Why do liberals insist Bush lied, and why are they shrill about it?

Question

I honestly cannot understand why after all this time liberals can't remove this ignorant statement from their shrill diatribes.

Too many conspiracy theories or left-wing blogs? Do I really need to explain that Bush didn't lie about WMD's, he was just given false intelligence which made sense to the entire world at the time? Every time Bush is called a Nazi or fascist or liar, the left loses more credibility. Why don't you guys give it up???

Answer 1

Because the commie libs can't get over the fact that the president they loved, Slick Willy, was the biggest liar to ever serve as president. He was impeached for LYING under oath, he was disbarred for LYING under oath, he was held in contempt for LYING under oath! The commie libs can't come up with ONE lie that Bush said except the stupid wmd's in Iraq which anyone with a brain, that leaves out libs, knows was true. Libs are pathetic.

Answer 2

a) the difficulty isn't no remember if people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or no remember if there replaced into any evidence that he had WMD (there replaced into), it rather is the undeniable fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence to hand, brooking no dissent and disregarding doubters interior and out of doorways the government as cowardly or treasonous. that's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "deceptive the many times used public" refers to, the understanding exaggeration of the case for war (no remember if with the help of cherry-picking intel or utilising defunct intel or with the help of speaking approximately ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). As I wrote in this submit: "There we've been, extra desirable than a decade after the 1st gulf war, 2 years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. after which unexpectedly, he replaced into the main important threat to united statesa.. A threat that required a great invasion. a bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin laden. a great, instant threat. It basically defied perception." b) besides to the terror-mongering defined above, the opposition that Bush 'misled' the many times used public isn't basically approximately Saddam's WMD, yet relating to the way the administration stormed forward with their plans and invaded Iraq interior the way they did, on the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the international, all the at an identical time as demonizing dissent and smearing their critics. In the two (a) and (b), the crux of the difficulty is proportionality. no remember if or no longer bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam replaced right into a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic movements (preemptively invading a sovereign us of a) have been decidedly out of share to the point and immediacy of the threat. this is the difficulty. And who employed George guideline isn't the difficulty--even Scott McClellan, an previous Bush buddy, has written a e book asserting an identical issues we've been asserting relating to the alternative to circulate into Iraq. So hiring guideline had no longer something to do with it. BTW, on a factor be conscious, i will tournament IQs with you any day.

Answer 3

He wasn't given false info follower. Bush was told by Wilson Iraq wasn't buying yellow cake. What did his followers do? They ratted out his wife, Valerie Plame, as being a CIA employee. He was told there were no WMD's, but he went in anyway.

As far as bush being called a fascist, why is it that everything coming out of the White House if fear, and that we are with the terrorist if we don't support his policy of sitting in Iraq where THERE ARE NO TERRORISTS.

Why don't YOU give it up....

Answer 4

Where would right-wing slander be without the word, "shrill"?

I mean, really....every time I hear Rush Limbaugh fart out of his mouth, or some other pundit-wacko, it's always, "shrill...." this and that. I guess because it suggests some desperate, straining, exasperated attempt to sway the discussion. Kind of like this shrill impersonation of a question. :)

Bush did lie. And as a cruel milestone, the deaths of American personnel in Iraq (2974 as of Wednesday) has now surpassed the deaths of Americans on 9-11 (2973). You can't cover that one up, no matter how much flag-waving the GOP does between now and the fall elections. The truth is catching up with King George, and history will depict him as one of hte most inept and dishonest politicians seen since Nixon.

Answer 5

Conspiracy theories?

What do you call the pre-war connection of Iraq and Al Qaeda by the Bush administration?

That's either the mother of all conspiracy theories, or just plain stupidity.

Take your pick.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Thomas Jefferson

Answer 6

even if you do say something in ignorance.. it's still a lie if it's not true...

it may not be an intentional lie though...

both sides have tons of pathetic name calling... conservatives may have a huge lead if half of their party didn't call everyone cowards, terrorists, homos communists and much worse around every corner... every time you guys do that, it gives every liberal tons of hope, because even though some of us are crazy, there are tons of crazies over there too...

you guys and your "liberal media" "liberal universities"... "liberal hollywood"... everything that even tries to ask a question gets instantly labeled "liberal"... it's ridiculous... and the clinton conspiracy theories rival the 9-11 conspiracy theories almost step for step in retardation... you would rather believe Iraqis and Sudanese than Americans...

maybe you should look at the polls... even those provided by Fox News... that's MORE than enough reason to not "give up"... you can see what the world thinks of each party pretty clearly... frankly, it looks like you have much more reason to give up...

Answer 7

It's not only the liberals who know that Bush lied, our one eyed Freddy here in Aussie Land knows also that Bush is very economical with the truth. And since Bush is deaf to the truth one has to be shrill about it.

Answer 8

He didn't say anything that Clinton hadn't said before him:

"His (Saddam Hussein) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/allpolitics/1998/02/1...

Answer 9

he wasn't given anything. he told the public what he decided was true in spite of all eveidence to the contrary. if that isn't lying what is? he knew there were no wmd's and that al-quada was not in iraq, but he lied so he could justify his need to go to war against sadam regardless of the truth. he was given the facts, ignored them, and got his war based on falsified information which he ordered falsified.

Answer 10

I think he was trying to hard to make his case and saw what was never there.

Personally, I think he was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. It is entirely possible that he wasn't really "lying" and that he himself believed that Iraq had WMD, even if he had to stretch his own mind to convince himself that it was so.