If Bush Was Going To Lie, Why Would He Lie About WMD?

Toogoodreports.com ^ | Weekender June 08, | Lowell Phillips

[F_Cohen]

If Bush Was Going To Lie, Why Would He Lie About WMD?

By Lowell Phillips

Weekender June 08

Toogood Reports

Call it a failing of mine, but I have this problem with things that just don't make sense. And, sorry, the bubbling hysteria over pre-Iraq War intelligence is replete with things that just don't make sense. None of the inconsistencies, however, have any impact on those who are positively breathless to believe the worst about President Bush and the rest of the administration.

Pick up a newspaper, turn on a news broadcast, or listen to the callers on talk radio and there it is. But the screaming illogic of charging the White House with intentionally falsifying intelligence to justify an invasion is being drowned out by the hypnotic chant, "No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied."

Sure it's maddening, but also fascinating that so many want something so desperately to be true. The political left is giddy at the prospect. Indeed, they have not been this hopeful since body bags were returning from Vietnam en masse.

Though the speed of the victory spoiled their groovy retro-60s protests, there is yet a chance at happiness. And if the cost is merely the paralysis of our intelligence agencies, the premature end to the war on terror, perpetual vulnerability for the American people, and the destruction of the most effective foreign policy president in a generation, so be it. Then again, national security and the international stature of the United States have never been priorities for the left.

Certainly it is possible that this inarticulate Texas dunce orchestrated a wicked scheme to trick the country and the world into war, but how might this be reconciled with the woefully limited intellectual capabilities that his opponents insist he has? Maybe that's just what he "wants us to think". And what would a good conspiracy theory be without an assumption like that?

There is also the possibility that poor President Bush was an unwitting pawn for those nefarious "neo-cons" that we have heard so much about? But if this were the case, he would not be a liar, now would he?

Whatever part Bush played, evil genius or dupe, some farfetched assumptions are necessary, which clear thinkers have pointed out. And even then there are a few significant, though unanswered questions.

To believe that the Bush administration intentionally deceived the country to facilitate war, we must believe that it was working in concert with the Clinton administration, which used much of the same intelligence to justify air strikes back in 1998. We have to believe that Clinton himself was deeply involved in the stratagem, due to his persistent warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The same can be said for leading Democrats in congress that helped make "regime change" in Iraq the official policy of the U.S. government during that time.

We must believe that countries like Germany, France and Russia, whose intelligence services supported American conclusions, were likewise in on it. Not to mention the United Nations, whose point man, Hans Blix, agreed up to the eve of war that Hussein's regime was not cooperating with inspections.

We have to accept that after going to so much trouble to obstruct and drive out weapons inspectors in 1998, that Saddam then unilaterally destroyed the weapons he admitted to having, and decided to keep it a secret, depriving his government of billions in oil revenue. And we must believe that this wily "survivor" decided to convince the world of his innocence and dissuade the coalition massed on his southern border by threatening to use weapons that he supposedly destroyed.

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but if one is trying to prove that they haven't got a gun, I don't think they would yell, "Take one more step and I'll shoot!"

It is one hell of a leap to assume so much. But then there's that chant, "No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied." It makes anything easy to swallow.

Ok, let's say that it was all Bush's doing, that it really was a "war for oil", or a Bush family vendetta. Why falsify intelligence about weapons of mass destruction?

It was inevitable that people would want to see the weapons. Are we to believe that the White House set up a situation where they were certain to be exposed? After going to all the trouble to manufacture intelligence, why not supply the weapons in a location convenient for the media's cameras?

No matter how concrete the WMD evidence appeared prior to the invasion, opponents complained that going after Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror. They argued that this was a "distraction". Democrat competitors for Bush's job have also charged him with diverting military assets away from the war to needlessly target Saddam.

Moreover, the WMD angle obligated the administration to seek the approval of the U.N., at least initially, and provided detractors the opportunity to cultivate a "give the inspectors more time" sentiment in the American public.

If Bush wanted war, and was prepared to "lie" to get it, why not cut out the U.N. middleman, and go with the sure thing with American voters?

However pleasing it was to have the support of the British and others for the Iraq invasion, we didn't need them.

