Did Bush mislead and / or lie about WMDs in Iraq?

Did Bush mislead and / or lie about WMDs in Iraq?

  • Bush never misled his followers and he never lied about WMDs in Iraq
  • Bush never misled his followers but he lied at least once about WMDs in Iraq
  • Bush misled his followers but he never lied about WMDs in Iraq
  • Bush misled his followers and he lied at least once about WMDs in Iraq

0 voters

Well, did he ? Please vote.

Did. Your turn.

BFM, I’ll say it again. You are a genius.

But, why wouldn’t the poll work for either flike or myself?

The original post that started this thread/poll was posted by flike per the following:

[quote=“flike”]The Magnificent Tigerman (change your name, willya?) has pointed out that, according to a strict, rather legalistic definition of “lying” US President George W. Bush cannot be proven to have lied about WMDs in Iraq during the runup to the recent war there.

TMTM is quite correct, too. As Muzha Man and others have pointed out, it can only be proven trivially, which means that intent cannot be shown. This may be because the data is incomplete, whether it’s known, knowable, or neither. At any rate, TMTM is quite correct in concluding that it cannot be proven - meaning beyond any reasonable doubt - that Bush lied re: WMDs in Iraq.

That is a quite separate conclusion, however, from the question of whether Bush lied or not. After all, the only people with access to all relevant information are members of the Bush administration and therefore have something less than a real incentive to share all they know with anyone. Also, the idea of proving a Bush lie is very different from proving that Bush did not lie.

Every citizen of any country that’s a member of the UN was subject to the persuasive powers of the Bush administration in the runup to war. And it’s very likely that every such citizen has had his or her life changed, however imperceptably, in that everyone’s risk from terrorist attack has changed due to Bush’s actions in Iraq - whether your country was a member of the coalition of “the willing” or not.

Therefore, I’m more interested in what the public perception is of this issue - the gut feeling. You see, that’s what Americans usually rely on when they go to the polls to vote. Bush will stand for reelection in November.

After all, Forumosa.com counts among its waigouren members something approaching 100% in a graduation rate from university, and likely among its readers here in Taiwan as well. fred smith, among perhaps others, has argued that the American ex-pat population throughout Asia can be described as significantly - perhaps even mostly - Republican or Conservative.

However, I don’t want to limit this poll to Americans only. Like I said above, every citizen of the world had, and continues to have, a stake in the actions of the Bush administration, however small.

A bit about the poll: No WMDs were found in Iraq, and the US has concluded that none were likely there even on the first day of the war. Therefore, Bush’s working assumption was incorrect, prima facie. “Bush misled” was therefore intended to mean “Bush distorted information in order to be persuasive” but it could also refer to a broader definition of leadership as well. (e.g., Bush led, or misled, the coalition in Iraq) In fact, I believe that if you find yourself thinking “what does it mean, ‘misled’?” then, for you, likely this alternative definition of ‘misled’ will work fine. It was, however, thought that everybody would understand it instinctively and vote accordingly. If I’m wrong, then, for the purposes of the poll, the closest synonym to ‘misled’ is probably ‘beguile.’

Please feel free to vote. If you choose to include comments, fine. If you don’t, then don’t. It’s all good. If you have an opinion about whether Bush lied re: WMDs in the runup to the recent war in Iraq, now’s your chance to give voice to it, even if your voice is publicly silent. So, vote anyway, ok?

'K, that said, VOTE!

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq?

EDIT: The poll is working now, thanks to TMTM. Please vote!
[/quote]

Of course, the poll is now working thanks very much to Big Fluffy Matthew.

Has Fred voted yet? Has he even logged on? Is he having difficulties logging on? Tigerman, perhaps you could contact FS and help him out with the voting procedures here. After all, voting is a very useful way of quantifying opinion, is it not? it’s a very ‘liberating’ feeling too. C’mon Freddie, stand up and be counted (this was an early method of voting by the way, practiced since ancient times).

