1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie about WMDs

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by SixofNine, May 26, 2015.

  1. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    In fact, it seems like he was pretty cautious about any WMD claims.

    Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    As was noted in a thread back in 2003, either he lied or was badly mistaken. If he was as skeptical as Woodward says then he oversold that point to the people to get them behind him. So in a president I expect solid truth, not a possibility because it plays better in Peoria. We killed people, we lost people. We deserved to know the real reasons, not those reasons that got good scores in polls.
    ethics likes this.
  3. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I don't think with the information at hand he was badly mistaken OR lied. They've found WMD's anyway, they just didn't think it necessary to raise the entire debate again.
  4. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    A Google search on Colin Powell and UN will reveal many reports that the facts reported by Powell to the UN were at least partly manufactured and that Powell himself suspected so.

    Many sources have emphasized that Cheney's desire for proof caused our intelligent services to take facts and color them to suit what the administration wanted.

    Further reading of the articles mention in paragraph 1 above state that no WMD were found. There are mentions of a particular source that admittedly lied so that we would cause a regime change in Iraq.

    So you can come to almost any conclusion you want to match any truth you want. But my initial stand in 2003 remains. You do not enter into war without sure knowledge backing your decision. And the leader of a democracy should be honest with the people who are about to sacrifice lives and fortune to fight a war.
  5. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    550 metric tons of yellowcake, 4990 chemical weapons don't qualify as WMD's then, I guess.

    Uranium shipped to Montreal from Iraq in top secret mission - World - CBC News
    Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

    When you have a despot freezing out your inspections and not complying with ceasefire agreements, you are never going to have sure knowledge on anything. Come on Shiny, you're a military guy, you know intelligence is never 100%. But this time they actually didn't lie, and it wasn't a mistake. It just wasn't as in-your-face as people thought it would be.
  6. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative


    I'm surprised. You should know about Boyd and the OODA loop. You will never be 100% sure, and while you're trying to "make sure," at least some of the data will become"aged" and therefore incorrect data.

    The "if you knew what you know now back then, would you have invaded Iraq?" bullshit that the Republican presidential candidates are being asked (notice how Hillery, who voted for attacking Iraq, hasn't been asked this question) goes way beyond the "loaded question" category.

    W made the decision based upon the information he was presented at that time. If, for whatever reason, the information was later discovered to be incorrect, the fault and blame lies with the gatherers, interpreters and presenters of the data, not the man who made the decision. W is responsible, however he is not to blame. There is a difference.

    The best leaders make decisions and live with the consequences. A leader can be wrong, however he must never be indecisive. The quickest and most through way to get men killed in battle is to be indecisive. Hesitation can be just as deadly as a bullet. Usually, any action, even the wrong action, will get less men killed than being indecisive.

Share This Page