Quote Originally Posted by AdrianII
There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies. This is because such 'mistakes' were mainly promulgated by neoconservatives. Part of the creed of their founder Leo Strauss (+1973) is that democracies are inherently unable to produce and pursue a strategic vision of the world, and that democratic leaders and civil servants are required to lie from time to time if they want to pursue such a vision anyway. This was deemed an important strategem in the struggle with the Soviet Union, which the first generation neocons (Albert Wohlstetter, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle) claimed to have settled in the West's favour.
suspicion is just that - its not proof nor does it support a claim of its an intentional lie.

An important part of the vision of the 2nd generation, post-1989 neocons (Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad) was a regime-change in Iraq in order to remove the linch-pin from the Arab anti-Israel front. They had a vision in which a democratic, pro-American Iraq would take the lead both in a reconciliation with Israel and in democratic reform throughout the region.
The horror of it all - again it does not prove a lie.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that they have used their influence to spread - how shall I put it? - intentional mistakes about Saddams' activities in order to convince a wider public of the need to invade Saddam's country. I also strongly suspect that some of their economic 'expectations' - such as that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues, and that the post-Iraq world would be awash with Iraqi oil - were intended to convince the 'oil-wing' of the Republican party to support the war.
Again does that fit into claiming that President Bush told a lie. It doesn't unless your attempting to say he told them to do it.