Why we can't find WMDs:

[Theophylact]

Iraqi Scientists Lied to Saddam

The lede:

Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.

Before that first Gulf War, the chief of the weapons program resorted to "blatant exaggeration" in telling Iraq's president how much bomb material was being produced, key scientist Imad Khadduri writes in a new book.

[shahani]

Makes President Bush appear to be even more foolish than ever.

If that is possible.

[Gomer]

still one of my favorites =)

It's too bad Powell got caught up in all that WMD business... I kinda liked him.

[M_Six]

Makes President Bush appear to be even more foolish than ever.

You know I'm no fan of Bush, but I have to disagree with that statement. If the Iraqi scientists really were lying to Saddam (no small feat, that), then it could appear very possible that there was a full-blown nuke program. If Saddam and his hierarchy could be fooled when they're sitting right there on top of everything, why not the western intelligence services? We had virtually no "on-the-ground" intel sources; only signal intercepts and aerial/sat photos. You had to figure no western intel source would ever get right next to a nuke or chem/bio plant. The info comes second hand from the aforementioned other sources. Disinformation is easy to spread and not easy to discern.

[shahani]

Powell was initially opposing all this Bush nonsense. Guess he must have been arm-twisted.

He seems to be one of the only Administration officials with some integrity.

[shahani]

"We had virtually no "on-the-ground" intel sources.."

Not true.

Inspectors were there for months.

And before invading a country, committing so many lives and soldiers, President Bush needed to be sure of facts. If the intelligence was not able to confirm WOMDs, President Bush should have said so and used words like "suspected to have" "alleged to have" WOMDs instead of announcing it as a fact.

[J-Excel]

FACT - Bush knew Saddam had nasty weapons at one time.
FACT (AFAIK) - The UN resolution said Saddam had to prove he got rid of them.
FACT - Saddam hadn't supplied that proof.
FACT - Bush had what he believed to be was corroborating evidence that Saddam hadn't abandoned his weapons program.

Question for all the blind Bush-haters: What if Bush did nothing, and Saddam had WMDs, and he used them? How many of you would in those circumstances bitch to high heaven that he didn’t act when he should have?

[M_Six]

Inspectors were there for months.

True, but again, if Saddam's own people could fool him, why not the inspectors?

Of course, they could be lying about lying.

[shahani]

Hypopthetical question. I, for one, would question anything President Bush does or does not do.

A President is open game always. This is what differentiates a democracy from a crazed Saddam type of regime. Not to question would make us no different from Saddam's subjects.

Point is, and not trying to flog a dead horse, but Bush did convey/imply patently false statements in his Jan/Feb state of the Union Message. He lied. Anyway you slice it.

[shahani]

So Bush lied about scientists lying to Saddam who lied to the world.

As Epidemic says: "wheels within wheels".