For all but the most willful doubters, the support for terrorism by the Hussein regime was clear, but the evidence provided didn't make it appear massive.

Bush could have garnered overwhelming support from the public, left no room for Democrats and the rest of the anti-war movement to cry "distraction", and alleviate the need for U.N. approval from the outset by "exaggerating," "distorting", or simply lying about the terrorist presence in Iraq.

Or perhaps the administration decided on a conspiracy, with all the dangers involved, but still was considerate enough to be sporting and give the opposition a fighting chance to stop the war they so desperately wanted. Is that it?

I have no doubt that these questions will be shrugged off by the legions of Bush-haters as easily as all the others. But should they, if even for a moment, begin to see the absurdity of their accusations, they can resort to that comforting chant and convince themselves of the presidents's fiendishness, that appeasement works, and that liberal paradise awaits.

[xm177e2]

If Bush was deliberately lying about WMD, why didn't he have WMD ready to plant in Iraq? Then this whole thing would be a non-issue.

[Migraine]

"No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied."

Here's the deal: does a mafia hitman ever get caught w/ the murder weapon? Does it mean he never had one? Why the mafia analogy? When was there ever a larger crime syndicate than the Saddam regime?

Here's another: We haven't found Saddam yet, either. Does that mean HE didn't exist?

[TheGeezer]

Rush Limbaugh proposed a heartily amusing scenario in which GWB knows positively where WMD are, and has reserved their discovery for the hour in which liberal ranting is at its peak.

Why not? I'm convinced that Powell's reluctance to get on board with the war in the weeks preceding the final showdown with the U.N was engineered to permit the Dems and other liberals to side with Powell against GWB. Recall the rant:

"See! Powell is against the war! And he's the only credible one in this administration!"

And then Powell united his voice with the rest of the administration for the U.N. finale. Liberal Powell supporters had the rug pulled out from under them.

This may just be a nice GWB strategy. Or maybe God's....

[newgeezer]

Then again, if he was going to lie, why not lie about WMD, and then make exactly the same, valid arguments found in this article?

If I were a liberal, that'd be my response.

[My2Cents]

I think it's God's stretegery. I doubt W would hold back evidence, but what I do think, however, is that we have evidence, and we're holding it to put together with whatever evidence we eventually come up with, including when Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ crack and tell-all. In the months ahead, we'll see a nice comprehensive report on all of the WMD. The know more than they're telling. The libs/Bush-haters are setting themselves up, once again, to look foolish and WRONG!

[My2Cents]

The other thing: If Bush conveyed false information about WMD before the war, he did so because the UN information was false. Go back to his speech to the UN. He used their own data to build the case for UN action against Saddam.

[Egregious Philbin]

Rush Limbaugh proposed a heartily amusing scenario in which GWB knows positively where WMD are, and has reserved their discovery for the hour in which liberal ranting is at its peak.

Rush thinks Bush would gamble with our international reputation for a purely partisan political move?

[Question_Assumptions]

Repeat after me: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence."

[Consort]

§ George J. Tenet §

If the Liberals within our intelligence community have set Bush up with a false scenario, then they must be exposed and heads must roll. The problem is that the Director of Central Intelligence was appointed by one or both of the Clintons on July 11, 1997 and anything is possible.

[My2Cents]

Saddam destroyed all of his WMD, and he kept no record of it -- nothing to prove there were no WMD?! That's what you're suggesting. I wouldn't be surprised if we have hard evidence already, but it's being held back until we get Mrs. Anthrax, Dr. Germ, and the rest who were involved in these programs, to crack, so a comprehensive report can be given. There is no panic in the Administration over the hyperventaliating of the Bush-haters this week. I think the reason there's no panic is that they already have solid evidence that proves the naysayers wrong (again).

[My2Cents]

Or as Rumsfeld said yesterday, "We haven't found Saddam yet either. And nobody's claiming that he never existed."

[TomB]

Iraq was told to disarm or face military action. Their weapons have not been found. There's not even a trace of weapons material in the soil samples that have been taken. It's been MONTHS now, since the search has been going on.

