How about this statement:
"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic? the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
Spot the deliberate deceptions here:
Firstly The United Nations withdrew its inspection teams in 1998. Secondly the report he is referring to was issued in 1991 and stated Iraq were 6 to 24 months from making a weapon however, however Bush knew full well that since then subsequent IAEA reports had indicated no such capability.
It's nice to have an honest attempt at proving dishonesty rather than merely proclaiming deception.
I can't see where you see the lie here. Before the war I also was aware of this information and came to the same probable conclusion as Bush and told people so. Does this make me a liar? The IAEA reports were not conclusive. No one knew how much Saddam Hussein was hiding just as they did not know before the first war.
Bush's reasoning was this (which was similar to my own): After the first war the inspectors discovered that Saddam Hussein's nuclear program was much farther along than was supposed. When Bush came into office the inspectors had been withdrawn for two years. It was logical to assume that right after the inspectors left that Saddam Hussein resumed all his WMD programs including nuclear. In addition to this there were numerous defectors that were interviewed regularly on national TV who emphatically insisted that Iraq was close to obtaining nuclear weapons. I heard a number of these interviews and they were quite convincing - as well as alarming.
The theory on these defectors now is that they wanted us to invade Iraq to free their fellow citizens so bad that they made up evidence to convince the world.
In addition to this, George Tenant told Bush something I did not know at the time. He insisted to Bush that Saddam Hussein having a WMD program was a "slam dunk."
The problem is that we still do not know the truth of the matter. Satellite photos showed that about the time of the occupation of Baghdad that numerous trucks crossed the boarder into Syria. It is very probable that these contained many WMD's that still mat surface some day.
I just heard on the news yesterday that there is evidence that Joseph Wilson was lying in some of his report in relation to his mission to Niger and that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein was buying yellowcake from that country after all. The British still stand by their intelligence on the matter.
Like me it appears that Bush made a mistake, but we are not even sure of this. If we knew the whole truth maybe it would have been worse than we thought. Saddam Hussein was making a deal with North Korea to buy long range missiles. Perhaps he scrapped his nuclear program and merely planned to purchase from them which would have been as dangerous as if he developed his own.
Conclusion: It is most probable that Bush made some mistakes here but there is no evidence he lied.
or this one Bush made to the press in July 2003
"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."
Another lie about Inspectors mixed in with an "absolutely" in regards to Saddam having a weapons program.
What makes you think he did not have a weapons program? They did discover illegal missiles and saron and mustard gas. John Kerry and John Edwards also thought he had a weapons program Edwards called the program an "imminent threat." Did he lie also? At worst they mistaken.
Section 83 of the just released from the bi-partisan senate report tells us that there is no evidence that Bush lied or hyped the data from intelligence agencies on WMDs.
As for Bush hiding behind poor Intelligence, well that's just a cop out, because what he is saying is that he took the world to war based upon poor circumstantial evidence. While at the time he made it appear that in his mind it was beyond reasonable doubt (hyping the data), in fact he was still using terms like absolutely after the war, that is nothing less than deceptive.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -- Bush, March 17, 2003
Why would it be a cop out to rely on our intelligence agencies? Isn't that what they are there for? Much of the intelligence was public knowledge and almost every leader of every nation believed it. I thought it was credible myself. If, on top of what I knew, the chief intelligence officer told me the reliability of the data was a "slam dunk" I might have been even more convinced.
France and Germany did not join in the war because of lack of belief but because a war would reveal their secret deals with Saddam Hussein and the clandestine flow of money from Iraq would cease.
Conclusion: I have carefully examined many claims that Bush lied and I can't see any evidence of conscious deception. There is evidence of mistakes, but an honest mistake is not a lie.
Consider how illogical it is that Bush lied about WMD's. The accusation is that Bush knew there were no WMD's and lied about the whole thing just so he could go to war to benefit some corporations that he was perfectly free to ignore.
Imagine what his thinking would have had to have been for this to be true. He would have had to thought something like this.
"Let me see. My ratings are around 90% and my reelection looks pretty sure. I think I'll make up a story about WMD's and invade Iraq. Of course, soon after we invade it will be discovered that there are no weapons and this will most likely plummet my ratings to the toilet and case me to loose reelection but what the heck. Why should I play it safe and ride my popularity to reelection when I can make people hate me and destroy my presidency. Full speed ahead!"
This, my friend, makes absolutely no sense. Bush would have only put his whole presidency and career on the line like this if he were sincere. I know that is the only reason I would have done it if I had been in his situation. I certainly wouldn't have done it for Haliburton.
"I agree with John Paul II when he said that capitalism is a sin. This is an evil system." Michael Moore on CNN's Crossfire 2002
Copyright 2004 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved