Much is being made of the whole idea that Bush "lied" about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability. It does seem as though Iraq’s WMDs are far more elusive than they were made to be. However, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. There is still a high probability that the weapons did exist and have not yet been found.
There are several major holes in the whole "Bush lied" theory. First, in order for Bush to lie, he would have had to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. There is no way that he could have known that. President Bush does not have godlike ability to see through space and time. Moreover, as talk radio and various pundits have pointed out, both the United Nations and the previous administration both believed that Saddam did indeed possess WMDs and took action on that assumption. If Bush lied, then so did they.
There’s also the issue of the burdens of office. It is not acceptable for the President to act on the assumption that no threat exists. That kind of thinking led to September 11. It is clear that the President had a reasonable basis to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Yes, some of the evidence was of dubious quality, but there’s no evidence to suggest that the President was aware of that fact. Based on the evidence at hand, the rational for action would have been perfectly valid.
Furthermore, WMDs were the primary rationale, but they were not the only rationale. Sgt. Stryker does a good job of outlining the Administration’s rhetoric on the issue. Iraq’s links to terrorism and their abuses of human rights were also issues requiring US action to solve. Both these justifications are supported by ample evidence from the terrorist training facility at Salmon Pak to the mass graves across Iraq.
The President deserves to be called to account for any mistakes made in intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. However, based on the intelligence he had on hand, his actions were still perfectly rational. Yes, some of the intelligence may have been wrong, but that does not mean that Bush intentionally misled the American people. It is clear that two out of the three reasons for this conflict have ample evidence behind them. It is also clear that the removal of Saddam Hussein has been a positive development for the people of Iraq and the region. The issue of WMDs is being used not in the public interest, but in the interest of the partisan few. The President would have been irresponsible not to act based on the intelligence he had, and there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that he deliberately misled the American people. He may have been wrong, but that doesn’t make him a liar.
Your defense of this administration’s sales pitch, and your own erroneous fear-mongering about WMD’s in Iraq, are deeply touching, but have a certain “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” nervousness to them common in people who have egg dripping from their face. It’s hard to say what the truth will bring to us when the smoke clears, and the GOP seems intent in making sure that truth never comes out.
Either way, the most laughable line in your desperate save-face post was how the “removal of Saddam Hussein has been a positive development for the people of Iraq”. Now if you could only convince them of that….at least when they’re not busy sending the occupying American forces to Allah.
Most of the Iraqis have welcomed the Americans. The ones who are fighting are primarily non-Iraqis from places like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Of course they’ll welcome us. While fully assisting said insurgents from Saudi Arabia and Iran in addition to plenty of thier own insurgents.
Oh yeah, on a related subject:
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html
Open mouth, insert foot eh Jay?
I’m taking that one with a grain of salt. I find it somewhat suspicious that the Iraqis would go to such lengths to decontaminate something only designed for a use as prosaic as producing hydrogen. (There’s also the possibility that it was designed to be used as a dual-use facility.)
We’ll see if the evidence pans out. It certainly seems to be what was described in Powell’s UN presentation, but there will need to be more analysis before anyone can prove a conclusion.