The only lies are coming from you. Bush didn't lie about what the intelligence agencies assessed, the World's intelligence agencies including Russia's were all convinced Iraq had WMDs. At the time of the invasion everyone knew Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement for failing to live up to the terms of the monitoring agreement. It was thought that Iraq could rapidly begin WMD production anytime it wanted. There were also expectations they began to stockpile chemical resources. It turns out it would have taken longer than expected. Iraq did illegally retain information on the production of WMDs and some equipment and did indeed plan to restart the programs once the monitoring was done but hadn't actually begun doing so as was thought. Iraq also had a great deal of undeclared chemical agents and weapons that were never declared. It took years to find and destroy all the artillery shells and agents that Iraq never declared. Getting rid of Saddam to establish a democracy was a very good thing.
There are no lies from me and if there are then I have no doubt that you can highlight them for me.
To claim that Bush didn't lie about the intelligence agency assessments is a generous interpretation. It is well known now that the politicians misrepresented the intelligence and told outright lies. Dr. David Kelly the UN weapons inspector, who was outed as the source to the BBC's Andrew Gilligan, claimed that politicians had "sexed up" the intelligence and made claims that were unsupported by the intelligence. He was found dead in a bizarre supposed suicide. Imagine a Russian scientist claiming that Putin was lying about such an issue and outing his lies and then turning up dead. What would you make of that?
Mobile chemical labs and the 45 minutes to launch WMD claims are and were supported by nothing. Colin Powell's speech to the UN has become infamous for the amount of lies and deceptions it contains. Colin Powell himself has said since that his speech would be a "blot on his record". Most people regard this as lying funnily enough.
Your recollections are just wrong scipio. Everyone did not know that Iraq were in violation of the Disarmament protocols (not a ceasefire agreement). The US at the time were pushing for war whatever the intelligence said. If you still believe this utterly discredited shit then there is no hope for you. The "sexed up" intelligence was an attempt by the US to gain legal cover from the UN for their war but it was going ahead anyway.
When you say "it was thought" and that "there was an expectation" you fail to clarify by whom. These are not the kind of statements and intelligence that justify invading another country.
Did you research the Zogby poll and compare it to the polls that you posted and is that why you haven't discussed them further?
The PIPA poll that you linked to simply has no credibility. It is funded by the likes of the Rockefeller foundation and The Ploughshares Fund. The "advisors" to these funders of PIPA are packed with white American conservatives and lots of military men as well as John Kerry. The polling was carried out on behalf of CNN and USA Today and was carried out by the Pan Arab Research Centre. The Pan Arab Research Centre is owned by M. A. Kharafi and Sons. It is fair to say that the Kharafi's have extensive interests elsewhere and that they cannot be seen as impartial.
The poll by PIPA, in summary, was commissioned by two biased American "news" channels. The polling organisation used was a group whose funding comes from supporters and sponsors of US aggression. The polling itself was carried out by an organisation with extensive commercial interests which call into question their impartiality. It is not worth the paper it is written on and is simply self serving and not an attempt to genuinely gauge Iraqi opinions. It is an attempt at justification by the very vested interests who sponsored it in the first place.
"Getting rid of Saddam to establish a democracy was a very good thing". If they had got rid of Saddam for this reason it would be illegal under international law though wouldn't it? And who decides that it is a very good thing because there are millions of Iraqis who would disagree, but no doubt the mighty scipio would be able to tell them that they are all biased idiots who refuse to accept the evidence fabricated by the perpetrators themselves.
