ETA: If you're asking for more "straight news" types of sources, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... is a pretty neutral and objective retrospective, relying heavily on a Senate Intelligence Committee report that was approved on a bipartisan basis.
> Is there a fine line between hyping the evidence and lying about it? It’s too fuzzy for the Pinocchio Test, as it also falls in the realm of opinion.
High moral standards.
If they lied it's not provable. Your claim is opinion not fact.
And now you state that it all doesn't matter because it's not provable. That the killer didn't kill because he was careful enough to leave no clear evidence only circumstantial.
US in the Iraq was OJ of nations. And Americans are fine with that. Fine with pretending to believe that US didn't invade Iraq just because it wanted to. Not because they honestly believed there were WMDs there.
The same dumb "you can't prove anything therefore I'm blameless' shows up everywhere in US. In courts, in government offices, in corporations. In underlies troubles in so many dysfunctional systems of USA.
Where do I state that? Im just asking you to back up your claims.
Because this is pretty easy to search
>In December 2002, Bush declared, "We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon." That was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would later testify, "We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009." Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.
>On CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was precisely the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too
>In August 2002, Dick Cheney declared, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." But as Corn notes, at that time there was "no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation." Gen. Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended Cheney’s speech, would later say in a documentary, "It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know?
The americans lied and it led to a million lost lives and ruined the future of an entire generation. I guess it's different from the current situation and no one actually cares but I think it's important to not forget how vile the 2003 invasion was. Yes we don't have to bring it up (I didnt) in every conversation but we don't have to whitewash the events either
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12123022/george-w-bush-lies-ira...
Page 9
"High Confidence:
- Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
- We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
- Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.
- Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material."
There are much more examples. There is a lot of conflicting information as well. All I'm saying is that it's difficult to prove that they lied. My recent assertion tends to be that they made a bad judgement call with bad intelligence.
Let's agree to disagree.
Right here:
> If they lied it's not provable. Your claim is opinion not fact.
Calling whether they lied an opinion means that facts that they lied don't really matter.