Bush Lied, People Died - The Truth as I See It June 4th, 2004
Bush lied about WMD. I grow very tired of hearing that. If George W. Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, and used the existence of WMDs to justify entry into Iraq, then yes, he lied. I will grant half of that slogan - people did die, but then hundreds of thousands died under orders from Saddam Hussein, and while even his death is tragic, I think the world is better off without him.
However, concerning lying, I want to point out that as far as I know, there has not been a president in my lifetime that has not lied in office. So. if you hate Bush because he lied, but love your guy who also lies, then you have no credibility. You are not objective, and just bad mouth a guy you do not like, and it is obvious that you distaste is not about lying.
"How seldom we weigh our neighbors in the same balance as ourselves." ~Thomas à Kempis
Let's at least get the hypocrisy out of the way.
Now I have to say that lying is despicable. I cannot condone it, regardless of who is doing the lying. But now that we have pretty much established that it is not the lie that upsets people, let's look at a few other aspects. Everyone who is sufficiently educated to be involved in this debate, knows that it is not lying to state something that is untrue. I am assuming that you, the reader, are sophisticated enough to admit that. For the sake of the handful who are not, let's get a dictionary definition of "lie".
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth or falsehood.
So, if Bush knew there were no WMD, and there were none, then yes, he lied. If you are making this accusation, you should be ready to prove that:1. Bush knew there were no WMD
Now, let's pretend for a moment, that Bush was the bad guy and deserved all of this criticism. Was he the source of the information about WMDs? Or was he just the president, who said so in a speech before the nation. Did anyone else agree with him about that?
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D)September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."
President Bill Clinton (D)December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly — unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
Robert Einhorn (Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation)March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously — and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."
Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy BergerFebruary 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao BarrosoOctober 2003: "When Clinton was here recently he told me 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."
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine AlbrightFebruary 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Gen. Wesley ClarkSeptember 2002, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."
Florida Senator Bob Graham (D) and others,in a letter to President Bush dated December 2001: There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
French President Jacques ChiracFebruary 2003: "There is a problem — the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."
California Representative Nancy Pelosi (D)December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller (D) ranking minority Intelligence Committee memberOctober 2002: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."