WMDs and Bush - Lie or mistake?

I think they were fairly certain he had at least some kind of chemical weapons. The nuclear and biological stuff, I think they lied, or at least they intentionally deceived themselves and believed some very flimsy evidence.

There's no reason to blame this on the CIA or other intelligence-gathering agencies. In the buildup to the war, the White House was pressuring and attacking the CIA because the CIA wasn't gung-ho enough. Remember they set up their own intelligence office in Defense to "stovepipe" whatever evidence they could find that supported going to war?

No, the Bushies had determined that they were going to invade Iraq, and they used whatever evidence they could find, manipulate, or create to justify their decision.

[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I voted for lie. Do I know it was a lie? No. But I find it most probable.

I think what is important to consider when judging this is how the game of high-level politics plays out in 2 phases:

Decision making:
An informal network gather information and combined with their personal beliefs (this matters most) they make a decision on which action they want to take (in this case attack Iraq).

Defending their decision:
In defending their decision, their original reasons and information is mostly considered irrelevant. What is important in this phase is to "sell" the decision to the population, poweful domestic political allies and potentially foreign nations. The claims about WMDs were made as a part of this phase, and since Bush really needed selling points both towards his own population and towards foreign countries, to believe that he would not manipulate the evidence is extremely naive (any president in any major country from any party would do that).

That being said, it is very possible that ex-Iraqis and others managed to manipulate the decision process, so it is possible that Bush made his decision on the wrong foundation, but when entering into the selling phase it must have become evident for him anyway that the evidence did not hold up (you could see this in the US' attempt to avoid real discussion about the evidence and their eagerness to avoid further inspections).

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having remnants of old WMD (which we likely helped them get back in the day) is different than what the Bush Administration claimed.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm curious why you think it's relevant to reference that we once supported Hussein. Do you think that means we are hypocritical for fighting against him now? Does supporting one group forever hamper us from being against them?

Clearly, when we supported Hussein, it was because we felt like Iran was the larger threat. Not that much different from how we were allies with Stalin in order to fight the larger threat of Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't reference our support of Hussein. I referenced how WMD likely originally got into Iraq: with U.S. dollars.

I mention it because many [censored] morons like those on talk radio say "Of course Iraq had WMD. He used them on the Kurds. Liberals are [censored] stupid." They purposely mischaracterize the arguments of the anti-war crowd into something not at all like what it is. You can see even people on these boards like El Barto mocking liberals for not thinking Iraq ever had WMD.

The fact that after 4 years of debate a large portion of America still has not the slightest clue what another larger portion of America is saying is just astounding- and depressing.

Maybe I'm missing something, but please explain to me how it is relevant that WMDs got into Iraq through U.S. dollars?

[lehighguy]

Is neglectful/avoidable mistake an option.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm missing something, but please explain to me how it is relevant that WMDs got into Iraq through U.S. dollars?

[/ QUOTE ]It negates the argument that past existence and use of WMD were a valid excuse for pre-emptive invasion.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[ QUOTE ]
I voted lie based on hearing Colin Powell's presentation of the evidence. I can't remember all the details, but I heard it on NPR. I really respect him. I could tell his heart wasn't in it when he presented the evidence, and wasn't comfortable selling the package.

I decided right then that if it wasn't good enough for him, it wasn't good enough. At that point everyone making the case for war started sounding like they were trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else.

Still, it's good that Saddam is gone, albeit 12 years past due.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting that you listened on radio and decided one way. I watched him make his presentation on TV and I decided the other.

Like a lot of ex-military, I don't like the idea of "gettin' it ooooooon." I watched Powell while he was CJCOS and developed a deep respect for him. He was given an assignment and he carried it out. That included listening to his advisors and trusting their judgement, then making the go/no-go decisions himself. He swore an oath, he meant it and he did his duty.

Because I respected and trusted the man, I believed the stories that he argued, early on, against invading Iraq. I know he saw the potential problems and the ramifications of making the first strike. I have no doubt he made his feelings known to GWB.

Then, the "intel" was presented to Powell. He's not stupid. He has sources/means to verify. He used them. My experience with intel, human and electronic, has been that it's not always conclusive. Interpretations are made. Disagreements abound. Consensus is frequently marginal.

Powell was, IMO, convinced the intel was correct. I didn't see any hesitation or attempts to deceive. I believed he believed what he was saying. And now we are where we are.

[vulturesrow]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
My experience with intel, human and electronic, has been that it's not always conclusive. Interpretations are made. Disagreements abound. Consensus is frequently marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish more people understood this.