posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 01:25 PM
Here we go again. Proof Bush lied. Proof
Bush was behind the effort to go to war in
Iraq despite the fact that Iraq had no
Weapons programs in place in Iraq. It is
puzzling to me that these efforts against
Bush have been so successful, because of
the fact that for them to be true one has
to overlook many easily verifiable facts
that argue Bush was not a liar and that he
was right on target.
These various proofs that Bush lied have
several problems. I won't go into all of
them but I will give some of the most glaring
problems the "Bush Lied" guys did not answer.
My analysis of how the matter played out, from
following it closely all during the unfolding
is as follows:
From shortly after the first gulf war up
until about 2000 Iraq had successfully stonewalled
UN inspectors and no inspections were being
carried out. At that time certain people
in the Bush camp were of the opinion that
inspections were not going to work, because
they had not worked during many years of
effort. Bush and Cheney were in the camp
that inspections were not going to work.
Others such as Colin Powell were in the camp
to get one more UN effort made. As it was
debated, one more effort was decided to be
made. As a result of this effort with
the UN, inspectors returned to Iraq and it
appeared for a short time that inspections were
One problem became apparent though during
these inspection efforts. That one problem
was that UN inspectors were not given access
to interview Saddams nuclear scientists. Saddam
absolutely stonewalled the UN inspectors in
allowing interview of his scientists. Saddam
refused Hans Blix the interview of his scientists
outside of his country. This was the key point, highly
covered on all the news that resulted in breakdown of UN
weapons inspections. The UN inspections did not fail
because Saddam was uncooperative concerning gas and
chemical weapons. Inspections failed precisely because
Saddam refused interview of his nuclear scientists by
the UN inspectors. Several trips were made by Colin Powell
and Dick Cheney to get neighbors to convince Saddam that
he had to comply with the interview of his nuclear
scientists and yet Saddam stonewalled. This one more
effort that Colin Powell had advocated was attempted
in good faith by all concerned. Colin Powell himself
made several trips trying to get other leaders to
influence Saddam to comply. All these efforts failed.
When Saddam stonewalled on interview of his nuclear
scientists the people in the Bush camp that believed
war was going to be required were further prompted to
believe that Iraq was truly hiding a nuclear weapons
program. Now at this point, it was probably true
that the US had no proof that Saddam was hiding a
nuclear weapons program, just waiting for the day
that it could be reactivated, with no more UN attention
being given to it. Yes, at this point you could say
that the Iraqi effort to keep the program secret was
successful and that there was no proof available to
Bush that there were nuclear programs available.
So you might be able to make the argument that Bush
was acting irrational and putting us on a war course
regardless of proof, and therefore was lying.
On the other hand Bush was convinced that the program
was there with no current physical proof. His only
proof at that point was that Saddam would not let
his scientists be interviewed outside of Iraqi control.
So when Bush stated back then that Saddam was working
covertly on a weapons program, I suppose you could
have said it was a lie, since no physical proof was
available to the contrary. Still you have to look
at the facts as they played out.
If Bush was absolutely determined to go to war regardless
of the facts, and many of these people who try to sell
the "Bush Lied" story are making exactly this point.
They site that memo (not written by Bush) that someone
put forth that said something like "Bush will manufacture
the evidence to justify the attack". This story has
cropped up many times in the "Bush Lied" story. Evidence
proves beyond a doubt though that this can't be. That
evidence is "Colin Powells successful effort for one more
UN resolution". If Bush was going to go to war regardless
of any evidence against Iraq, then why on earth would
he have agreed to this final effort by the UN to resolve
the issue. If UN inspections were successful, then any
Bush plan to go to war would fail right before the eyes
of the world. How on earth was Bush going to go to war
if it became apparent to the world that UN inspections
were working and that Iraq was not in violation?
The very fact that this final UN effort was made and
approved by Bush is absolute evidence that he was
not trying to go to war without any basis. His basis
was, in fact, the fear of nuclear weapons in the hands
of rogue states. This was the key point, highly
covered on all the news that resulted in breakdown of UN
The next fact that surfaced in the news with millions
witnessing it was the final few days before attack began
into Iraq. One final ultimatum was given Iraq before
fighting began. That ultimatum was, "Saddam and his
two sons must leave Iraq or we will attack". If Bush
was going to go to war regardless of the facts then
why would he have given the opportunity to avoid the
These facts were witnessed by millions and are
incontrovertible. Yet the "Bush Lied" people never address
how these things could have happened if Bush was following
the script which they say he was with his plan to attack
regardless of any weapons programs.
And now for the smoking gun.
As it turned out, the Iraqis were hiding their nuclear
program in violation of the UN and were waiting to
set it up again with relaxing of UN efforts.
In the book "The Bomb in My Garden" by Mahdi Obeidi
he details the various things buried in his garden
awaiting the UN attention and inspections to go
away. Among those things buried were:
(1) Over 200 booklets detailing every piece of the
centrifuges and how to assemble them.
(2) Four prototypes of the most highly advanced centrifuge
components needed for their assembly.
In Mahdi's words, "These were the most valuable building
blocks for WMD that Iraq ever produced"
Also in this book (page 10) are details of Iraq's
threats against their nuclear scientist concerning
any cooperation with UN inspectors.
This book was copyrighted in 2004, and I first became
aware of it as the author was interviewed on CNN,
I believe about Oct of 2004 and it is available from
Amazon.com. It is very interesting.
Everything I have said above was viewed by millions.
It was not some obscure thing uncovered in a supposed
memo. Because of the fact that all the above information
was widely witnessed and is easily verified, it puzzles
me that people are still trying to sell this story
that Bush lied. In actual fact he might have lied at
some point when saying "Iraq is secretly trying to
develop nuclear weapons". You can find that sort of
phrase in speeches made in the era leading up to the
Iraq invasion. You can say he was lying if he said
that with no proof. On the other hand, maybe he felt
that Saddam stonewalling was proof. If he did read
it that way, history has proven him to be correct.
Saddam actually was hiding a secret nuclear program
just as Bush had said. So was he lying?
I think you can make a much better case that the ones
that are lying are the very ones that say Bush was
lying. One of their arguments is that Iraq had no
gas weapons found. Well, was that a Bush lie? Everyone
believed that Saddam had them, including most of his
Muslim neighbors. Mubarrak of Egypt cautioned Tommy
Franks before the invasion that Saddam had gas
weapons, for example. How come Bush is singled out
as the one that lied about these weapons.
No body is saying Mubarrak lied.
No body is saying Tommy Franks lied.
No body is saying Colin Powell lied.
No body is saying the CIA lied.
No body is saying Norm Scwartzkof lied.
No body is saying Bill Clinton lied.
Yet all these above had said that Iraq had gas weapons.
Why is Bush singled out for having believed this
supposed same lie that was forwarded by all those
It is pretty easy to figure out that a lot of people
are singling Bush out because they want to discredit
In actual fact though these gas weapons should not
even have been brought into the argument. The
reason is; they were not what brought about
the failure of UN inspections. The UN inspections
failed specifically on the nuclear question. Remember
Bush agreed to Colin Powell's plea that UN be
tried one more time and Bush bought it. He bought
it entirely, but as he feared all along the UN
effort failed. It failed because Saddam stonewalled
the UN inspectors just as Bush probably figured
that he would.
Facts proved that Saddam was a liar, not Bush.
Bush proved to be right on target.