Did Bush lie about WMD in Iraq?

[Link]

Also Saddam probably deserved to be overthrown...

The aftermath of the Iraq war told us unequivocally that Sadaam should not have been overthrown.  Sadaam was the glue that held that place together.

The Iranians weren't sad to see him go.  

No.  They seemed quite happy for whatever reason.

Because he would poke a stick in their eye everytime they raised a fuss.......his only redeeming quality was the Iranians couldn't trust him and they were, in some respects, fearful of him.

I know.  I was around for the Iran Iraq war.  I was being sarcastic... on the internet.  Never a good idea.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Also Saddam probably deserved to be overthrown...

The aftermath of the Iraq war told us unequivocally that Sadaam should not have been overthrown.  Sadaam was the glue that held that place together.

The Iranians weren't sad to see him go.  

No.  They seemed quite happy for whatever reason.

Because he would poke a stick in their eye everytime they raised a fuss.......his only redeeming quality was the Iranians couldn't trust him and they were, in some respects, fearful of him.

I know.  I was around for the Iran Iraq war.  I was being sarcastic... on the internet.  Never a good idea.

It's ok, Link, that's what they make smiley's for.        

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Bush was told it was a "slam dunk."  The national security state can be spectacularly wrong about things sometimes. Even Saddam may have believed he had WMDs. 

I recall a conspiracy-flavored meme drifting around the net a few years ago that claimed Saddam indeed had WMD in the form of chemical weapons and that they had in fact been found, but that the whole thing was covered up by the Bush administration when they belatedly realized that Saddam's chemical arsenal practically had "Made in the USA" stamped on it, with a trail that led right back to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[windjammer]

Of course.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  While the Bush administration made selective use of the contradictory intelligence information to present the strongest possible case for war, I won't fault him for that.  What I will fault Bush and especially Rumsfeld for is going to war without being properly prepared.  Beating the Iraqi military was never in doubt, but we weren't prepared for the chaos or power vacuum that happened afterward and there was no reason we could not have been tho it would have taken longer, perhaps as much as a year longer.  It is possible that the situation would have been such that there would have been insufficient support for war in 2003, and I fault Bush for thinking it was more important to undertake the invasion his daddy was talked out of than to make certain it was needed and that it could be done responsibly.

[Link]

Bush was told it was a "slam dunk."  The national security state can be spectacularly wrong about things sometimes. Even Saddam may have believed he had WMDs. 

I recall a conspiracy-flavored meme drifting around the net a few years ago that claimed Saddam indeed had WMD in the form of chemical weapons and that they had in fact been found, but that the whole thing was covered up by the Bush administration when they belatedly realized that Saddam's chemical arsenal practically had "Made in the USA" stamped on it, with a trail that led right back to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand on national television decades ago.  Not really sure what's to cover up.  In other conspiracy news the US allegedly trained and armed Taliban fighters in the 80s.

[Potatoe]

Bush was told it was a "slam dunk."  The national security state can be spectacularly wrong about things sometimes. Even Saddam may have believed he had WMDs. 

I recall a conspiracy-flavored meme drifting around the net a few years ago that claimed Saddam indeed had WMD in the form of chemical weapons and that they had in fact been found, but that the whole thing was covered up by the Bush administration when they belatedly realized that Saddam's chemical arsenal practically had "Made in the USA" stamped on it, with a trail that led right back to Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand on national television decades ago.  Not really sure what's to cover up.  In other conspiracy news the US allegedly trained and armed Taliban fighters in the 80s.

And John McCain shook hands with Gadaffi


Then tweeted about it

[muon2]

It's not clear to me who was lying to whom during the run up to the Iraq invasion. I had a number of conversations in 2002 with European scientists reasonably connected with their governments who believed that WMD's were present in Iraq, but disagreed with the idea that the US should take action based on that intelligence. In February of that same year I spent two weeks in Germany and was able to talk to some lower-level officials. They were very concerned about a US invasion, but did not dispute the idea that there might be Iraqi WMDs.

There was little doubt that Hussein had WMDs during his war with Iran in the 80's and used them on the Kurds as well. My suspicion is that the idea that there were still WMDs in 2002 was fostered by some of the Iraqi exile community as they more than any group had the most to gain. It's also not inconceivable to me that there were some very minor efforts in Iraq in the late 90's to restart their program, and that scientists inside Iraq inflated their efforts in order to curry favor. What ever the actual source of the idea, it's clear that those who wanted an invasion would highlight any and all factors that supported their case.

[Mordecai]

No.  While the Bush administration made selective use of the contradictory intelligence information to present the strongest possible case for war, I won't fault him for that.  What I will fault Bush and especially Rumsfeld for is going to war without being properly prepared.  Beating the Iraqi military was never in doubt, but we weren't prepared for the chaos or power vacuum that happened afterward and there was no reason we could not have been tho it would have taken longer, perhaps as much as a year longer.  It is possible that the situation would have been such that there would have been insufficient support for war in 2003, and I fault Bush for thinking it was more important to undertake the invasion his daddy was talked out of than to make certain it was needed and that it could be done responsibly.

That reminds me, in 1994 Dick Cheney (as former Secretary of Defense) was interviewed about why the Bush administration didn't go all the way during the First Gulf War and he spelled out in explicit detail the consequences of removing Saddam and the kind of long-term commitment to the region that would mean to the United States. And even with that knowledge he was still able to royally screw up Iraq.

