carnegie Report On WMD explains in detail the changes that were made from the Classified to Unclassified NIE report to sway people to believe there definitely are WMDs there in great quantity.

David Kay, who was hand-picked by Bush to lead the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) stated last month that he believes we are waisting our time searching for WMDs because he believes we've found all we can find. He also stated he could find NO EVIDENCE support Bush and so-called Mobile Biological Labs, and found more evidence pointing that the Iraqi were telling the truth. The trailers found were Artillery Helium Weather Balloon stations sold to Iraq from the UK in the 90's.

Hans Blix never said he believed there were weapons, he stated there were alot of unanswered questions. But now he's also under the belief there are no WMDs.

Richard Pearle, who doesn't believe Bush is guilty does believe the head of the CIA should resign for the horrid and highly inaccurate intelligence, but Bush is doing nothing to express his outrage on the lack of good evidence leading us to this war. Which IMO makes him look even MORE guilty. That or a complete idiot that is an easily controlled puppet by Dick Cheney and Co.

I've seen multiple articles of former CIA officials who watched Powell's UN speech and come to the same conclusion I came to. "They had nothing."

BUT if you continue to only read and believe what the coporate media is printing then you can go on believing the whole thing was justified. FOX has done a bang up job on convincing the public Al Quieda and Iraq were in bed together even though the evidence was little to none. So the general populace didn't care about finding more on their own.

[QUOTE]Hans Blix never said he believed there were weapons, he stated there were alot of unanswered questions. But now he's also under the belief there are no WMDs.



Geez, that isn't what he said yesterday in an interview. He said, his gut feeling in 2003 was that there was WMD, just that he didn't deal in "gut feelings". The whole world was surprised there has been WMD found.

See this thing with calling people liars is just stupid. Guess the question comes down to, if you believe it, are you lyng? For some the answer is yes(probably on your political leanings)

This is a bogus argument and repeated over and over again as a basis for justifying the war.

Clinton, Albright, Kerry, and the Easter Bunny could have been 100% convinced that Iraq had WMD and the intent to FedEx a major attack against us with them (seeing how there was no other deployment method had he even had WMD).

But NONE of those people launched a war against a country that had not attacked us.

Bush did. It doesn't matter what anybody else thought, because we don't know all the reasons THEY never launched a pre-emptive war against someone that had neither attacked us or held the capability to do so.

We keep hearing what everybody else supposedly thought without hearing a peep about the reservations they had as well. Furthermore, you are assuming fighting terrorism with bombs and tanks is a more effective way to fight terrorism (as if Iraq had anything to do with international terrorism), then treated as a criminal action (as some of these people may or may not have thought).

Bush made a case that didn't exist. He divided the UN, he divided our country, and now he's dividing the world one country at a time (i.e. Spain). And not one bit, NOT ONE BIT of critical evidence has been found to justify anything he's said.

You can't "mistakenly" get it ALL wrong.

Edited to add this tale of the tape:
Ummm....did I really say that????