WMDs and Bush - Lie or mistake?

Did the Bush administration lie about WMDs in Iraq or was the intelligence that they relied on faulty?

[bobman0330]

I have a question re: this poll for the people who voted for "lied." Is it your opinion that Bush/Cheney/Karl Rove/whoever failed to consider that their lie would become public after the invasion? Or do you think they just didn't care?

2nd question for those that voted for Lied:

What's your reason for believing that they lied?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I voted mistake because Clinton has repeatedly said that on the day he left office, he was 100% certain that Iraq had WMDs. Add to that the fact that in the mid-90's, "Sixty Minutes" aired footage of the aftermath of an Iraqi nerve gas attack on Kurdish villages, it's pretty clear that Iraq *had* WMD.

Now whether GWB had knowledge that Saddam had already gotten all the weapons out by '03 is open to debate, but one could hardly have trusted any of the Iraqi claims based upon the way they screwed around with the UN inspectors. If you're clean, why act like you're trying to hide something?

The UN dropped the ball on Iraq, allowing itself to be manipulated and stalled by Saddam.

IMO, our invasion of Iraq was a day late and a dollar short.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted mistake because Clinton has repeatedly said that on the day he left office, he was 100% certain that Iraq had WMDs. Add to that the fact that in the mid-90's, "Sixty Minutes" aired footage of the aftermath of an Iraqi nerve gas attack on Kurdish villages, it's pretty clear that Iraq *had* WMD.

[/ QUOTE ]Having remnants of old WMD (which we likely helped them get back in the day) is different than what the Bush Administration claimed. They claimed there were active programs- and also claimed that the evidence was overwhelming- something which people in the top of the WMD intelligence field strongly disagreed with. Claiming that the case was a "slam-dunk" was a lie.

A review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq

[hurlyburly]

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.

[vulturesrow]

If anyone bothered to read the final report of the inspectors (which is it clear to me that most didnt) they would see that Saddam wanted us to believe he still had WMD and that he was maintaining the infrastructure necessary to ramp up production quickly once the sanctions were dropped. Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's useless to argue. There's no way of knowing for certain if those programs were active in the year leading up to the invasion or not. The Iraqi's acted like they were hiding something from the UN. There's a whole gray area out there. Was Saddam actively helping al-Qaeda plan 9/11? No. He had no use for Wahhabism. Would he look the other way and let people bent on attacking the US operate without interference? Of course, as long as they didn't foment unrest in Iraq.

[theweatherman]

haha, people really think we had faulty intelligence?!?!?!

Are you retarded? Seriously America knows exactly whats going on all over the world all the time, the only way we would be tricked is by some highly funded, high tech operation. There is no way we could not see every square inch of iraq before we invaded.

[ 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.