It was all based on a bare-faced lie

Editor's Note | More than two years ago, I wrote a book with former U.N Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. The book was short, and to the point: Evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was being wildly exaggerated by George W. Bush and members of his administration. No threat was evidenced. The matter could be handled by weapons inspectors, who had already eviscerated Saddam's stockpile.

This was truth, September 11 or no September 11.

Now: 1,064 American soldiers are dead in Iraq. More than 17,000 American soldiers have been 'medically evacuated' from Iraq, suffering everything from menstruation to missing limbs and faces, if you know how to read between the carefully parsed DoD lines.

More than 20,000 Iraqi civilians - people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me, people like you and me - have been killed. Tens of thousands more have been maimed, orphaned, or otherwise struck to the heart.

How many of these will become 'terrorists'?

One of these days, telling the truth will be worth something. - wrp

U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus The Washington Post

Comments

It's "bald face" and it is an alcohol term (not mature).

I'm confident after seeing the report of the report, we did not go to war on a lie, but on misinformation. If Bush were lying, we would have found WMD in May 2003. Also, if Bush lied, so did all Congress who saw, read and believed the same information. That would include Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards.

"Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon."

"Kerry voted for the war, so his arguments on that topic boil down to either (1) Bush lied, and I'm gullible: or (2) Bush and I both got fooled, but I'll do better next time. Neither is very compelling." Glenn Reynolds

Findlaw has posted the HUGE report. Those (sadly, me included) who don't have the patience to wade through the 100+MB full PDF files can read a 19 page Key Findings section.I think there is ammunition for both sides of the debate in these key findings. If someone is primarily terrified of Iraq's intentions, they'll find plenty to back up their argument. If someone wants to assert that this report supports the key findings of Hans Blix, et al, back in 2002 that Iraq had no nuclear program, no significant stockpiles of chem/bio weapons and no realistic way to procure them for years, I think they'd be within their rights.One interesting part of the report is how the Oil for Food program really helped Iraq evade sanctions after 1996.I think an honest reading of the 19 page "key findings" support the idea, available before the war, that Saddam was a very evil man with delusions of grandeur who did not represent a grave and growing threat to America or anyone else.

"Kerry voted for the war,.."Nope. Voting for war would have taken a formal declaration of war, which neither party, nor the President had the guts to seek.Kerry and Edwards voted for a resolution that called for a diplomatic process and allowed the President to use force IF he decided that diplomacy had failed. Thus they did rather unwisely trust the President.This isn't just my take, or a liberal take. Here's what the non-partisan Factcheck.org had to say about the resolution:--------------------Cheney Overstates Iraq ResolutionCheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.--------------------If you (not just you Norma, anybody) don't want to believe FactCheck either, then go to Thomas http://thomas.loc.gov, choose the 107th Congress, type in hj res 114 and read the resolution itself. It is very plain (if you trust the President) that voting for this resolution DOES NOT automatically trigger force. Those of us outside DC and the few brave people in Congress who voted against the resolution knew better -- that the President had his mind already made up.There you have it. The President tried to have it both ways -- presenting the resolution as a way to avoid war, then to use it as a club to accuse his opponent of flip-flopping.If the threat were as "grave and growing" as the administration put it, they should have gone for a declaration of war AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. Then we might have had an HONEST debate about the merits of going to war and no Member of Congress would have ANY wiggle room at all once the vote was taken.

"I think an honest reading of the 19 page "key findings" support the idea, available before the war, that Saddam was a very evil man with delusions of grandeur who did not represent a grave and growing threat to America or anyone else."

An evil and delusional man with vast resources and a habit of killing people is not a threat. Yeah okay.