Quote:
Originally posted by aways
Just curious... Do you think it's possible, within the bounds of the conceivable, that Bush (and just about every intelligence source on the planet) could have simply been mistaken about the status of Saddam's WMD program, without necessarily LYING about it? Or is it always the case that believing something that later turns out to be untrue or partially true, makes one a "liar". Usually when I accuse someone of lying, I have some sort of evidence, preferably proof, that they intentionally meant to decieve..
|
Well, you're asking for a look inside a mind.
The fact that Dubya publicly stated that his intent was to remove Saddam from power two years before 9/11 is a bit of evidence.
So, too, is the commentary by several CIA employees that evidence was rejected if it did not conform to the administration's expectations.
Both the thin 'evidence' of some aluminum tubes in Saddam's possession and an obviously forged letter supposedly from Niger were thoroughly discredited long before they were used as "evidence" in presentations to the American people.
So I infer that the use of discredited and obviously false evidence is lying -- intentional lying.
If you want some documentation on this, do a search on "downing street memo."
I will grant you that Chalabi and possibly others were actively lying to the administration about Saddam's capabilities (with transparent motives). But offsetting that, I seem to recall that a general in charge of Saddam's WMD programs in the 80s escaped from Iraq in '98 and flatly stated that there were no ongoing programs to produce WMDs in Iraq.