Bob Woodward [Washington Post]: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 5:51 AM GMT
    Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

    The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors, but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

    Though plenty of mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, Bush actually told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD," Woodward said.

    The reason the United States went into Iraq was "momentum," he said.

    "That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, 'Hey, look, it'll only take a week or two.'"

    Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace, "there was no lie in this that I could find."

    As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

    "We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/george-wbush-weapons-of-mass-destruction-iraq-war/2015/05/24/id/646530/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 5:54 AM GMT
    Michael Morell: GW Bush Didn't Tell CIA to Say Iraq Had WMDs

    Michael Morell, former deputy director and former acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, tells Newsmax TV that then-President George W. Bush never directed the intelligence community to say Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

    Intelligence analysts already thought so, he said.

    Morell told "The Hard Line" host Ed Berliner that the theme of his new book, "The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism - From al-Qaida to ISIS," is that, contrary to the belief of detractors, there was no effort to get the CIA to push the WMD narrative.

    "We didn't have to be pushed there because we already believed it," Morell said. "The best way to prove that to you is to tell you that we told President [Bill] Clinton the same thing before George Bush ever came to office."

    Morell said that when Bush decided to invade Iraq, the 9/11 attacks were still fresh in the public consciousness.

    "Three thousand people had just been killed; it's his job to protect the American people, and he feels that stronger than anybody else," he said. "He's sitting there thinking as bad as 9/11 was, how bad could it have been if Saddam would use those weapons of mass destruction against us or if Saddam would give those to the terrorist groups that he has supported over the years and they used them against us?"

    That is what drove Bush to war, Morell said, adding that the vast majority of members of Congress agreed with him for exactly the same reasons.

    more...

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Michael-Morell-Saddam-Hussein-weapons-intelligence/2015/05/20/id/645875/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 5:57 AM GMT
    Two reasons for posting the thread today:

    1) Bob Woodware made the statements today, although he originally made the same statement in his book several years ago.

    2) To illustrate the dishonesty of the Democrats on this issue, among many others, of course.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 6:02 AM GMT
    To illustrate how the left has tried to distort this, we need look no further than the NY Times (2004) with an opinion piece titled: "Calling Bush A Liar" (referring to allegations from that patriot, Michael Moore)

    The article accurately quotes Woodward then saying:

    Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, ''I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?'' The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, ''Make sure no one stretches to make our case.''

    But then immediately goes on to make unsubstantiated comments to further the left's theme:

    In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies -- witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs. [absolutely irrelevant but consistent with the extreme measures the left will go to]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/opinion/calling-bush-a-liar.html
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 1:26 PM GMT
    It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them. And, rather than actually speaking the lie, the administration did little to put the truth out in the public and set the people straight, and indeed allowed the lie to have a life of its own.

    The quote from Condi Rice about a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud, and Colin Powell's speech to the UN, could make a master class on how to push false rhetoric to the brink and still have plausible deniability later. This deniability is what the OP is pushing now. Or is it revisionist history?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 2:20 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidIt wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them. And, rather than actually speaking the lie, the administration did little to put the truth out in the public and set the people straight, and indeed allowed the lie to have a life of its own.

    The quote from Condi Rice about a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud, and Colin Powell's speech to the UN, could make a master class on how to push false rhetoric to the brink and still have plausible deniability later. This deniability is what the OP is pushing now. Or is it revisionist history?


    "It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's"

    He had a big bunch of help



  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 2:43 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    He had a big bunch of help


    What's your point?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 3:07 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    He had a big bunch of help


    What's your point?


    "It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's"

    He had a big bunch of help





    Make it any clearer?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 3:10 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidIt wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them. And, rather than actually speaking the lie, the administration did little to put the truth out in the public and set the people straight, and indeed allowed the lie to have a life of its own.

    The quote from Condi Rice about a smoking gun becoming a mushroom cloud, and Colin Powell's speech to the UN, could make a master class on how to push false rhetoric to the brink and still have plausible deniability later. This deniability is what the OP is pushing now. Or is it revisionist history?

    No. The accusation from the Democrats was that Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs, and to excuse their past support of the war, claimed they were given different intelligence than what Bush had. The clear implication was that Bush tried to manipulate the intelligence. Woodward's research debunked that, demonstrating their own revisionist history.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Make it any clearer?


    Your point? No.

    Maybe I should make myself clearer. Compare and contrast the two administrations. What was the Clinton administration selling, and what was the Bush administration selling?

    Also, in the intervening years between the videos you posted and the build up to war in 2003, were there any differences in intelligence gained? Had any new evidence of Iraq's nuclear program been uncovered?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 3:21 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    Make it any clearer?


    Your point? No.

    Maybe I should make myself clearer. Compare and contrast the two administrations. What was the Clinton administration selling, and what was the Bush administration selling?

