In favor of the "he was wrong" theory, is the fact that the CIA and every foreign intelligence agency considered it the case that Iraq did, in fact, have WMD, and that Tenent told the president it was a "slam dunk" case.
In favor of the "he deliberately lied" theory, we have, well, not much, except for the claim that Bush was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq to settle the score with Saddam.
Three problems with that theory:
a). There isn't any convincing evidene that "settling scores with Saddam" was Bush's motivation.
b). If this WAS his motivation, and he KNEW there are no WMDs, why would he choose that excuse for the war? Why would he use, deliberately, a reason he knew was false--and that was bound to be discovered as false precisely in the case that the US DID invade Iraq?
The two answers to (b) seem to be, (1) he thought no other reason would convince Americans for back the war, and (2) he would somehow "plant" WMDs after the invasion succeded.
Both of these don't hold water. First of all, Americans often support US military action against nations who are no direct threat to themselves and have no WMDs, on moral or other grounds--as in the case of the removal of Milosevic by Clinton, or the bombing of Libya by Reagan, both of which had very high support.
Certainly after 9/11, many Americans would be even more willing to support preemptive war. 9/11, after all, was not caused by WMDs, but by fanatical suicide bombers--and there was no doubt Saddam supported fanatical suicide bombers (and praised 9/11 to the skies on Iraqi TV, for that matter). Support of suicide bombers and terrorist groups alone would have been enough to convince the American public.
As for the seond, this is simply another "Bush is evil" conspiracy theory without a shread of evidence. It is extremely unlikely that such a feat could be achieved without a single person of the thousands involved speaking out, and, in any case, it was obviously NOT done as NO WMDs were found.
So why, exactly, are people so sure that "Bush lied" about WMDs, when it is obvious he had no reason to intentionally lie and only stands to lose if he does?
In favor of the "he deliberately lied" theory, we have, well, not much, except for the claim that Bush was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq to settle the score with Saddam.
Three problems with that theory:
a). There isn't any convincing evidene that "settling scores with Saddam" was Bush's motivation.
b). If this WAS his motivation, and he KNEW there are no WMDs, why would he choose that excuse for the war? Why would he use, deliberately, a reason he knew was false--and that was bound to be discovered as false precisely in the case that the US DID invade Iraq?
The two answers to (b) seem to be, (1) he thought no other reason would convince Americans for back the war, and (2) he would somehow "plant" WMDs after the invasion succeded.
Both of these don't hold water. First of all, Americans often support US military action against nations who are no direct threat to themselves and have no WMDs, on moral or other grounds--as in the case of the removal of Milosevic by Clinton, or the bombing of Libya by Reagan, both of which had very high support.
Certainly after 9/11, many Americans would be even more willing to support preemptive war. 9/11, after all, was not caused by WMDs, but by fanatical suicide bombers--and there was no doubt Saddam supported fanatical suicide bombers (and praised 9/11 to the skies on Iraqi TV, for that matter). Support of suicide bombers and terrorist groups alone would have been enough to convince the American public.
As for the seond, this is simply another "Bush is evil" conspiracy theory without a shread of evidence. It is extremely unlikely that such a feat could be achieved without a single person of the thousands involved speaking out, and, in any case, it was obviously NOT done as NO WMDs were found.
So why, exactly, are people so sure that "Bush lied" about WMDs, when it is obvious he had no reason to intentionally lie and only stands to lose if he does?
). 