Iraq had to PROVE they didn't have something by destorying arms they didn't even have, basically. It was impossible to do, and an illogical stance (what a surprise) from Bush & Co.

Uh, you are leaving out one salient point. The Iraqi government fought inspections tooth and nail. If they didn't have any WMDs, why didn't they just throw the doors open?

Now we're asking, "well, if they were lying, why not plant weapons?" As if they HAD planted weapons, you people would even believe the story! You'dbe denouncing it as conspiracy theory until the day you die. How hypocritical!

I have NO IDEA what you are saying here, could you please restate?

[MizSterious]

Indeed. What about all this stuff?

WARNING: Gathering WMD storm a crock. See what Clinton told nation in 1998...

THE ROAD ENDS FOR WMD ON WHEELS

Coalition forces enter possible WMD site

Initial tests suggest WMD "cocktail" found in Iraq (**Of special note--post #58, by Archy)

U.S. finds new evidence of Iraqi WMD (NBC training school, antidotes)

Chem-weapons lab believed discovered

BRITS' CHILLING CHEM-NUKE FIND

CAPTURED FOES FOUND WITH CHEM-WAR GEAR

EUPHRATES 'POISONED'

MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River

Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts?

U.S. probing nuclear facility (Al Tuwaitha Follow Up)

Team Inspects suspected plutonium site (update by the journalist who broke original story, NEW info)

Underground Nuclear Facility Found in Iraq

Marines hold Iraqi nuclear site built by French

U.S. Marines Guard Secret Iraqi City with Very Hot Nuclear Radiation Levels

And from Freeper "HatSteel":

Terrorist devices, chemical weapons found in Iraq

Suspicious Iraqi Drums - UPDATE

Suspected bioweapons labs found

Searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Larry Elder

Iraq's Weapons and the Road to War

Iraqi Scientist Links Weapons to 'Dual Use' Facilities, White House Says

IRAQ: U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert

Herald Sun: Soldiers find Iraqi chemical 'dump'

***Germany's leading role in arming Iraq

*Germany intercepts (30 tonnes) chemicals (may be used to make nerve gas) for N Korea

New DOD team to hunt for intel as well as weapons

***Chemical Weapons Programs

Capture of chemical expert could help U.S. weapons hunt in Iraq (Emad Husayn Abdulla al-Ani)

Belgium Finds Nerve Gas Ingredient in Letters

Banned missile programme found in Iraq

Administration to Announce 'Rollback' Strategy for WMD

Suspicious Iraqi Drums Preliminary Testing Suggests Chemical Agents; More Testing Needed

2 trailers deemed biological arms labs

***Table 2: Characteristics of Chemical Warfare Agents: Commercial Uses of Chemicals or Precursor Chemicals ***CENTAF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM

[TomB]

, and so far have proven not ONE of their points used to go war.

Point one, Sadam Hussein was butchering his own people.

[Registered]

It was lies, all lies!!! Bwaaaaah!

 

[VRWC_minion]

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2003. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						.
"Now, we’d like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq now that the major fighting has ended: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, or very badly?"
		Very Well	Moder- ately Well	Moder- ately Badly	Very Badly	No Opinion
		%	%	%	%	%
	5-6/03	11	59	22	7	1
						.
"Do you think the Bush Administration does or does not have a clear plan for improving conditions in Iraq and helping the Iraqi civilians rebuild their country?"
		Does	Does Not	No Opinion
		%	%	%
	5-6/03	56	41	3
						.
"In the long run, do you think the U.S. war with Iraq will end up creating more problems than it solves or will end up solving more problems than it creates?" Options rotated
		Creating More	Solving More	No Opinion
		%	%	%
	5-6/03	42	53	5
						.
"Which comes closest to your view about the war with Iraq? It was justified only if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It was justified even if the U.S. DOES NOT find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. OR, It was not justified even if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" Options rotated
		Justified Only If Find Evidence	Justified Even If Does Not Find Evidence	Not Justified	No Opinion
		%	%	%	%
	5-6/03	23	56	18	3
						.
"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?"
		Deliber- ately Misled	Did Not Mislead	No Opinion
		%	%	%
	5-6/03	31	67	2