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".
.
–noun

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
2. That there were in fact, no WMD

I have not seen either of these points proven, and both are necessary to call Bush a liar on that issue without being disingenuous (you may be a liar yourself) or guilty of slander (The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation).

Now, for those who have paid attention to the news reports, it is a fact that WMD were found. An example of a story about this from 2004 is at http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24352/  A quick search on Google for "WMDs found in Iraq" or a similar search, will locate articles. Many of there were published in national circulation newspapers, but the articles tended to be small and in back pages. With that, we can say that Bush did not lie, and if you continue to say that he did, then you are lying unless you can prove that Bush believed that there were no WMD (even though there were hundreds).

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."
February 2003: "I agree with President Bush — he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."
March 2003: "Iraq is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

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. . . . "
July 2003: "it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

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 Berger

February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso

October 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 Albright

February 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 Clark

September 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 Chirac

February 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 member

October 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."

There are others, many of them international. I only included a few, since I am not certain what some of those people could have been expected to know. Most of those listed here, and access to the same information that Bush had access to.

The majority of protests or accusations of lying on Bushes part, come from Democrats or those of similar persuasions. I am sure that there are many republicans and others whose political persuasions are center to right also protested. Many of them would be right to do so if they were right that Bush lied. To single out Bush, and not go after the left leaning who said the same things, reveals a political agenda, it seems to me. Some because they are leftists, others because they are pacifists. Both of those groups are entitled to those persuasions. However, if that is the case, then they should have been saying "war is wrong" or "we don't like the Bush policies" instead of engaging in personal attacks.