It is now sadly commonplace to hear a once-rational Democrat either overtly or tacitly declare that Bush lied about WMDs in order to go to war.
These people will ignore similar claims made by the Clinton administration. They will ignore numerous other countries (including some who opposed the Iraq war) who had intel that led them to the same conclusions. They will ignore Saddam's past usage of such weapons. They will ignore just about anything that doesn't fit their warped world view.
But try to ignore this:
Let's pretend I'm a delusional Bush-hater. I believe our unspeakably evil President completely fabricated evidence of Iraqi WMDs in order to invade for oil, electoral advantage, and American Empire. I believe he is surrounded by men (and women) who would gladly lie, deceive, and commit both federal crimes, and crimes against humanity, in order to please their boss.
So. Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. He also knew that this was a major basis for the war. He therefore knew that, when no WMDs were found, there would be a lot of questions asked. (And he would therefore take a massive political hit.)
So, my question is: Why the hell didn't Evil Bush just plant some mustard gas or VX or Anthrax or something in Iraq? How difficult could this possibly be? Put it in a sealed drum, place Arabic writing all over it, and bury it somewhere in the desert wasteland. Have some toady give an "anonymous tip" to the DoD, they find it and dig it up, and Bush is proven correct, and his detractors look like the assholes they are.
If he's so monstrous to go to war based on lies, why not one more little fib? Why hasn't he planted sarin or ricin in Iraq?
Answer me that, shrill lunatic Left.
Article comments
1 - Marc
Hey look I'am the only one here. Wonder why that is?
Here lefty... come out and explain.
Chirp.....Idiots.
2 - RJ
Well, to be fair, this post is quite recent. I'm sure the loony Left will come up with some bizarre explanation for all this. Just you wait... ;)
3 - Evilwhiteguy
Frankly, I'm surprised the accusation of planting WMD's hasn't been advanced for the stuff we've already found.
Kind of like the accusations of "you had him all this time and waited for an opportuned time to come forward with it" that's going to be tossed around if we happen to nab OBL some time before the election.
4 - Evilwhiteguy
Oops, I made a typo. I'm expecting to hear from Stately Wayne Manor any moment now...
5 - RJ
Heh.
I doubt he'd touch this subject with a ten foot pole...
6 - Michael Croft
OK, I'll bite, but since I'm not arguing for the strawman you're presenting, it probably won't satisfy you. I wish people wouldn't say BUSH LIED, too. I wish they would say he's an irresponsible gambler who doesn't realize when he doesn't hold a winning hand and ends up believing his own bluffs. It would be pathetic if he wasn't gambing with people's lives.
What I believe that Bush implied that wasn't true was that there was no reason to doubt the administration's claims about WMD. Sure, it's possible to blame CIA failures or Italian Intelligence sources or even the delusions that Saddam himself may have entertained about his WMDs. However, the administration should have known that there was doubt. They didn't, in part because the VP set up an organization to funnel reports and data around the normal checks and balances of the intelligence community. They listened to their own echo-chamber and decided that it was probably true. Then they presented it as if it were absolutely true and that's a problem.
Bush's failing in this matter is not that he is a liar. All politicians spin things, present the strongest case they have, call it what you will. It's lying when the other side does it. Bush has a much more serious problem which is that he's a bad gambler. He took the risk that he'd either find what they thought was there or it would all pass if they didn't.
Frankly, if they'd had any idea how pitiful their post-war planning was, they might have been more skeptical of their pre-war documentation of the Casus Belli. I don't think there's any real evidence that they were looking for data in order to formulate a policy, but rather they were looking for data to fit a policy they wanted. That's a bad way to make policy or post-war plans.
If he'd won quickly and gotten out and Iraq had paid for the reconstruction, then he wouldn't have been questioned, except from the fringe. But he's still there and all he's got is 'stay the course, Trust me.' The problem (and what the 'Bush Lied!' folks are trying to get across, I think) is that we trusted him when he called 'wolf!' the last time (times, really).