BroonAgitator

This whole “Did Bush lie?” thing reminds me of “Monica-gate”. But of course Mr. Bill did have sexual relations with Ms. Monica. He was the only person on the planet who did not think so. :unamused:

When you’ve started digging your own grave, you’ve no other choice but to keep on digging until you’re six feet under. :boo-hoo:

Good point Isieh: lying about whether one received blow jobs from an intern and lying as justification to unilaterally launch unprovoked war on a sovereign nation in violation of long-standing principals of international law. Yes, I can see how those are comparable. :unamused:

80% think Bush is a lying scumbag so far. At least the ‘liberals’ are out exercising their vote, unlike the the neo-con Bushie lap-dogs here who can’t be bothered/don’t know how to/are showing contempt for voting as an expression of opinion. No doubt a statement about the imminent threat of a terror attack will bring them out of their holes to vote. They only react when Mr. Ridge goes BOO!

BroonAttack

Every option has “his followers” in it. If he lied to his followers, then he pretty much lied to everybody unless his followers are the people in his inner circle who were probably in on it so he didn’t lie to them.

Agree with Richard about the ‘followers’. Else the poll is a no-brainer and I choose #1.

(In your dreams, Tigerman and fred … :slight_smile: )

Pro-Bush count has gone up to three. Fred must have voted. Polling doesn’t get more exciting than this.

BroonVote

Yes, 3 to 13 in favor of Bush both lying about WMD and misleading his followers. The 3 are against him lying and misleading anyone at all. I want to say something about wool and eyes, but it’s a bit too trite in reference to the Bush administration.

Then try being cute and proving that Bush lied. Your “feelings” on the subject may be emotionally gratifying and of interest to you but they don’t cut no ice.

Where’s the proof? And while the liberal media liked to make it all about sex, Clinton was involved in several law suits regarding various women who made claims about his sexual harassment. As such, Lying in that case was not just a little pecadillo but a major pecado.

Funny, I thought the Bush administration operated under the “guilty until proven innocent” assumption. Good for the goose…

Sorry big difference. Saddam was obligated to prove his innocence. We were not obligated to prove his guilt. Big misperception there. He had committed several warlike acts and the ceasefire was premised on HIS compliance not or proof of his noncompliance. Get it? Anyway, who cares. He is gone and we have won. Onto the next battle. Do you think that the Iraqis are worse off? If so, why have 1.5 million returned to the country?

Why are nonIraqis more unhappy than the Iraqis? If the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, what’s the big beef with people like Rascal?

[quote=“fred smith”]Sorry big difference. Saddam was obligated to prove his innocence. We were not obligated to prove his guilt. Big misperception there. He had committed several warlike acts and the ceasefire was premised on HIS compliance not or proof of his noncompliance. Get it? Anyway, who cares. He is gone and we have won. Onto the next battle. Do you think that the Iraqis are worse off? If so, why have 1.5 million returned to the country?

Why are nonIraqis more unhappy than the Iraqis? If the Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, what’s the big beef with people like Rascal?[/quote]

Obfuscation again.

How is it obfuscation? We chose to act rather than sit on our asses like many and there is no proof that wmds did not exist. I for one firmly believe that Saddam was up to no good and would have attempted to develop them again given the chance. That is not going to happen anymore and the country is better off without him. World and regional security are much improved. It does not take assuaging your finer sensibilities toward such things to convince me it was the right thing to do. Broon Ale, why don’t you form a task force or study group and negotiate and discuss with MT and Rascal? Meanwhile, the rest of us will act. Sorry that offends you but you should have thought of that when you were so silent to the actions of Russia, Germany and France which armed Saddam in the first place and are proceeding full guns with Iran and possibly China now. Sick. Sick. Sick.

Hahaha … you are certainly not acting. Well, actually you are … ( :wink: )

I have a feeling the same thing will be said when Osama is caught and people begin to question how he was directly involved with 9/11.

As tetsuo said, if the Bush administration wants to operate on a “guilty until proven innocent” stance, then why do they duck their culpability as far as their claim of WMD in Iraq? Thousands of lives lost on both sides over something that was never found? Hell, on the same premise we could say that Santa Claus is real. Just because no one’s seen him and extensive searching of the Arctic Circle and the North Pole shows that he doesn’t live there doesn’t mean he never did. Bush’s claim of WMD’s in Iraq was just as ficticious a story as anything you hear about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogie Man…

Imaniou:

No offense but we have answered these questions and your cutesy remarks about the easter bunny and tooth fairy are well stupid.

Saddam was obligated to prove we were not. What is so difficult for you to wrap your brain around. EVERY intelligence agency believed that he had them. I still believe that he did and merely destroyed them. Regardless he is gone. What do you have against getting rid of Saddam? Didn’t hear you bleating on about Kosovo or Bosnia. Why not?