A very common assertion has been, and unfortunately continues to be, that President Bush lied in order to “get” his war on Iraq. Herein I will discuss how these opponents have yet to prove or demonstrate their claims and how recent events even suggest that they are quite wrong.
Levelling the charge of lying is quite a serious one indeed. We even impeached a president recently because he lied. Unfortunately for President Bush’s opponents, there is no evidence, proof, or argumentation (regarding the latter, which is conclusive or accurate) that can in any way defend this charge uttered forth against President Bush.
To begin with, lying means to intentionally provide false information. Many permit their entire argument to hang from those last two words (to wit, “false information”), alleging that President Bush supplied false information to the People of The United States and to the world regarding Saddam Hussein’s regime’s nuclear ambitions and/or capability. To be honest, opponents to President Bush have yet to demonstrate convincing proof or arguments that:
a. Saddam Hussein’s regime was not planning on obtaining military nuclear technology, and
b. assuming point (a) is false (that is, that the truth was that Saddam Hussein’s regime was in fact trying to obtain military nuclear technology), that Saddam Hussein’s regime had not made progress in their attempts.
As such, the general thrust of the information provided by the governments of The United States (under President Bush) and The United Kingdom (under Prime Minister Blair) was, indeed, correct, even though specific details may or may not have been as clear or unclear as initially believed.
The second point has to do with intention. Assuming – and this is major step, as we have little grounds to make this assumption – that Saddam Hussein’s regime was not attempting to obtain military nuclear technology and/or that the regime was not successful in attempts (thereby the threat of Saddam Hussein’s regime as armed with nuclear weaponry would not be correct), one would still have to prove that President Bush knew this and intentionally lied to the People of The United States and to the world. (Of course, “intentionally lied” is redundant, but I must draw attention to the “intentional” part.) No proof, arguments, evidence, or other supporting material or comments have been provided to back up this claim. None whatsoever. Those who do make these claims cast unjustifiable and groundless aspersions without evidence, foundation, or proof. Indeed, making these claims looks quite ridiculous indeed, as if they are psychic or omniscient or prophets or some other supernaturally-endowed beings able to read minds and hearts.
Now, let us back up for a second and address once more the claim made about the falsity of the information provided by President Bush of The United States and Prime Minister Blair of The United Kingdom. (I would like to point out that there were a number of reasons besides weapons of mass destruction to justify liberating Iraq, and indeed that are in the end more important and vital than the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but I might address them at a later date: they are irrelevant here and now.) It seems that of all entities, The United Nations believed Iraq was about a year away from developing a nuclear weapon before the liberation of Iraq. Which, in case it escapes anyone’s attention, The United Nations opposed. All of this thanks to most unlikely of sources, The New York Times.
In a burst of activity on the dexteroblogosphere, it has been revealed that Saddan Hussein may, in fact, have been close to developing military nuclear technology, a facet of Saddam Hussein’s regime that has been denied and denigrated by much of the anti-war crowd. For your edification and information, I present the following links to posts on blogs. There are many links to many posts because various bloggers have focused on various aspects of this story.
“Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program” by Jim Geraghty on TKS on National Review Online.
“Saddam’s Nuclear Plans” by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.
“NYTimes: Bush told truth! Saddam a true threat! Yellowcake!” by TheAnchoress of The Anchoress.
“Somebody (Chris Matthews) Owes Dick Cheney An Apology (Big Time)” by Lorie Byrd of Wizbang! (For a slightly amusing take, read “Is the New York Times being run by Karl Rove?” by Jay Tea of Wizbang!)
“November Surprise: NYT Will Lead With Major Story About Iraq And Nuke Research”; and
“NYT Silliness: Admin Posted Catpured Iraqi Nuke Docs That Some IAEA Experts Fear Could Have Assisted Iran With Bomb” by Ace of the Ace of Spades HQ.
“Suddenly, the New York Times is worried about dangerous disclosures” by Michelle Malkin of Michelle Malkin. (See also her post: “Hoekstra responds to NYTimes”.)
“New York Times unleashes Al-Qaqaa II: shoots self in foot” by directorblue of Doug Ross @ Journal.
Also of interest would be this page by jveritas which contains links to translations of documents found in Iraq.
And for the record, I do not buy this argument that publishing these documents online has in any way helped Iran or any other entity. The problem is not getting information: it is all out there; the problem is knowing where to look. Whether these were published online or not, Iran would have no trouble whatsoever obtaining whatever information (or even materiel) it needs or wants.