So, did Bush LIE about WMDs, or was he WRONG about them?

[Crossbow]

The White House admitted months ago (June 18, 2003 to be exact) that they never had any firm WMD evidence regarding Iraq, instead they assumed that Iraq did have WMDs because Iraq did have them in the past and that they were sure that WMD evidence would be found soon after the war had been won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

President Assails Iraq War Skeptics

…

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer continued to vigorously defend Bush's prewar warnings under lengthy questioning at his televised briefing, and stated flatly that the White House still believes weapons of mass destruction will be found. "The president is patient, and he understands the American people are patient, as well," he said.

Fleischer also said Bush continues to believe Hussein had such weapons immediately prior to the war. "That's what the president said then; it's what he believes now, of course," he said. Fleischer called it "fanciful" and "a fit of imagination" to suggest that after U.N. weapons inspectors departed in 1998, Hussein "used the fact that the inspectors were gone to destroy his weapons."

The administration case is not based entirely on direct evidence. Fleischer said that "the decision to go to war was based on the knowledge that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein had a history of using weapons of mass destruction." He said the intelligence about the lack of evidence that any weapons were destroyed "led to the conclusion of this administration, the previous administration and many on the Hill that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction."

…

[Silicon]

The Bush administration presented evidence they knew was misleading and in some cases outright false.

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mussab
al-Zarqawi, a collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda
lieutenants." He further claimed, "When our coalition ousted the
Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and
explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in
northeastern Iraq."

-Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations.


Tricky wording, saying Iraq was "harboring" the camp, since that camp was in KURDISH territory outside of the control of Saddam. It was in Sargat near the border of Iran, in an area controlled by Ansar al-Islam, which had been fighting the Kurdish government that operates autonomously in northern Iraq. The US claimed it was a chemical weapons base.

Of course, when American Special Forces raided that base March 30, 2003, they found no such chemical weapons, according to ABC News.

It's still possible that it WAS a chemical weapons base run by Zarqawi. But it was in territory under Kurdish control and patrolled by the US. The 9/11 commission has concluded there is "no credible evidence" of any link between Al Queida and Saddam.

So here we had a group with more of a link to Iran than Iraq. In territory under US and Kurdish control. With no credible evidence to link it with Saddam. This looks to me, and much of the world as trying to bend the facts to fit a justification. Perhaps that's what Powell meant when he admitted later on Meet the Press that some of the evidence he presented to the UN was "deliberately misleading."


So this is a LIE about a chemical weapons facility and Al Queida ties to Iraq. And it was in a part of Iraq that WE patrolled, and we didn't have to go hat-in-hand to the UN to get permission to bomb.

To me, that crosses the line.

Of course, al-Zarqawi still is causing us problems. Too bad we didn't get him back when we had the opportunity. But of course, that would have eliminated a rationale we used to invade Iraq.


Then there is this quote about sanctions:

Quote:

That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Colin Powell speaking in Cairo, February 24, 2001.

(That speech by Secretary Powell USED to be on the State Department website. Since scrubbed.)

[fishbob]

BPSG: Well, if Bush lied - that is, if there were no WMDs and he knew it - then it leads us to the conclusion that the CIA must have been providing him with good intelligence. in which case, why are we going through all this intelligence reform nonsense? If the CIA was telling him there were no WMDs, why is everyone saying they screwed up?
That there is some seriously flawed logic.

BPSG again: And let me say it again: Everybody thought Saddam had WMDs until we went in and couldn't find them. Even y'all on the left who were opposed to the war thought he had WMDs - or don't you remember trying to justify your opposition to the war by saying there would be tens of thousands of dead American soldiers because of Saddam's chemical weapons? Were y'all lying? Or were you simply mistaken? That there is some serious revisionism.

Googy logic, wrong info. What is your point?
Oh yeah - Bush can do no wrong.

[SlippyToad]

I'll take both, please.

[demon]

BPSG again: "And let me say it again: Everybody thought Saddam had WMDs until we went in and couldn't find them."

This is flatly false. Just how many times are we going to hear this?
Do your research. The media might have presented this as the case but it`s just not so.