Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

"Bush lied about WMD!!"

Old 11-19-05, 03:26 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
"Bush lied about WMD!!"

Does anybody have any actual, concrete proof. Any sort of a link would be greatly appreciated.
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 03:37 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,147
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
Does anybody have any actual, concrete proof.
No. But it must be true because that's what the media tells me. Even though there has been commission after commission studying this very question and they've all come out with the same result that no lying or distorting was done - it doesn't matter. The news keeps asking the question and those don't like him just go ahead and assume it's true.

Last edited by General Zod; 11-19-05 at 03:40 PM.
General Zod is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 04:20 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Bush said that we needed to invade Iraq because of the threat of WMD's. He said that there was good proof of that there were stockpiles of WMD's.

Where are the WMD's? There are none. I never believed there was (feel free to do a search on the poll I posted back then). Why? Because, no one EVER presented any such evidence. The UN inspections teams declared that none were found by them. Colin Powell went on TV and showed satellite photos of warehouses and said "Look! Incontrovertible proof of WMD's!" Apparently, that was enough proof.

The POINT is, it doesn't matter whether he lied or not. Because either Bush...
A) lied and the public was foolish enough to believe him and just can't bring themselves to admit it now
or
B) he's just incredibly reckless and the public are composed of people who can't be bothered to question decisions that have dire potential consequences.

So take your pick. If you don't think he lied, it just means he's an idiot. Personally, I don't think it's mutually exclusive. You put someone as apathetic as Bush into a position of power and you end up getting someone who makes foolish decisions. It's really as simple as that.

Last edited by hahn; 11-19-05 at 04:35 PM.
hahn is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 04:22 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by General Zod
No. But it must be true because that's what the media tells me. Even though there has been commission after commission studying this very question and they've all come out with the same result that no lying or distorting was done - it doesn't matter. The news keeps asking the question and those don't like him just go ahead and assume it's true.
The news media declared that he lied? Really? Link? (Edit: what darkessenz said...)

I guess you're suggesting you're more truthful than the media. Hmm...

Last edited by hahn; 11-19-05 at 04:26 PM.
hahn is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 04:40 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I reiterate what I've said a hundred times on this forum. I believe that the Bush administration felt that Iraq was in possession of WMDs and felt that Iraq was a threat to the Persian Gulf region - a vital national interest of the United States. Obviously the evidence, after the fact, has shown that not be be true.

Intelligence is not perfect. Simply look back and see how U. S. intelligence (principally the CIA) grossly overestimated the power of the Soviet economy and the Soviet military.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 04:54 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 9,446
Originally Posted by classicman2
Intelligence is not perfect. Simply look back and see how U. S. intelligence (principally the CIA) grossly overestimated the power of the Soviet economy and the Soviet military.
I agree with this statement. Historically, we have always overestimated our enemies (which is a GOOD THING, better than underestimating them), however, this sometimes causes our information to be incorrect.

I think the key thing to remember is the difference between Bush lying and Bush being misinformed and passing that information along. It seems from what I've seen/read/etc that Bush's administration, as well as the Senate were under the impression there WERE WMDs in Iraq. And given the way Saddam had been playing the run around game with the weapon inspectors, I think that compounded it. If you don't have anything to hide...

So, I don't think Bush lied, but the information provided to him, and which he based his opinion on, was probably incorrect.
lordwow is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 05:01 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney, Vice President
8/26/2002
Speech to VFW National Convention


"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush, President
9/12/2002
Speech to UN General Assembly
Numanoid is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 05:03 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
“...It [Iraq] is seeking nuclear weapons. [...]

The [Iraqi] regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. [...]

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons...."

“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."


George W. Bush, President
10/7/2002
Remarks by the President on Iraq (Cincinnati)
Numanoid is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 05:04 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
"The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."

Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
12/5/2002
Response to Question From Press



"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
1/9/2003
White House Press Briefing
Numanoid is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 05:05 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Numanoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Down in 'The Park'
Posts: 27,882
I could go on.

These things really aren't very hard to find.
Numanoid is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 05:07 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
From where do you believe the basis for those statements came? Obviously they came from intelligence sources; and, not just U. S. intelligence sources.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 05:17 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

But to use the term LIE, honestly. "He lied to everyone!" "He massaged the intelligence to get what he wanted!!"

Is it just me, or has the left become disconnected from reality? Yeah, the man lied, he wants to destroy everything.....
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 06:28 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,955
Have you read about the Dick Clarke incident?

I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer.
But of course some people just say Clarke was lying and dismiss it as a disgruntled employee statement.
DVD Polizei is online now  
Old 11-19-05, 06:39 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,527
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

But to use the term LIE, honestly. "He lied to everyone!" "He massaged the intelligence to get what he wanted!!"

Is it just me, or has the left become disconnected from reality? Yeah, the man lied, he wants to destroy everything.....
If he lied, it doesn't mean he wants "to destroy everything". Why do you conservative always like to use nonsequiturs to make your point?

