"going communist" has been justification for wars and assasinations of democtratically elected governments to be replaced with right wing dictators who have then murdered thousands. I think some of these people's blood is on the hands of the people who decided to follow such idiotic policies.
US calls off search for weapons of mass destruction
by WhyNow2000 193 Replies latest social current
-
-
ThiChi
Why didn't WMD Fake Info Leak? Tony Blankley: "Remember, last August field-grade officers were leaking Pentagon war plans to the New York Times and The Washington Post on a regular basis? If these same war-averse men had possessed information to contradict President Bush over the last six months, when he was talking about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, does any one doubt they would have leaked such information before their morning coffee breaks?"
In other words, if WMDs were a phony issue and didn't exist, and these people leaking all the war plans last summer to the Post and the Times knew it, don't you think they would have leaked this data then, when they were leaking all the war plans? Of course! Once more, these people are making it too easy for us. The Democrats, the liberals, used to provide a much greater challenge to me personally and to many here on the conservative side of the aisle, but this is just t-ball. They're contradicting themselves left and right! They are imploding, because they just can't get away with all this hypocrisy and falsification like they used to. -
Simon
Erm ... people have been pointing out for ages that the 'evidence' for WoMD was fake and bogus and also suggested that the best way to find them if they did exist or confirm that they had been destroyed was via the UN inspections that were working.
Of course, this didn't fit in with Bush's timetable for war and so they were forced to leave.
I think history will ultimately judge Bush as a huge mistake. Like Reagan ... no one can be proud of having that senile old fool in charge ! We're still trying to clear up the legacy that he left us and in future years we'll have to try and clean up after Bush.
He's set the world back 20+ years IMO
-
amac
it was driven more from a fear that Communism would take hold in the South...like we needed South and Central America to be communist.
That was what the US wanted everyone to feel. Communism bad!! Must Stop!!!! Devil's Work!!! You're right that they didn't want communism in the South....they didn't want it because it would have meant the nationalization of all the mines, mills, plantations and banks that the US was collecting large amounts of money from. It had nothing to do with bettering anyone's life, it had to do with MONEY. In the 50's they relied on the people's fear of commies. I can't help but feel that today they rely on their fear of terrorism.
-
amac
We aren't always the good guys...but in the case of Iraq...we are...I can think of no other country doing BETTER...is the US just held to a higher standard?
No not a higher standard, just not graded on a curve. I guess we have different viewpoints on what entails being the good guys. I'm not sure what we are currently doing that is making us good? To me, supporting an internal revolution would be a good thing (which we failed to do.) Attacking the country is not (which is what we are doing.)
-
Yerusalyim
ThiChi,
Interesting point, thanks!
Logans...the US really won't have too much of an issue with someone deciding to go to a "command" economy" We didn't have a lot of issues with Franco. Communism as practiced in the past century was as much a politcal system as it was economic...Logan...no communist government was ever freely elected...we didn't want to have in Central and South America the same issues we faced in Europe with a divided contenent...imminent threat to National Security (or do you not remember the Cuban missle Crisis?) Those were the issues.
Simon,
The question about civilian casualties...there are no accurate figures and no way to distinguish between who was a civilian and who was Fedyeen or Army troops in civilian clothes...right now the number is guesstimated at between 5000 and 7000...but that number includes combatants in civilian clothes.
I'm glad you provided a link to the article...I'm going to post it in it's entirety...highlighting some important issues in yellow and commenting in red. It should be noted that NO WHERE does the President say IMMINENT THREAT NOR CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, IT DIDN"T nor would Iraq allow inspectors to verify...in fact from the get go the Iraqis engaged in a program of deception. to cease all development of such weapons, it didn't...the programs were ongoing until the beginning of the war..there is no debating that...it's a fact. and to stop all support for terrorist groups. Does anyone see a mention of 9-11 in reference to the terrorists...no...that Iraq had extensive links to terrorism isn't debatable...they were involved in the first WTC bombing...funding and training Palestinain terrorists...giving safe haven to some Al Qaeda figures (like the one legged Saudi guy) The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. This friends is therefore a violation of the ceasefire and in and of itself justifies the war. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. This is still not really debated...some chems in small numbers have been found...the programs were still in place...the stock piles are in Syria. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith. Is any of that a lie?
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. He's not blaming Iraq for 9-11, but rather explaining the reason for the change in attitude of the US.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE WEAPONS? THERE"S BEEN NO ACCOUNTING FOR IT.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, Yet people still want to say Saddam didn't aid terrorists whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. All these sound like goo reasons for war.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. You don't find this significant?