    Also, in the intervening years between the videos you posted and the build up to war in 2003, were there any differences in intelligence gained? Had any new evidence of Iraq's nuclear program been uncovered?



    See what happens when you don't watch what was posted?

    Here, go at it again.

    <

    Any clearer now?
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 4:44 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    See what happens when you don't watch what was posted?

    Here, go at it again.

    Any clearer now?


    I have watched the video. It has been floating around a while and I've seen it before. Doesn't change my opinion on the matter or make your point clearer.

    Are you saying that because there were Democrats who, during the 2002-2003 build up to invasion and either out of ignorance or with ulterior motive, were saying much of the same things as the administration that this somehow makes it OK?

    I believe that junior Democrats, those not in the "Gang of Eight" for example, were probably acting out of ignorance, but I don't think this is completely true of the more senior members in Congress. I think Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, and Feinstein knew that the administration's case against Iraq was weak, but public support was high and they wanted the political capital.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 4:46 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    See what happens when you don't watch what was posted?

    Here, go at it again.

    Any clearer now?


    I have watched the video. It has been floating around a while and I've seen it before. Doesn't change my opinion on the matter or make your point clearer.

    Are you saying that because there were Democrats who, during the 2002-2003 build up to invasion and either out of ignorance or with ulterior motive, were saying much of the same things as the administration that this somehow makes it OK?



    Never said that and you know that wasn't my point.

    "It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them."
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 5:02 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    See what happens when you don't watch what was posted?

    Here, go at it again.

    Any clearer now?


    I have watched the video. It has been floating around a while and I've seen it before. Doesn't change my opinion on the matter or make your point clearer.

    Are you saying that because there were Democrats who, during the 2002-2003 build up to invasion and either out of ignorance or with ulterior motive, were saying much of the same things as the administration that this somehow makes it OK?



    Never said that and you know that wasn't my point.

    "It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them."


    I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I will clarify my statement that it was nukes Saddam was supposedly "determined" to develop, not "WMD's". He already had chemical and biological weapons in the past, so nobody could really make the claim that he didn't have "any" WMD's. This in spite of the fact that most of those earlier weapons had been destroyed.

    Still, the ongoing weapons inspections at the time had failed to turn up any evidence that Iraq was actively developing nukes, and this information was already public. The administration ignored this.

    They also regularly made connections between Iraq and 9/11, which we all knew was false, and of course there was the whopper of a lie from Rumsfeld about the cost and expected time frame of the war. Later, they tried to use the yellow cake Uranium that was already under our control as "proof" Iraq had an active nuke program.

    So, while it may be true that nobody in the Bush administration actually said that Iraq had nuclear weapons, they did let us all believe that it was an inevitability, and this indeed was their justification.

    If you are trying to make the point that Hillary is no better than GW in regards to Iraq, well I'm in full agreement there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 5:50 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    Physiqueflex said
    freedomisntfree said
    See what happens when you don't watch what was posted?

    Here, go at it again.

    Any clearer now?


    I have watched the video. It has been floating around a while and I've seen it before. Doesn't change my opinion on the matter or make your point clearer.

    Are you saying that because there were Democrats who, during the 2002-2003 build up to invasion and either out of ignorance or with ulterior motive, were saying much of the same things as the administration that this somehow makes it OK?



    Never said that and you know that wasn't my point.

    "It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them."


    I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I will clarify my statement that it was nukes Saddam was supposedly "determined" to develop, not "WMD's". He already had chemical and biological weapons in the past, so nobody could really make the claim that he didn't have "any" WMD's. This in spite of the fact that most of those earlier weapons had been destroyed.

    Still, the ongoing weapons inspections at the time had failed to turn up any evidence that Iraq was actively developing nukes, and this information was already public. The administration ignored this.

    They also regularly made connections between Iraq and 9/11, which we all knew was false, and of course there was the whopper of a lie from Rumsfeld about the cost and expected time frame of the war. Later, they tried to use the yellow cake Uranium that was already under our control as "proof" Iraq had an active nuke program.

    So, while it may be true that nobody in the Bush administration actually said that Iraq had nuclear weapons, they did let us all believe that it was an inevitability, and this indeed was their justification.

    If you are trying to make the point that Hillary is no better than GW in regards to Iraq, well I'm in full agreement there.


    ""It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them.""
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4434

    May 25, 2015 5:58 PM GMT
    There is no graver mistake a President can make than to take the country to war for false or mistaken reasons. Bush and his cabal murdered over 4,300 American men and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Either party who supports and does not condemn such an act is unworthy to govern. Bush and his supporters, especially those who re-elected him (largely by deionizing gays) deserve to rot in pain for the death and dismemberment of so many men.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 6:15 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidThere is no graver mistake a President can make than to take the country to war for false or mistaken reasons. Bush and his cabal murdered over 4,300 American men and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Either party who supports and does not condemn such an act is unworthy to govern. Bush and his supporters, especially those who re-elected him (largely by deionizing gays) deserve to rot in pain for the death and dismemberment of so many men.





