I saw W's lips moving that's how I know he's lying.
Check out notme's video everybody. What a lying sack of $h!t.
2006-10-17 16:16:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Repub-lick'n 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
The difference between George Bush lying about WMD's and Clinton lying about WMD's is that when Clinton received the information, he gave it to Hans Blix and the U.N. security council to investigate. Some believe that the U.N. is corrupt, however, the world turns to the U.N. to handle diplomatic issues like this as an objective third party mediator. Just because it does not always find in America's favor, does not mean it is corrupt.
George Bush on the other hand went behind the back of the U.N. security council and invaded a country. After the U.N. inspectors told him that they had no evidence of WMD's, he still pushed for an invasion. He campaigned against the U.N. leadership and their strategy. He also presented documents that his administration knew were skeptical at best. He allowed for no verification of these accusations.
2006-10-17 16:33:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by DLUVDAIMPERIAL 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
Let's just start here, and believe me, there is much, much, more:
President Bush continues to revise the reasons for the Iraq invasion in 2003 which initially was stated to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction and selling them to terrorist organizations.
3½ years later there have been no weapons found. The justification shifted to one of liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal ruler until Saddam's capture in 2003.
The rationale soon changed to confronting terrorists in Iraq so we wouldn't have to do it at home. Later, it was a fight against "Islamic fascism". Now, it seems that the President's rationale is simply "It's a struggle between good and evil."
2006-10-17 16:26:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Let's keep it simple.
Hussein had WMD at one time because we provided them back in he eighties so he could fight against Iran in our place.
In the nineties the UN inspectors went in, found and destroyed a lot of these weapons. Then we withdrew the inspectors before Clinton sent in missles or bombers. (That's right, we withdrew them, not Hussein threw them out, we withdrew them)
Before we invaded Iraq under Bush, the UN inspectors went back in and found that there were no current WMD's remaining. Bush decided that their information was a lie.
Bush or his people used information from intelligence reports that had sections in the same reports cautioning that the reliability of the information was questionable.
So pull all the information you want to out of sequence, when you look at the totality of what happened either Bush lied to achieve what he believed to be a worthy goal, or Bush and his people are abysmal managers.
Here's another hint - if you would pay attention to life as it goes by and make an effort to remember it; if you would do a little research instead of only listening to people who agree with you; then you would be amazed at the breadth of your knowledge and wisdom.
2006-10-17 16:30:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by ash 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
You had to go back 8 years for that quote? Clinton admited he should have gotten Hussein. That's the way you can tell someone is not a professional liar; they can admit mistakes.
I know Bush is lying because that's all he has ever done. I know you're an a-hold because of what you wrote. My deductive powers are simply amazing.
2006-10-17 16:20:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by marie 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Probably because he keeps saying things that turn out to be false and there's repeated doubt that he was unaware of the facts.
It's great that you have quotes from a president that was elected over a decade ago talking about current events. Both the FBI and the CIA advised Bush that Iraq had no weapons of Mass Destruction. Who was he listenning to? The IRS?
2006-10-17 16:27:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by W0LF 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because no leader of any nation in the history of the world has lied as brazenly and consistently as George W. Bush. And when you lie THAT MUCH, a certain number of Americans will eventually begin to think you might be lying.
2006-10-17 16:23:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by worldinspector 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
ALL POLITICIANS LIE. DEMOCRAT. or REPUBLICAN. Saddam DID have those weapons, Dick Rumsfeld sold them to him in the early '80's to fight Iran. Based on intelligence provided by Bush's "intelligence" a lot of people thought Iraq still had those weapons. Maybe if if the intelligence provided wasn't tailored to Bush's agenda, there would be no civil war in Iraq today.
2006-10-17 16:19:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's hard to believe anyone because many questions and conspiracies has been made from everywhere from George Bush Sr. to Bill Clinton to our current "dictator/president" George Bush Jr.
2006-10-17 16:19:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Young Vito 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a fact that George Bush juiced the intelligence to get the congress to allow him to attack the sovereign nation of Iraq, he has changed his story many times since then, the story now is we are protecting the U.S. from terrorist. There was no terrorist in Iraq until we attacked them. Please accept that he is a liar. A coke snorting alcoholic with no morals. Not fit to be president as he took us to war for his own personal gain.
2006-10-17 16:28:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
So, you don't remember Gen. Powell saying he was betrayed in/re WMD? It was Bush who did it. And lots lots more.
Inspectors had confirmed that the WMD Clinton spoke of had been destroyed.
People believe Bush has lied, because he has, to everybody about just about everything.
2006-10-17 16:23:05
·
answer #11
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
5⤊
0⤋