Did Bush Lie?

Among today's political discussion in both mass media and personal discussion, it has become a "fact" that president Bush lied about WMD and our rational for going to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Let us begin by analyzing the definition of "to lie;" according to Dictionary.com to lie is "To present false information with the intention of deceiving." Now this means that President Bush must have known that no WMDs would be found in Iraq and that his statements were untruthful. To say that Bush lied is simply incorrect, he used the same intelligence as the rest of the world, especially Russia among the anti war nations, to conclude that Iraq possessed and/or were in the process of creating WMDs.

The American intelligence that Bush used, agreed with British intelligence (FactCheck.org). A special panel also affirmed this British intelligence after 6 months of investigating, to the British Parliament (FactCheck.org). The panel told the Parliament that in 2002 Saddam Hussein had been attempting to obtain uranium (FactCheck.org). In fact the special panels report, called the "Butler Report," says "t is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," and "By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded," ("Butler Report"). This panel's 6-month investigation is clearly more credible than what the average citizen believes based of personal interpretations and inferences. Also previous American and British intelligence stated that Saddam possessed WMDs. On December 16 1998 President Clinton said, ""Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," (Conservativetruth.org). Did Clinton lie as well? Or did two Presidents of opposing political beliefs act upon the same basic American intelligence within only a few years? Clearly, intelligence from two nations and from two presidencies stated that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, and that President Bush did not lie.

Secondly, we must analyze this "Bush lied" idea in terms of pure politics. President Bush made many such comments approaching the election of his second term and according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist, on his personal blog, he cited one of his published comments and wrote "they [democrats] are quick to attribute Bush's actions to Rovian political calculations, but when it comes to Iraq, they pretend that the president has no interest in winning elections..." These comments were mad on a world stage, and would this man, supposedly overly driven by greed for re-election, make statements that he knew would be shown as false, and quickly, in an election year? To say that he would is simple illogical, or one must completely rescind their idea that Bush was driven to be re-elected. Also, on another side of the political side, Bush could have avoided a large amount of criticism and made his statements "true" (Blogcritics.org). The US military posses large quantities of mustard gas and posses other chemical weapons. The military could have used a small elite force to plant some weapons in Iraq and tip-off the Department of Defense, and suddenly Bush would have told the truth and one of the central bases of the war in Iraq would have been legitimized. Bush would have avoided his main cause of political fallout and troubles.

Finally, WMDs were found in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein had used them before. On May 17, 2005 both Fox News and CNN ran stories about chemical weapons caches found in Iraq (www.bizzyblog.com). The conservative Fox News' story discussed the discovery of sarin gas, and the liberal CNN's story was about a cache of mustard gas found in Iraq (www.bizzyblog.com). According to the website for the US Embassy in Dhaka (www.usembassy-dhaka.org) "Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility." Also, according to a Washington Post article from August 14, 2005 "U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians" and "suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003" (WahingtonPost.com). This clearly shows that WMDs, and new ones were found in Iraq. And finally, Saddam Hussein showed the world that he was willing to use chemical weapons "Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack." (www.phrusa.org). And "These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," (www.phrusa.org). Clearly, according to this multitude of sources, Bush not only did not lie, but also spoke truthfully.

After analyzing these three issues, to harbor any beliefs that President Bush lied is simple uninformed. This also forces us to consider why people are consistently harping about why Bush is a bad president because he lied rather than discussing ideas to improve the situation in Iraq, and stabilize the nation, and remove our troops from the line of fire.

Simply, Bush did not lie.

TBlumer, "The "No WMD" Lie." Bizzy Blog. 07 May 2006. 30 May 2006 http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=760>

Knickmeyer, Ellen. "Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered." Washington Post. 14 August 2005. Washington Post. 30 May 2006 .

"Press Release." US Embassy Dhaka. 08 July 2004. US Embassy Dhaka. 30 May 2006 .

Barret, Tom. "Bush Didn't Lie About Weapons of Mass Desctrion - Pat II." Conservative Truth. 31 May 2004. Conservative Truth. 30 May 2006 .

"Bush's "16 Words" and Iraq & Uranium." Fact Check. 23 August 2004. Fact Check. 30 May 2006 .

Klein, Phillip. "Why Bush Didn't Lie." Klein's Quips. 05 December 2005. Atalnta Journal-Constiturion. 30 May 2006< http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html>.

RJ, Eliott. "Destroying the "BUSH LIED!" Lie." Blog Critics. 01 August 2004. Blog Critics. 30 May 2006 .

"Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds." Physicians for Human Rights. 26 April 1993. Physicians for Human Rights. 30 May 2006 .