English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Former deputy director of the CIA told reporters that when Bush started talking about invading Iraq and how they had evidence for weapons of mass destruction he was lying to the people. He said they did not have evidence at the time and Bush was told that. Now years after the war started no WMD have ever been found. Why would Bush lie to the American people? Is not that a bigger lie then Clinton telling people he did not get a BJ from Monica?

2006-08-07 14:33:02 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

Yes they found WMD but the republicain news stations like Fox and ABC failed to ever announce it. I would think Fox acting like Bush is the next Jesus would report something like that.

2006-08-07 14:40:34 · update #1

I notice that everyone is ducking the point of the question that favors Bush. The point of the post is that the CIA told Bush they had no evidence for WMD at the time and Bush still went on and told people they did have evidence.

2006-08-07 14:46:24 · update #2

24 answers

Um yeah...BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!

I don't care how many bj's you get in the oval office or where ever...as long as it doesn't result in the unnecessary deaths of US Soldiers..I really don't care to hear about it.

Honestly I think the GOP (Grand Oil Party) has some deviant sexual fetish. They stick their collective noses into the sexual business of everyone else but themselves.

2006-08-07 14:38:05 · answer #1 · answered by DEATH 7 · 0 0

You are going to get a bunch of answers calling you a liberal moron and about the 500 shells from 1990 they found and how "everybody" thought they had weapons and the UN Resolution etc etc. etc.

Why would he lie? So he could implement the plans outlined by the Council for The New Amercan Century in the 1990's

PS Fox News did do a story on the 500 old shells. The Department of Defense responsed that these were not the WMDS referred to by Bush Administration. The Big Lie however, was the implication that the US was in immenent danger of being attacked by Iraq, Cheney saying "There is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program" and Condi talking about mushroom clouds and having Powell give bogus information to the UN that he now says was the worst thing he ever did in his life. Iraq had no capability of attacking the US, no air force no navy no missles capable of reaching the US. crappy army.

2006-08-07 14:40:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Strange, if Bush lied, he told the same lies that Clinton did. Only Bush didn't have to bomb aspirin factories in Sudan (which was supposed to make chemical weapons too, if you will recall) or launch attacks on Serbia in order to make the Serbian province of Kosovo safe for Albanians (interesting twist on the movie Wag the Dog, eh?) If Bush lied, it was because he was lied to, something Saddam seemed almost as adept at as Bill Clinton, although there was real blood on Saddam's hands.

Now, moron, if you haven't figured out what "dual use facilities" are and why Saddam would have all those high-dollar biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons people still on active payroll and playing those cat and mouse shell games with the UN inspectors you could obviously see that if he didn't have WMDs he was doing a bang up job of faking the whole world out. Give it a rest already.

2006-08-07 14:43:52 · answer #3 · answered by Rabbit 7 · 0 0

A startling 50% of Americans still believe despite all categorical and irrefutable evidence to the contrary that Iraq had WMD. People need to read facts from a wide variety sources and not just what the Bush administration and Fox News would have us believe. It is deplorable that in this day and age, people will choose what they wish to believe than doing their homework and getting solid information.

Having said that, I am not prepared to accuse the President of boldface lying to the American public. It is my contention that the President and the Republican hawks were so determined to invade Iraq, long before 9/11, that they were prepared to accept any small insinuation of evidence to support a war and to set aside any evidence to the contrary.

If anyone was lying, it was Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the rest of the hawks in the administration and it was to themselves. And you know what? The American people bought what they were selling, hook, line and sinker.

2006-08-07 14:54:14 · answer #4 · answered by Gary H 4 · 0 0

If you are just NOW realising he is a sleazy liar, you are slow. He is an oil wh0re. Hmmm... He is generations deep in oil, and invades the 2nd most producing oil producing country in the world. In the mean time he did NOTHING to Saudi Arabia, even tough 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there and they have Jerry Lewis style telethons for the families of these "martyrs". Give me a break, he lost 2 straight elections and is "our" president after serving only 1 term as Gov. of Texas after skipping out of the National Guard... Anyone who does not think something funny is going on, is simply not thinking. Ignorance is bliss.

2006-08-07 14:42:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

because he's crazy! of course he lied. he thinks he's doing the world a favor by going into iraq and bringing down saddam. but in doing so, we're getting our own troops killed, there is a civil war going on, the muslims hate us even more and oh yah, we have less security! the bj from monica was a personal issue. plus, nobody got hurt from the bj.
the united states is not the world police, we shouldn't go invading other counrties just because we feel like without the help of the UN.

2006-08-07 14:39:48 · answer #6 · answered by James Harrison 2 · 0 0

He was even smarter than that; he got Colin Powell to lie for him.
Just think.... if only the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to continue their job. Bush was personally most afraid of Iraq being given a clean bill of health from the inspectors, so he made sure they never got the chance. Worth dying for?

2006-08-07 14:48:35 · answer #7 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0 0

A 155-millimeter artillery round containing Sarin nerve agent was found, which is a weapon of mass destruction.

U.S. military units have discovered mustard gas that was used in an IED, or improvised explosive device. Mustard gas is a weapon of mass destruction.

In all, some 500 weapons containing mustard gas or Sarin nerve agent have been found in Iraq since the invasion. Again, both of these are weapons of mass destruction

2006-08-07 14:38:48 · answer #8 · answered by D-Train 3 · 0 0

Honey...haven't you realized? Bush lied about EVERYTHING! What does he have to do to get people to realize it? A BJ is NOTHING compared to sending innocent soldiers to war for no reason. Sorry, but Clinton lied about his social life. Which should be private anyways. Then we wonder why America is the number 1 hated country in the world!

2006-08-07 14:39:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

what are you talking about? they have found wmd's there, where have you been, oh i forgot, the liberal media never mentioned it. okay, i understand now. anyway, they DID find some, some of them that weren't shipped away. That explains why hussein wouldn't let the UN inspectors go whereever they wanted during inspections, because he did have something to hide... and how many resolutions did hussein break since 1991.....and the world let him slide?funny how people have a convenient memory loss.

2006-08-07 14:37:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers