This should give pause to some in the ‘Bush Lied- People Died!’ crowd, but it probably will be ignored just like everything else is ignored in the jihad against Bush:
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
“When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime,” he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
This isn’t that shocking, and not really a revelation, because everyone thought Hussein had WMD. But wait, there is more:
An influential Washington think-tank said the Bush administration “systematically” inflated the threat from Iraq’s weapons programs in a bid to strengthen its push for military action against Iraq last year.
In its report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also said it was unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved out of the country hundreds of weapons of mass destruction without Washington detecting some sign of activity.
In other words- Bush lied- or maybe he didn’t. Wonder which part of this report the Bush/Hitler crowd will latch onto? At any rate, if they insist on claiming that Bush lied- you should casually point out that their heroes- Clinton, the UN, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and the rest of the International Community aqlso lied about Saddam possessing WMD.
Of course- we know it is ok for Clinton to lie. Just depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.
lowercase h harry
Heck, I thought Hussein probably had WMDs … not that I would know …
As far as the Bush case for war, what I’m most concerned about is the ginning up of the available intelligence. I think it’s pretty clear that we hadn’t had anything substantial since 1998, yet Rummy and crew were making very definitive statements, even about nuclear weapons. How could the president call Iraq “a gathering” threat if we really just had lousy intelligence that was five years old. If no one knew, they should have been straight with us.
Zach
It’s one thing when you are lying about what you do with your dinky. It’s another when your lies kill people.
Dean
Zach:
As Noam Chomsky so ably points out, the consequences of bombing the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant were thousands of doses of key drugs that were not produced, for people in Africa.
And as the key point of the actual post above notes, it is one thing to argue that Dubya lied. But then, you have to explain why it’s a lie, if Clinton (and, for that matter, every other government and intelligence organization out there) believed that Hussein had WMD.
Indeed, something the “Bush lied!” crowd has never successfully answered is, “What happened to Hussein’s WMDs?” He had them previously, he never provided an answer as to what happened to them, what happened to the ones he had?
It’s one thing to accept that OJ didn’t kill Nicole. It’s something else to then answer, “Who did?”
Andrew Lazarus
The way the US chased Blix’s team out of Iraq (and suggested they were just not competent to find the WMD and that our armed forces would do better), and our failure to RE-EVALUATE our intelligence based on Blix’s experience suggests to me we were too sure of ourselves to reconsider the quality of our intelligence.
We were supplying Blix’s teams with the locations of alleged WMD down to the level of GPS coords. The papers said the UN found our tips were “garbage” but the blogosphere says that’s because papers don’t usually use the word “shit”. Shouldn’t SOMEONE have checked that we were merely buying the coordinates off Ahmed Chalabi’s “defectors”, dating back into the Clinton era, and didn’t have any other evidence for them?
BTW, Dean, I think we are piecing together where the WMD went. The last capabilities were destroyed in the 1998 Clinton/Blair bombings. A lot of the weapons Iraq had in 1991 would have degraded past threat level by now.
Dean
Andrew,
That may be the case. As you note, we’re STILL piecing that together.
But that hardly leads one to the conclusion that Dubya (or anyone else) KNEW that Hussein no longer had WMD.
One need only note that, prior to the Iraq War, nobody made that argument. Not the NGOs (who feared the consequences of a possible Iraq-Israel nuclear or WMD exchange), not the anti-war folks (who argued that you could CONTAIN Saddam, not that he had no WMD), not the anti-war nations (France, Russia did NOT argue he had no WMD).
The “Bush lied!” business is crap; which is not the same as saying that Hussein might not, as it turned out, have lost his WMD capability.
Kimmitt
Again, Bush lied about the certitude of the WMD caches. When Powell got in front of the UN and said, “The weapons caches and factories are here, here, and here, we are absolutely and utterly certain,” that was false. The Administration was sure that most of it was true, but the CIA wasn’t, and a pattern of ignoring good intelligence is just as disturbing as a pattern of outright misleading the American people.
dg
Bush did lie! And he even had his adminsistration lie. Regardless who ”thought” Iraq had WMD, the Bush Administration ”knew for a fact” that they had them and ”knew where they were.”
”We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
–Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
”We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
—Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
”Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done.”
–Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
…And the lies continue…
Rosemary the Queen of All Evil
Dq:
You said, “Regardless who ”thought” Iraq had WMD, the Bush Administration ”knew for a fact” that they had them and ”knew where they were.”
Clinton didn’t just “think” Iraq had them “…he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime,”
Absolutely convinced. That isn’t just thinking that is knowing.
So, did Clinton LIE?
dg
Apparently, the only one absolutely certain enough to go to war was Bush. Not Clinton, not the UN, BUSH!
Most thought he had them, but ”pre-emption” requires absolute certainty. There was NOT enough evidence to go to war.
The first casualty of war is the truth. Yet conservatives believe the very warmongers who tell you not to trust the government.
And one more thing: The only dead Americans when Clinton lied were on Monica’s dress.
Rosemary the Queen of All Evil
That’s because Clinton not only liked pussy, he was one.
If you think the only lie Clinton told was about sex, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
dg
But Bush lied to start a war. Here’s another one:
”Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
–Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
”You may be reading too much. I don’t know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.”
–Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
The liars can’t even keep track of their lies…
dg
Bush’s lies are hereditary. Reagan and Bush started this thing back when Iran complained to the UN that Iraq (with US support) used chemical weapons…
On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans “to avert an Iraqi collapse.” Reagan’s directive said that U.S. policy required “unambiguous” condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should “place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives.” The directive does not suggest that “condemning” chemical warfare required any hesitation about or modification of U.S. support for Iraq.
JKC
My own take on this is that Team Bush was so convinced of Saddam Hussein’s unalloyed evil and so convinced that he held boatloads of WMD’s that they ignored* or thwarted the work** of anyone coming to a different conclusion.
That may not be lying, but it’s perilously close to negligence and incompetence.
* That would be the CIA
** That would be Hans Blix and UNSCOM.
bittern
I’m tickled by Dean’s delightful idea that Bush didn’t KNOW Iraq didn’t have “WMD” when Bush SAID Iraq had WMD (and threatened us with them, could I add?), so there’s no lie. I don’t give a crap whether we call him a liar or not; I’ve disbelieved half what I’ve heard from the collective Presidents after Jerry & Jimmy. I’ve got no interest in trite complaints like “liar,” but I guess some folks were looking for a word intimating shaky justifications that rhymes with “died.” Thusly, “lied.”
As usual, Kimmett nails it short and sweet.
Dorian
dq,
The level of naivet
ChrisL
at the very least this should teach us all a lesson about the perils of “preemptive” wars. if you don’t **really** know what you’re preempting, you might just end up looking like a bunch of retards.
S.W. Anderson
Bush’s leadership style is to get the boiled-down-to-the-minimum essentials from someone he trusts, or deal with a one- to two-page memo, make up his mind and be done with it.
At times, he’ll tolerate a brief period of palaver, most likely so’s no one can accuse him of not letting others have their say. Basically, that’s for show. His mind is made up.
And when his mind is made up, paragraphs of pertinent information get lined out, pages disappear, the meaning of memos and reports get changed, people who might better for the country’s good be talking clam up and different thinkers get and stay out of the way, if they know what’s good for them.
When Bush’s mind is made up on something big, like invading Iraq, and emerging facts and troubling details aren’t being cooperative, they are ignored, subjected to spin, deemed the lies of people seeking political advantage or the blather of people who just don’t seem to understand or to want to understand.
This leadership style is common among pain-in-the-ass business owners and CEOs. It confuses thoughtfulness with impracticality and intellectual curiosity with indecisiveness.
When it comes to leadership skills and style, George W. Bush has a lot in common with Al “Chainsaw” Dunlap and Bernie Ebbers.
dg
Who’s naive? Bush ”knew for a fact” Iraq had WMD and they ”knew where they were” even though UN inspectors never found them before the war, and now Bush hasn’t found them after (during) the war. Saddam doesn’t have them in his pocket, does he? Better check for Anthrax powder!
And let’s get back to the core reason everyone thought Iraq had WMD:
A State Department background paper dated November 16, 1984 said that Iraq had stopped using chemical weapons after a November 1983 demarche from the U.S., but had resumed their use in February 1984.
On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, met with Secretary of State George Shultz.
When their discussion turned to the Iran-Iraq war, Aziz said that his country was satisfied that “the U.S. analysis of the war’s threat to regional stability is ‘in agreement in principle’ with Iraq’s,” and expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran. He said that “Iraq’s superiority in weaponry” assured Iraq’s defense.
Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, “remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq’s defense;” Tariq Aziz had to agree.
Isn’t that just cozy?
froggy
Look at all those historic lies:
Reagan/Bush ”restored diplomatic relations” only ten days AFTER a report came out that said Iraq is using WMD.
Then in a bold face lie to the world:
Iraq ”expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran.”
And here we are…
ralphbrowning
If Iraq had no WMD why would Hussine have went against 17 UN resolutions and told his troops that one General had the WMD and To other military groups that another General had them. Think the downfall of Iraq ended in the hands of the leader.I am a democrate, but with the groups like this one and others critizing the US troops and the war in Iraq might lead me and some others to vote for Bush. We are getting tired of the negitive press news. Thanks.