Proof that they didn't lie? You're asking for proof of a negative (extremely difficult if not impossible). It's like me asking for your proof that you didn't cheat on your exams in school years ago. Burden of proof must always be on the accuser.
The fact is that the UN, every major intelligence agency (worldwide), prior administrations, even people opposed to President Bush's administration all
believed that WMDs were there, or at least "unaccounted for."
The language used was that Saddam Hussein hadn't accounted for war materials. That isn't to say that he had them, he may have already disposed of them, but he hadn't provided the required evidence of their destruction under international supervision to the U.N.
In January of 2003, President Bush said
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."
Note that this language is not saying that they were there. It is saying that he hasn't accounted for them as he was required to do by the Cease Fire treaty from the 1991 war (which he signed) and by many UN resolutions.
Also
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."
Again the language is that Saddam Hussein hasn't lived up to his responsibility to account for the material.
The text of the
2003 State of the Union address makes it clear that Saddam Hussein had the
responsibility to account for disarmament because of UN resolutions and because of treaties he'd signed, not because the US simply suspected him.
All that aside, as I said, WMDs were only one of many reasons for the war in Iraq. Violation of UN resolutions were another, humanitarian concerns another, his abuses of power were another and his support of terrorism (if not specifically Al-Qaeda) was a very compelling reason. It is known that Iraq's goverment paid the families of suicide bombers. This is an open support (and endorsement) of terrorism.
I fail to see the lie here.
Ok, so you claim that we held Saddam Hussein as guilty until proven innocent? I disagree with your characterization. Saddam Hussein wasn't being assumed guilty, he was in noncompliance with the Cease Fire treaty and several UN resolutions. That isn't an assumption of guilt, it is factual. We know that he didn't "... submit to the [UN] Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below". He didn't "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless,
under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities" --
UN Resolution 687 accepted by Iraq on April 6, 1991 (emphasis and formatting changes mine, link is a .PDF). Yes, Iraq did provide some early reports, but they weren't complete and later statements, by Iraq, proved that to be the case. These are indisputable facts. I won't quote the whole of the resolutions involved, but he wasn't in compliance. That isn't an assumption of guilt, it is proven guilt. Not guilt of
having WMDs, but guilt of
non-compliance with the procedures to destroy them and provide verification of their destruction under international supervision.
The fact is that nobody could possibly "know" whether he had or didn't have WMDs because of his non-compliance. If he had complied, we'd have "known" with great certainty whether he did or didn't have these weapons.
Sorry, Shane, but you're simply not looking at this fairly. It would be fair to say, for example, that the CIA (and the rest of the world) made mistakes on the intelligence. It would be fair to say that the CIA disregarded evidence to the contrary (although it did come from sources deemed unreliable). It would be fair to say that the coalition forces, and specifically the U.S. have mishandled much of the occupation. It would be fair to say that they didn't anticipate the problems that have occurred. It is not, however, fair to say that they
lied about WMDs because they didn't and couldn't (due largely to Hussein's own non-compliance) "know" the truth of the situation.
Ok, where was point 2? Oh yes. Iran is looming on the horizon. Knowing what we
believe we know about Iran, and its leader, where do you stand on Iran? You've said that you'd support a war to stop the nukes; what if we go into Iran and don't find any evidence of a nuclear weapons program. What if we find that Iran was only using their reactors for civilian uses and research and experimentation? What if we're making a mistake on our intelligence assessment of that nation? Would you say that you were lied to again?
-- Jeff