The argument that President Bush “lied” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction keeps getting bandied about by the fringe (and not-so-fringe) left, despite the fact that multiple investigations and basic common sense make it clearly unsupportable. However, as Power Line finds, former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told the CIA that Saddam did have WMDs:
On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as “500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents” and had “renewed” production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had “poison gas” left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.
It could be that Sabri was right – he did also say that Iraq had neither an active nuclear nor an active biological weapons program. He did say that Iraq was planning to use civilian insecticides to create nerve agents – and indeed in 2003, US forces found what they believed to be chemical weapons, but turned out to be insecticide. The Iraqis were working on chemical weapons preparations that were based on the same organophosphide synthesis as insecticides. None of these connections are conclusive, but they do support the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam Hussein had every intention of using dual-use technologies to reinstate his chemical warfare production capabilities once sanctions ended.
What this unquestionably shows is that the “Bush Lied!” argument doesn’t hold much water. The argument that the CIA should have ignored the word of one of Saddam’s own inner circle doesn’t seem to be a very logical one. Sabri believed that Saddam had at least chemical weapons, and it was reasonable to believe Saddam could have had more.
Of course, Sabri’s remarkable cooperation also lead to yet another CIA screw-up:
But, intelligence sources say, the CIA relationship with Sabri ended when the CIA, hoping for a public relations coup, pressured him to defect to the U.S. The U.S. hoped Sabri would leave Iraq and publicly renounce Saddam. He repeatedly refused, sources say, and contact was broken off.
Losing Sabri was a major mistake on part of the CIA, especially given how few sources we had in Saddam’s inner circle. Hopefully Porter Goss’ recent shakeups will help to prevent another debacle like that from happening again.
Basic common sense makes it clearly unsupportable? You back this up with “It could be that Sabri was right”? You clearly have some twisted form of Stockholm Syndrome, sir. You know this Administration lies to you and me on a daily basis. I think you might be trying to convince yourself othrwise, but you know better. Seek help. I wish you luck on your quest to return to sanity. Godspeed, Sir.
Yes.
Let’s pretend for one moment that Bush really did “lie” about WMDs in Iraq. First of all, that would mean that he would have had to know there were no such weapons in Iraq. Second, the argument assumes that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, still justified the war on that basis, did so with obviously nefarious intent, but decided to get caught with his pants down when none were found. If he’s that evil, exactly why wouldn’t he just have planted some for the cameras to find?
The “Bush lied” argument is, quite frankly, a crock of shit. Every intelligence agency in the world believed the same. Hell, there were people in Saddam’s inner circle such as Mr. Sabri who thought the same. The argument that Bush had God-like ability to see through space and time, knew Iraq didn’t have WMDs, but decided to base his entire case for war on them anyway is the insane argument.
I said the Administration lied. I think Bush is lied to more than he lies to us. I’m from Houston and I’ve seen these people pull the same silly bullshit countless times. Except now it is not silly, It’s murderous. These people think the ends justify the means. To hell the consequences. Wake up. Take you’re party back from the nutjobs.
P.S. I dare you to ask me “What silly bullshit”?
“Bush Lied”, “Clinton lied”, “He lied”, etc. all imply that the individual being “named” clearly knew that what they were telling was patently false.
Did we have the best intelligence possible? Maybe, but then there is always room for improvement. But I agree with Jay that it would make no sense to say “What the heck!? Iraq’s not a threat but let’s go whack ’em anyway!”
I personally am tired, though, the whining, pissing, bitching, and moaning about Bush lying and we shouldn’t be in Iraq that is spread around like so much fertilizer. The one hitch with all of the whiners is that they have no plan for fixing what is broken (what they say is broken) or at least they don’t share that plan with the rest of us. And simply “pulling out” of some place isn’t a plan.
““Bush Liedâ€, “Clinton liedâ€, “He liedâ€, etc. all imply that the individual being “named†clearly knew that what they were telling was patently false.”
No, it doesn’t. If you claim as certain truth something you know that you’re anything but certain about, that’s a lie, too.
Bush made specific claims, and expressed certainty, when he knew that there was absolutely no certainty about those claims, and considerable disconfirming evidence against them. That’s as much lying as saying something you know is false. To principled people, at least.
Erica:
I suppose you believe Hitler lives don’t you. I mean according to your principled view since there is no evidence is there?
I suppose you believe Hitler lives don’t you. I mean according to your principled view since there is no evidence is there?
You mean besides his dead body, exhumed by the Allied forces in 1945?