The allegation that Bush lied about WMDs in order to create a pretext for war in Iraq originated in the fever swamps of the radical left, but (like the absurd allegations of two stolen presidential elections) has gradually over time become accepted as fact among an embarassingly large portion of mainstream liberals. The invaluable Power Line blog links Daffyd ab Hugh‘s analysis of the mainstream media’s distortions with a compilation of a portion of the evidence of the existence of Iraqi WMDS.
Unlike my liberal friends, I’ve read a couple of recently published memoirs of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the accounts of US soldiers and marines make it very clear that many of the Iraqi soldiers they encountered unquestionably believed in the existence, and probable imminent use, of Iraqi WMDs, and were quite terrified of the possibility of finding themselves within the impact zones of WMDs targeted at Coalition forces.
Mark Zanger
Being one of those alligators in the fevered swamps of the left, I’ll bite: which part of “Bush lied about WMDs to get us into Iraq” did my fellow reptiles invent? Did he not lie because there *were* WMDs (weirdly timed to vanish at the arrival of US troops)? Did he not lie because others lied to him and he repeated the best intelligence he had (which I have no great problem with personally)? Did he lie but not to get us into Iraq? (Maybe there was some other motive?) Or maybe it wasn’t Bush that lied about WMDs to get us into Iraq because someone else is impersonating the elected president? (So it was Jones telling those inexactitudes.)
Which part did we make up? The non-WMDs, the lying, the motive, or the alleged liar?
Administrator
1) WMDs were not the solitary raison d’etre of the war.
2) As the linked story shows, some WMDs and evidence were found.
3) There is considerable probablity that WMDs and WMD material, inventoried by UN inspectors and now missing, were evacuated.
4) George W. Bush did not lie, but Joe Wilson certainly did.
Please Leave a Comment!