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.
I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.
That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
May God bless America. (Applause.)
-
amac
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. He's not blaming Iraq for 9-11, but rather explaining the reason for the change in attitude of the US.
Yeru, I'm sorry, Bush is stupid but he's not that stupid. This is how he relies on people's fear of terrorism, by aligning Iraq with 9-11, just even mentioning it was out of order. What does Iraq have to do with 9-11 other than they hate the US? "...to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America." He infers that Iraq is capable of sudden terror against the US and mentioning this right after a 9-11 reference is no doubt going to evoke unstoppable emotions and support based on....nothing.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, Yet people still want to say Saddam didn't aid terrorists
Abu Nidal is reported defunct as of 2002. Plus they were also supported by Libya, Syria and Palestine (let's attack all them too.) We went to war over a defunct terrorist group? Are we attacking on past crimes? If so, we better watch our back, because we sure do have a long list.
Abu Abbas killed ONE American in 1985. That's a good reason to attack a whole country? Besides, the US caught him even though it meant they had to violate the Oslo Peace accords. But nevermind that, the US doesn't REALLY have to do what they promise to do.Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. All these sound like goo reasons for war.
No, those don't sound like good reasons for war. I wonder how many terrorists we have aided? Do dictators count? If so we are just as guilty.
I don't know enough about this to comment effectively. Is this documented? Or is it like some of the other claims that were proved false?Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases
Yes, very significant. It means they hate us. So let's attack them! Honestly, I find it sickening and depressing. But war will only perpetuate sentiments like that. You certainly can't beat hate out of people.And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. You don't find this significant?
-
Yerusalyim
AMAC,
I refered to the WHOLE ISSUE as significant...not just that last sentence...it came across wrong.
So, how much terrorism does one need support before they are a threat to the world?
AMAC...Abu Nidal is a terrorist group...but is also the name of an individual TERRORIST...who lived in Baghdad under Saddam's protection...for a while. Here's info on the guy...pretty bad character.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/abu_nidal.htm
Sure...Abu Abbas only killed one American...a wheel chair bound Jewish guy...so I guess his being Jewish makes his life less valuable? Abbas was head of the PLF, which is a terrorist organization...the war is on TERROR...not just terrorists that attack the US directly.
AMAC...the world changed with the attack on 9-11...people in responsibility take threats serious now. That's why the change.
Where's the lie guys? You keep saying "BUSH LIED" saying it doesn't make it true as much as the BUsh Bashers would like it to. WHERE's the lie?
-
amac
So, how much terrorism does one need support before they are a threat to the world?
Enough to where it is a CURRENT threat to enough people that the world agrees on attacking them. That DEFINITELY did not happen.
AMAC...Abu Nidal is a terrorist group...but is also the name of an individual TERRORIST...who lived in Baghdad under Saddam's protection...for a while. Here's info on the guy...pretty bad character.
The website says:
2002 August: Dies in Baghdad, Iraq under circumstances that quickly become questioned. Iraqi authorities claim that he had entered Iraq illegally, and when discovered by officials, he shot himself.
So it looks like not only did Iraq stop harbouring him, but they killed him (or made him kill himself.) Shouldn't we have given them an award or something instead of saying that is why we are attacking them?
so I guess his being Jewish makes his life less valuable?
This is not like you Yeru...are you trying to insinuate that I don't value the lives of Jews? A terrorist who kills one person is not a reason to go to war. If it is, then the whole damn world should be fighting each other.
AMAC...the world changed with the attack on 9-11...people in responsibility take threats serious now. That's why the change.
The only thing that has changed is peoples perception of the problem. It went from complete ignorance to wrongdoings elsewhere in the world to attack those we are afraid of. (An obvious generalization, but as broad a brush as saying the world has changed.)
WHERE's the lie?
The lie is the deception that Bush used to get the US population to think that Saddam was capable of attacking the US with WMD. None have been found yet and it appears that he was not capable of doing diddly squat to us. -
foreword
The lie?
I guess if you want to keep it down to basics, no personal opinions permitted, WMD's in Iraq is the lie, since they weren't found and you cannot substantiate your claims. In a court of law, your case would be thrown out for lack of proof. You have some circumstantial evidence but not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they existed and were in Iraq at the time of your invasion.
You can answer, "We will find Them".......but that is only an opinion, it doesn't prove they exist.
So in essence, and from a legal standpoint, your actions are likened to filing a false report resulting in an illegal search warrant.
Yes, so far, your president has lied.