The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Bush Lied People Died? Part II

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,305 times Debate No: 7199
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Okay, so I tried this debate once, but didn't get a good opponent. Hopefully this one will work better. Here is my opening argument.

In this debate, I am arguing that President Bush did NOT lie in order to justify the United State's invasion of Iraq. Whether or not the United State's invasion of Iraq was justifiable or not is irrelevant to this debate. I am arguing against the popular belief that Bush used deception in order to justify the US' invasion of Iraq.

The reason we went to war was because President Bush as well as many others sincerely believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Not only that, Saddam Hussein was in violation of past agreements with the UN and has never indicated that he wanted to comply with the rest of the world.

The intelligence that the US had led Bush to believe Saddam Hussein DID have Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US, along with England, France, Russia, and Jordan had all come to the
same conclusion. If my opponent believes that Bush lied, then he must also believe that the rest of these nations lied also. My argument was the
Bush may have been WRONG about the WMD's, but this report is NOT evidence of intentional deception.

On top of all this, all of the Democrats who voted FOR the war had the exact same intelligence President Bush and the leaders of the other countries went on. If the President was lying, one would also have to argue that Congress was
lying as well, since they saw everything that Bush saw.


Well, I hope that this is a good debate.

While it is true that Bush had information that claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was also information that directly said that there wasn't. According to The Dark Side by Jane Mayer, Bush asked to receive raw intelligence reports from the field, and for every report that claimed that there were weapons, there was a report that there said there wasn't. However, when he went in front of Congress to petition for the money and permission to invade Iraq, he only presented the reports that claimed that the WMDs existed, and Congress couldn't see any of the other reports because they were classified or still being sorted out by the various intelligence agencies.
So, even though it IS true that Bush sincerely believed that Iraq had the WMDs, he did in fact possess information that claimed otherwise.
As for the other countries invading along side the US, that is more from Bush pressuring their leaders than anything else. In the biopic "W.", Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, is shown going to President Bush in person to ask that, whatever he does, he does not invade Iraq. Bush claims that he has pictures of the weapons, and continues to pressure Blair until he finally agrees. After that, all of the other countries assume that the information is true, and follow along side.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to first thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

My opponent claims that for every report that said Saddam had WMD's there was one that said he didn't. I for one, would like to see the evidence of this. Even so, I will concede that there were SOME reports that said Saddam didn't have WMD's. That being said, there isn't a single major report that doesn't have reports that contradict it. This also does not prove that Bush intentionally deceived the US into invading Iraq.

The statement that the Congress was only exposed to the intelligence that said Saddam DID have WMD's is completely false. Congress had access to the same intelligence President Bush did. They could have easily seen the same reports Bush did. My opponent has also conceded that Bush sincerely believed that Iraq had WMD's, which confuses me, because this means that my opponent is admitting that I win this debate! This debate is over whether or not Bush intentionally deceived the American public into believing that Saddam Hussein held Weapons of Mass Destruction.

My opponent has also asserted that the agreement of other countries with our intelligence's findings happened because of pressure the Bush administration was putting on them to go along with what he wanted. Here is the main problem with this argument: The intelligence agencies of England, France, Russia, Germany, and Jordan all independantly came to the same conclusion. Russia and France both agreed that Saddam had these weapons, but still voted against our invasion of Iraq! Obviously, they were not being pressured to do anything at all. This proves that President Bush did NOT lie in order to invade Iraq.


First and foremost, I would like to say that the statement that for every report for WMDs, there was one against was more of a figure of speech than anything else. The reports claiming that there were WMDs may have outnumbered the reports claiming that there weren't. But, at the same time, it may be the other way around. At the moment, I have been unable to find any numbers on the amounts of reports. I'm guessing that either no one knows, or it's classified. Intelligence reports usually are.
But, my opponent did say that there were reports. His words were, "That being said, there isn't a single major report that doesn't have reports that contradict it. This also does not prove that Bush intentionally deceived the US into invading Iraq." But, were we, the American people, ever told this. No, he did not. In fact, he did the exact opposite. Here are two experts from speeches that he made:
United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

So, we were told, despite the fact that he had reports contradicting his words, that Iraq had weapons. My opponent said that, since Bush believed what he was saying, he couldn't tell a lie. That is not so. He lied not only in telling the American people that there was positive proof that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also through omission. Two different types of lies, but lies nonetheless.

For the argument about foreign countries having the same information, it should be known that neither France nor Russia, the two countries that my opponent cites as objecting to the war, participated in the war. In fact, the invasion occurred without the permission of the UN Security council. The French ambassador to the UN stated merely hours before Bush gave the infamous ultimatum speech, ordering Saddam Hussein to either leave or be forced out, "the majority of the council confirmed they do not want a use of force." The countries that did invade were under the pressure from the US.
So, Bush did lie, and he was not supported by other countries in the Iraq invasion.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has argued that since Bush didn't cite intelligence reports that stated that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction is evidence of his intentional deception to get us into Iraq. If President Bush believed Iraq had WMD's, why would he cite intelligence that he believes to be incorrect? Obviously, any President is going to go with the intelligence he believes is correct, and when he does this, he is not going to cite the reports that contradict them because he believes them to be inaccurate! Even so, Congress still had access to the intelligence that said Saddam did not have WMD's. Whether or not they chose to look at it is unknown, but even ordinary citizens could have known that there were intelligence reports that contradicted the President's assessment. I know this personally because I was against the war before we went in (now I'm not sure!), and those reports were one of the reasons why. Obviously, I couldn't go and read all of those reports, but I was aware of the existence of intelligence saying Saddam didn't have the WMD's. The fact is, the majority of the intelligence pointed to Saddam having those weapons.

My opponent's statement that other nations were against our invasion of Iraq is completely irrelevant. I argued that these countries' own intelligence agencies' findings regarding Saddam's weapons programs were the same as ours. This was refuting my opponent's earlier argument that these other countries' intelligence agencies only reported the same findings due to US pressure on them. France and Russia were both against our invasion, but they still agreed that Saddam DID have those weapons, so obviously they were not subjected to any "pressure" from the US.

My opponent has not given any solid evidence of intentional deception on the part of President Bush regarding the Iraq War. It is clear that President Bush believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's because of the intelligence reports of the CIA, as well as the intelligence agencies of five other countries. If President Bush lied, then one would have to say that these five countries lied as well, which is obviously not the case.


Seerss forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Watchman81 8 years ago
No problem. It's happened to me before too!
Posted by Seerss 8 years ago
Hey, I'm really sorry that I forfeighted this debate, it was not intentional. I was taking a while writing my response (its a pain to debate people that have solid cases), and then I had to go to a place that didn't have any internet. I thought I would make it in time to finish and post my argument, but, I guess not. Again, sorry Watchman.
No votes have been placed for this debate.