Not to mention the generals telling Rumsfeld that more troops were needed for the occupation and Rumsfeld ignoring them. He should have been fired immediately when the Iraqi military was disbanded and the soldiers joined the insurgents.

Overall it's pretty awful that Cheney and Rumsfeld's mismanagement poisoned the well for liberating Iraq because if it had been done competently that would have been a great credit to the United States.

Edit: I found the interview that Cheney did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w75ctsv2oPU

It's pretty amazing how accurate he was.

Edit 2: And there's this gem from General Eric Shinseki in 2003.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xchyIeCQw

I like how Obama nominated him to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs, it rubbed the Bush administration's nose in the Iraq failure.

[Vosem]

No. The Western intelligence apparatus had been duped, to some extent by the Iraqi exiles who had things to gain, to some extent by the Iraqi government itself, which wanted its people and its military to believe it had WMDs to solidify its control over the country. Bush did not knowingly lie.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

No. The Western intelligence apparatus had been duped, to some extent by the Iraqi exiles who had things to gain, to some extent by the Iraqi government itself, which wanted its people and its military to believe it had WMDs to solidify its control over the country. Bush did not knowingly lie.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Kinda. I don't think Bush knew the WMDs were a lie, but his administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) knew the Iraqi exile community were making a mountain out of a molehill and pushed the invasion anyway.

[AkSaber]

Yes, he didn't care whether Iraq had weapons or not.

He, just like everyone else in his administration, know who would profit from such a large war.

[Deus Naturae]

I have to agree with DemPGH that, regardless of the degree to which Bush actually thought (a contradiction in terms, I know) that Saddam possessed WMD's, he would've latched on to anything if he thought there was it chance it could let him launch his murderous invasions and expand the power of the national security state.

[AggregateDemand]

No. It was common knowledge that rogue Middle Eastern states were buying, selling, and trading WMD amongst themselves. Syria, a country that recently used WMD, was part of that arrangement.

The real problem is that the US adhered to a stability philosophy in the Middle East, where we'd play both sides of various conflicts to maintain weakened states with balanced power. The Machiavellian brinksmanship we used in the Middle East during the Cold War was immoral and damaging to the people, but the Bush admin seemed to think that Iraq would behave as a civil democracy, if the US dropped a few million pounds of bombs, and then used troops to guard the ballot boxes.

It's hard to fault the man for having a naively optimistic view of the Iraqi people, especially when he knew first hand the price they paid, when HW chose to leave them to the mercy of Saddam Hussein. HW's actions probably engendered a deep-ceded mistrust of the UN as well. However, good intentions do not determine the legacy of a president's policies

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course. Its actually not so much he directly lied but he said something he "thought" was true ahead of time and it ended up being false. Anyway, its one of the worst political lies of the last decade or so.

[Simfan34]

Where's all the oil we went to war for? Last I checked, most of it was going to China (as were Afghanistan's minerals, although that might have been Japan).

I say he was misinformed, much along the lines of what muon and Vosem said.

Of course, that doesn't mean dissolving the Iraqi National Army was a travesty; or the war altogether. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, he did.  I wouldn't go as far to lay the blame squarely on Bush, but I think it's plainly obvious he acted on bad intentions in pushing the Iraq War.  Even the CIA and other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Iraq hadn't sponsored past terrorist attacks against America, was not in cooperation with Al Qaeda, and was not a terror threat to the country.  There was no evidence for any of those claims.  Even among Bush's own intelligent services, the view that Saddam would attack the US without provocation was largely rejected, and Saddam, even if provoked, was unlikely to even consider reaching out to Al Qaeda, an organization which he had no preexisting relationship with.

So, hell, maybe he didn't outright lie in the purest sense of the word.  Maybe he just decided to completely ignore studies that were contrary to the narrative he rode on for all those years and jump on any measly spec of supporting "evidence" he could find.  Maybe.  But if that's true, I don't see how that's any more excusable than lying.  Not when 140,000 soldiers' lives are on the line because of it.

[DINGO Joe]

Where's all the oil we went to war for? Last I checked, most of it was going to China (as were Afghanistan's minerals, although that might have been Japan).

I say he was misinformed, much along the lines of what muon and Vosem said.

Of course, that doesn't mean dissolving the Iraqi National Army was a travesty; or the war altogether. 

Although, as the US needs less and less foreign oil, more will go elsewhere

[Simfan34]

Okay, I was wrong about China... but "No war for 20% of Iraq's oil" isn't a particularly catchy slogan, is it?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

My heart and fondness for 43 tells me he was mislead by his national security team, namely Cheney and Rumsfeld, but my head says he lied.

[Likely Voter]

Okay, I was wrong about China... but "No war for 20% of Iraq's oil" isn't a particularly catchy slogan, is it?

It doesn't matter where it goes, the goal was to increase Iraqi oil output. Getting more oil into the market helps stabilize the price for everyone.  The ultimate goal was to have a friendly government control Iraq, especially one that allowed foreign investment. WMD was just the excuse, and a flimsy one at that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wars don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to promoting Iraqi oil production.

[Likely Voter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[7,052,770]

It's possible that he really did believe there were WMDs, but it was just a gut feeling and he portrayed it as an undeniable fact.

Whether or not that counts as "lying" is up to you.  It's also possible he just straight-up lied.  We'll probably never know for certain which is was.