Disconnected from what reality? It's very simple. He made NUMEROUS claims that he knew that it was a "fact" that there were WMD's being churned out in Iraq. Bottomline: he was wrong, and many on the left were correct to begin with (and yet, somehow we're the ones disconnected from reality ). There are only two conclusions that can be made from this. Either he lied, or he was stupid enough to not question what would happen if the information were wrong. Let's not forget one thing: he already decided on going to war BEFORE the alleged intelligence reports came in. Intelligence was under pressure by the administration to come up with proof.

"We want to invade Iraq. Find us proof that they have WMD's. NOW."...

..."Here's a few things that MIGHT suggest the possibility of WMD's."
"Good enough! Let's go declare war!"
hahn is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 07:00 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,487
Originally Posted by hahn
Either he lied, or he was stupid enough to not question what would happen if the information were wrong.

I call it willful blindness.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 07:11 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Let's pretend that you're the president. Your intelligence folks (and other intelligence sources) tell you that Iraq is developing WMDs - including a nuclear capability.

Since you're the president, you must be aware that that part of the world is a vital national interest of the United States. If Saddam has WMDs, I think a president can rationally conclude that he has intentions (designs) in the area. In other words - he poses a threat to his neighbors.

What do you do?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 07:14 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,679
Originally Posted by Red Dog
I call it willful blindness.
Like a used car salesman telling his customers that the car is in perfect working condition. Because his mechanics told him so.
Ranger is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 07:14 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
New question: WHY did he lie? What was the motivation for lying?

please do not mention oil.....
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030919.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/saudigas.asp

Last edited by MartinBlank; 11-19-05 at 07:22 PM.
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 07:22 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
New question: WHY did he lie? What was the motivation for lying?
Of course the anti-war folks (and the anti-Bush folks) will argue that his motivation was to assure our involvement in Iraq - in other words - justification for our invasion.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 07:53 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
I don't think Bush lied about WMD--I think he really believed they were there--but I do think he deliberately misled the American public. I think he tried to imply that Iraq was a unique threat that had moved to the top of the list of countries most dangerous to the US, which I don't think Bush ever really believed. As far as ties with terrorists, fomenting Islamic fundamentalism and WMDs, you can at least put Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan on that list as serious threats to the US. I think Bush and his crew looked at the Middle East, and said, in essence:

"Islamic radicals from the Middle East pose the greatest threat to the US down the road. OK, we've tried everything else in this region--we've supported democracies, we've supported military strongmen, we've supported strict Muslim kingdoms, we've tried breaking off all ties with some (Iran), we've tried brokering countless peace deals, we've given them billions of American dollars in aid---and none of it has worked. What we haven't tried yet is using military force to create a democratic, prosperous, populous, pro-Western arab Muslim country. What country do we have the most excuses to invade, and the one where we would have a good chance of success? Iraq."

That's my take on what the war is really about. I think it's very logical, and it could be a huge success. But, it's a huge gamble, it's morally questionable, and it creates a dangerous precedent.
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 08:06 PM
  #21  
Mod Emeritus
 
Gallant Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,325
The biggest problem I see with the war is that the administration way over-estimated the ease at which we'd be able to create a stable Iraq. Right now it's a lot more chaotic then when we first entered. I think in order for a stable Iraq to emerge we'll have to have a strong presence 10-20 more years. I don't think the US public will go for that considering the high cost of money and the lives we seem to be losing on a daily basis.

Al Queda always has had its strongest base points in Afghanstan and Pakistan. We should have concentrated on those areas instead of moving into this other hot spot.
Gallant Pig is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 10:39 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,694
bush and company might have fucked up, but I don't think they purposely lied about wmd
mikehunt is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 11:08 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Originally Posted by Gallant Pig
The biggest problem I see with the war is that the administration way over-estimated the ease at which we'd be able to create a stable Iraq. Right now it's a lot more chaotic then when we first entered. I think in order for a stable Iraq to emerge we'll have to have a strong presence 10-20 more years.
How long do you consider is a fair amount of time to create a "structured" nation?
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 11:15 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth ....
Posts: 4,658
George W. Bush didn't mislead this country ... rather, it was the DemocRATs who misfollowed as did the American people.

Give me a break. GWB is the leader and President of the United States. He should take personal responsibility for the successes and FAILURES of this detour into Iraq.

Do I think he lied about WMDs? I think he was given cherry-picked information. I think he would have invaded irregardless of the WMD information. Paul Wolfowitz already said that the WMDs charge was something that they could use to sell the war to the American people.
Regardless, everything I've read indicated that GWB was itching to remove Saddam and finish the job that "daddy didn't." History will judge GWB and his presidency on his decision to go to war with Iraq and the subsequent occupation. I am not a historian so I already think he is a disaster of a President.
chowderhead is offline  
Old 11-19-05, 11:29 PM
  #25  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
The Russians, Italians, British, French, and US all came up with the same conclusion on Iraq's WMD programs and Bush is a liar.
Myster X is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.