  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 25, 2015 6:27 PM GMT
    GWB didn't believe sh*t except (1) Saddam was a grade A dictator jerk who gassed his own people with chemical weapons, (2) GHB hit but didn't topple Saddam and (3) GWB wanted to avenge his daddy.

    That. Is. Why. After. 9/11. The. GWB. White House. Beat. The. Drum. Of. War. Against. Iraq. When. No. Hijackers. Came. From. Iraq.

    This isn't complicated. Stop trying to spin the truth. Jesus. It is precisely this kind of psychopathy that prevents us from trusting Republicans. Literally, the GOP has failed to learn its lesson. Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in decades, and we'll be living with its repercussions for decades.

    There are lots of "bad guys" out there. We cannot and should not whack them just because they're "bad."

    Just stop.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 6:52 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidThere is no graver mistake a President can make than to take the country to war for false or mistaken reasons. Bush and his cabal murdered over 4,300 American men and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Either party who supports and does not condemn such an act is unworthy to govern. Bush and his supporters, especially those who re-elected him (largely by deionizing gays) deserve to rot in pain for the death and dismemberment of so many men.


    And I would be willing to bet that if had Bush been a democrat you wouldn't have a problem in the world with what happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 6:56 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidAnd I would be willing to bet that if had Bush been a democrat you wouldn't have a problem in the world with what happened.

    The Democratic supporters as seen in this thread, for example, like to deflect away from the specific point in the OP and the videos you provide. They try to change the subject and/or repeat slogans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 6:59 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidAnd I would be willing to bet that if had Bush been a democrat you wouldn't have a problem in the world with what happened.

    The Democratic supporters as seen in this thread, for example, like to deflect away from the specific point in the OP and the videos you provide. They try to change the subject and/or repeat slogans.


    Nothing new here. We've litigated this ... what ... 10,000 times?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 25, 2015 7:10 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Destinharbor saidThere is no graver mistake a President can make than to take the country to war for false or mistaken reasons. Bush and his cabal murdered over 4,300 American men and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Either party who supports and does not condemn such an act is unworthy to govern. Bush and his supporters, especially those who re-elected him (largely by deionizing gays) deserve to rot in pain for the death and dismemberment of so many men.


    And I would be willing to bet that if had Bush been a democrat you wouldn't have a problem in the world with what happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin


    That is so petty. WhileI can't personally speak for DestinHarbor one way or another (though I suspect he has sentiments similar to my own), I can say that if ANY President drags us into a war for false reasons then I disavow them.

    Remember when Obama was beating the drum of war against Syria? I was loudly against Obama and if we had gone I would likely have disavowed him. In no event would I support such a decision. Syria is not our war, and I refuse to have this nation dragged into their morass.

    Don't be petty when talking about war. It's the most serious issue a President can face, and very few people are so ideologically blind as to justify or condemn war based off of political ideology.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 25, 2015 7:13 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidAnd I would be willing to bet that if had Bush been a democrat you wouldn't have a problem in the world with what happened.

    The Democratic supporters as seen in this thread, for example, like to deflect away from the specific point in the OP and the videos you provide. They try to change the subject and/or repeat slogans.


    There's nothing to say. This is a blatant white-wash attempt and doesn't have legs. And insofar that "Democrats" deflect, I'll have you know that when Obama was trying to push us into war with Syria for months (remember the chemical red line quote), I was loudly against it. F*ck Obama if he wants to drag us into another Middle Eastern war. Unless and until Iran is a step from becoming nuclear, or Israel is otherwise threatened, we need to keep our pretty little rears over here and in our many bases and stations around the world. Stop stirring up snake pits, and stop more than a decade after the most obvious lie in the international forum trying to justify the worst war decision in modern history.

    LEARN YOUR LESSON.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 7:14 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said

    ""It wasn't the lie that Iraq had WMD's, but rather that they were "determined" to develop and build them.""


    Well, at least we're in agreement on which lies the Bush administration was telling.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 25, 2015 7:18 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Destinharbor saidThere is no graver mistake a President can make than to take the country to war for false or mistaken reasons. Bush and his cabal murdered over 4,300 American men and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. Either party who supports and does not condemn such an act is unworthy to govern. Bush and his supporters, especially those who re-elected him (largely by deionizing gays) deserve to rot in pain for the death and dismemberment of so many men.


    And I would be willing to bet that if had Bush been a democrat you wouldn't have a problem in the world with what happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin


    You've got to be kidding me! Did you think all those anti-war protesters in the sixties were Republicans or something? What a bizaar thing to post.

    Funny you would post this, though. I was thinking the same thing, except had it been Clinton invading Iraq, the GOP would have been in lockstep against it.