Did Bush lie about Iraqi weapons labs ?

  1. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did Bush lie about "Iraqi weapons labs"?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4903592.stm

    The White House claims that Bush was speaking to the concensus of the intelligence reports to date. This particular report was only submitted two days before Bush made these statements, and it usually takes more than two days to review the reports. Okay, fair enough, then my question is this: If Bush didn't have the interim report from the group assigned to look for WMDs, on what intelligence were his statements based? Why did he announce that we had found weapons when the investigation obviously wasn't complete and the report still due? Did the investigators change their minds? Was there ever a conclusion that we had found WMDs? What justifies the degree of certainty shown by Bush? I would like to see the intelligence that justifies his statements.

    Edit: I had posted the wrong excerpt.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is more information.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1836079
     
  4. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It seems that the team was sent on the 27th to see if the trailers were in fact mobile biological labs, and then returned an answer that that these clearly are not weapons labs [called them sand toilets], two days later - the 29th. Two days after that Bush made the public statements. And here is the kicker: Four months later, Chenney again made the same claim on Meet The Press.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  5. edward

    edward 1,005
    Gold Member

    If Bush did not know that what he was saying was false, he should have. The trailers turned out to be used in the manufacture of hydrogen. Perhaps Bush thought hydrogen was a biological weapon.:rolleyes:

    Here are several links with a video from CNN in the first one.
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120015

    And this from the second:

    http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?id=6468
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  6. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here we go:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

    In fact it is worth reading the entire transcript. How many false claims do you count?
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  7. edward

    edward 1,005
    Gold Member

    Gawd, I lost count on the false claims. Rummy, Rice and Wolfowitz all had their own variations of the same false information.

    The American people to a great extent are not reacting to recent revelations of deception. It is almost as if they are suffering from false information fatigue.

    When Bush finally admitted this week that he was the one who declassified the yellow cake information in Niger, there was only a small story on page two of my local paper. And to think that during the Clinton scandal a BJ made the front pages for nearly two months, it is puzzling?
     
  8. BobG

    BobG 2,359
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Looking at the time line of events, you would expect at least three preliminary reports: someone reported they had discovered the trailers, officials in Washington decided these could be the WMD they were looking for and sent someone out to do a detailed inspection, and the inspectors prepared a preliminary report about what they found.

    You have three preliminary reports documenting each step in the process. Bush could have provided the most current status based on progress to date, or he could decide to use whichever report he found most reliable, or he could pick whichever report supported his personal opinion.

    Bush decided a preliminary report prepared thousands of miles away by officials who never saw the trailers first hand was more reliable than a preliminary report prepared by officials who had inspected the trailers first hand. How could anyone see that as an illogical decison. :rolleyes:

    Depending on your opinion of Bush, the incident is yet another confirmation that Bush is being let down by an incompetent intel system, or yet another confirmation that Bush is honest and tries hard, but is incompetent, or yet another confirmation that Bush has intentionally misled the nation every step of the way when it comes to Iraq.

    Whichever option you pick is bad news.
     
  9. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, since Bush had 'planned' to invade Iraq prior to becoming president - it would appear he was looking for any justification to support his goal.

    Bush seems quite comfortable fabricating evidence, or at least misrepresenting evidence. But then - where was the congressional oversight?
     
  10. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    BobG, how would you explain Chenney's comments?
     
  11. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hopefully the congressional protection racket will be blown apart this Nov. When you see Newt standing next to Hillary [in the news the other day], you know the Republicans are in biiiiiiiiiiig trouble.
     
  12. SOS2008

    SOS2008 1,553
    Gold Member

    After reading through this thread, I stand by my initial reaction to the title, which was: When has Bush told the truth?
     
  13. BobG

    BobG 2,359
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I like Keith Olberman's question on Countdown last night: If you had a group locked inside a building that had never been outside that insisted the Sun rose in the West and an opposing group that claimed it had been outside and that they personally saw the Sun rise in the East, which group would you believe?

    Bush/Cheney aren't caged in by 'in-the-box thinking', such as listening to folks overly committed to reality. Bush and Cheney make their own reality.
     
  14. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc . . . .

    Actually, this is about the Ford Administration, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others played prominent roles, including Team B in the Pentagon. And what is Team B, who are they, what did they do, and where are they today?

    '31 Days': Between Two Presidencies by Barry Werth
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5339588

     
  15. BobG

    BobG 2,359
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The book apparently isn't very kind to Cheney and Rumsfeld (New York Observer review).

    Articles on Team B are interesting, but a little tough to judge their credibility.

    Team B articles:
    http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=140711
    http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=apr93cahn
    http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402teamb.php
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/26/MNG62FDUGL1.DTL
     
  16. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    The interview o Werth is interesting.

    Basically Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were upset by the perceived weakness of the presidential office and of the US in world affairs. They believed that the US need to increase its strength and flex it's muscle in the world - which is basically what every imperial power has done throughout history. They also needed a strong president - a unitary executive - and a compliant congress.

    Team B apparently 'hyped' the threat of USSR, and after the dissolution of USSR, Team B's assessments were shown to be largely untrue. It appears that the same people were involved in 'hyping' the threat of Iraq and WMD. :rolleyes:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?