Replies

"The question that weighs on my mind remains. Why did Bush allow the "no weapons were found" lie continue to be told."

I think its because before the invasion Bush and co told us that Saddam had "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents". What have we found? "Over 50 chemical munitions"? How far past their shelflife were the weapons that we found? How effective were they? Bush would've been ridiculed if one of his pre-war speeches saying "Saddam has tons of weapons" was played back to back with a post-war speech saying "We found the weapons; he had a lunch-box packed full of the stuff!".

The fact is that what has been found was a tiny fraction of what we were told was there. What we have found would justify invading my neighbor's barn, but probably not someone else's country.

The fact is that what has been found was a tiny fraction of what we were told was there. What we have found would justify invading my neighbor's barn, but probably not someone else's country.

I was operating off the premise that a lot more have been found, based on this article, than even you are acknowledging. My question is based on the assumption that your statements are part of the lie itself. Who knows though.

Remember the convoy though. Regardless of how many have been "found," the reality is that if most of the weapons were spirited off to Syria, I suppose we wouldn't be in a position to pound the table on them quite yet, even if we knew it and knew exactly where they are.

"The fact is that what has been found was a tiny fraction of what we were told was there."

Except Bush never told us "they were there". He said, repeatedly, that Iraq had not accounted for large quantities of chemical and biological agents, and was not cooperating with the UN to explain what happened to them. He reported intelligence reports that Iraq was pursuing technology to build nuclear weapons. He explained that in a post 911 world you could not give Saddam the benfefit of the doubt. He did not say they had them.

In a State of the Union speech before the war he said "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

Of course, as your post attests, and others have written here, it doesn't matter what the facts were at the time. The accepted version of events is that Bush lied, and that's all there is to it.