I don't think Bush lied. I think there are a number of explanations, most involving sincere faith on Bush's part that he was doing the right thing and that he'd be vindicated by the evidence afterwards. I think that's a damning enough claim right there.
And to my friends on the left, I ask you to please remember that if Bush were bright enough to concoct a scheme to lie about this, he'd be brighter than we all say he is and certainly brighter than he's given anyone reason to think that he'll ever be.
7 - RJ
Clinton endorsed regime change in Iraq, back in 1998. It was official US policy when Bush came into office. Bush actually followed through. And many other countries supported both the invasion and occupation, as well as the reasons for doing so.
Since you are apparently not one of the crazies who claimed "BUSH LIED" I cannot defeat you on that point.
But Bush actually had the courage to implement official US policy, whereas Clinton didn't.
The liberation was magnificient. The occupation, less so.
John Kerry supposedly supports the occupation as well, though he insanely believes he'll actually get French and German support.
Bush didn't lie. He used empirical data to support his choice. Because of his choice, Saddam is now in a cell. His murderous sons are dead. Iraq now has a future.
Let me say this again, in case some pinkos missed it: Bush didn't lie.
Bush didn't lie.
Oh! And Bush didn't lie.
8 - Michael Croft
So, Bush didn't lie, you and I agree. And he acted on a US objective that Clinton wasn't willing to act to fulfill, also true.
The US also officially wants Castro out of Cuba. Do you think Bush isn't courageous enough to take on Cuba? or Iran or North Korea, or Myanmar? Is there some line of prudence or priorities or timing that may be involved? Perhaps Clinton felt the same way about Iraq, which it turned out wasn't really a threat to US interests after all.
Bush did not use empirical data to support his choice, Bush used American credibility to support his choice and lost it when the cards were put on the table and it turned out that he'd been listening only to what he wanted to hear.
So, as an experiment, what other explanation do you have for the Bush administration's rush to a war for which the empirical evidence was not strong enough to support the case? I'm not convinced that any of these explanations will win a single swing voter for Bush:
- Bush didn't lie, he was hoodwinked by a fast-talking Iranian intelligence agent into starting a war between Iran's two worst enemies.
- Bush didn't lie, he just selectively used the intelligence that he liked.
- Bush didn't lie, he just failed to oversee the intelligence community properly.
- Bush didn't lie, he questioned everything that he didn't want to hear and nothing that agreed with him.
- Bush didn't lie, he let the American people jump to conclusions, just like he did.
For what it's worth, I think the last one is most likely. I think there were those in the Bush administration who knew that he was presenting doubtful evidence, but they kept their mouths shut and kept their jobs. I'm sure I've missed some options, and I'm sure that my esteemed counterparts on the right can provide them.But really, where's the win in focusing on the case for war? You end up implying that your candidate is either stupid, dishonest, lazy, or incompetent. My side usually says A and B, but I think the truth is really C and D.
I don't want that in a president. I want a president who considers every bit of evidence that leans against the case for war and makes sure he's not just not lying, but actually telling the truth.
I think you guys need to do what you've done a bit of, which is focus on the outcome and hope that nothing else too bad happens in Iraq between now and November. The case for war isn't going to win any votes Bush doesn't already have. Pretty much what you've got to go on about why we went to war is 'the ends justify the means'. Good luck with that, but you'll excuse me if I don't hope the voters think that's a good enough reason to trust Bush/Cheney.
Cheney? Now, Cheney is dishonest. There's no way an honest person could have heard that there's no connection between Iraq and al-Queda as many times a Dick has heard that and still promote the claim. Maybe for his it's E, insanity, but for Dick, I'd really guess B, dishonest.
9 - Hal Pawluk
Your logic is non-existent.
What he did do (lie) is not erased by what he did not do (plant weapons).
Pfui.
10 - bhw
Bush didn't lie, he let the American people jump to conclusions, just like he did.
I think it's more like he led the American people in jumping to conclusions.