Would you accept that Bush lied to get US to war?

Answer 1

Like i accept the earth is not flat.

I know i know, you can expect to see someone cut and paste thier favorite Dem. quotes about iraq.

Out of context of course.

Edit: see what i mean below...

Answer 2

If that was the case, but since the WMD information was acknowledged by 3 administrations, then it is difficult to say he intentionally lied. It is possible that the administration had bad information. I don't personally know Bush like most on this site.

There are a few reasons why Iraq wasn't successful:

1. If you are to fight a war, you can't do this politically correct. It must be done with force and with concequences to everyone involved.

2. The U.S. did not work as a team. There was infighting 2 weeks into the war, which was premature - this infighting contributed to both sides failing to make adjustments and created a bi-polar environment.

Congress voted for a war - then they should have supported it! - How quickly everyone forgets history - Study Lincoln and the civil war and how team work would have helped.

3. Public opinion doesn't matter. Since the revolutionary war, the public has never supported a war and won't in the future. Unless a war is won within a year the public won't accept it.

4. Lack of information - we quickly forget the limited access that our foreign intelligence agencies were given prior to the Bush administration - this contributed to the faulty data. - Hence, why 9/11 & North Korea happened in the first place.

5. Iran - it is a problem and will be a problem until the public and government address this issue.

Politically - Terror organizations are winning the battle and basically are being rewarded for their efforts - Terrorism is done to politically influence decisions - Why does the public continue to retreat from terror?

The World should not retreat - they will have to address this issue at some point in the future and the longer everyone takes to come to this conclusion, the more people will lose their lives in the end.

Answer 3

Lying in the name of higher interests is common practice in many countries. It became a science in England, before WW2, got refined during Goebels and went into the skies during the war of Germany and USA against the Serbs... It is a means by which the shepherd control their sheep.

People are given the right to vote, but are not given the “right” to be informed properly. CNN and other relevant informers, suffer no consequence upon their responsibility in the escalation they create. Human casualties are just a mathematical factor in the profit equation of the groups on power; the ones who control the media. What percentage of people in USA know the reason why there is radical Islam in Iran? How many people have learned from the lies created in USA against Serbia and Iraq?

Bush is not a one man show. Bush is the whole machinery of media manipulation; professionals and scientists who stand behind him.

Sad but true, many people do not see the truth even if it were in front of them. As if they want to be lied so they could get a rush. Just look how much hatred there is around us, inputed through fear created by the media.

Answer 4

Yes, I could accept the arguement that Bush lied to get us into a war. So, how does this make him any different from any other President that we have had before, during, and after a war? Come on children, you can't take everything the grown ups tell you at face value, your going to have to dig a little.

Answer 5

Some of these answers are amazing.....it's clear he lied, everyone knows it, it's a fact etc. Then the guy lists all of the liberal quotes and he gets a bunch of thumbs down. Wow! I guess people believe what they want to believe. Regardless, when Saddam cried Uncle after Desert Storm, part of the cease fire agreement was that he had to allow inspectors unfettered access, which he did not do. The UN gave him chance after chance to do so, yet he failed. Seems to me if he broke the cease fire terms then the war resumes. It really doesn't matter whether or not he had WMD.
How come none of the libs on here want to address the quotes of the leaders of their party? If they really believed Bush lied then to be intellectually honest they must also believe their leaders lied.

Answer 6

Sure. He was capable of implementing a war that had no follow-up strategy for recovery efforts and he was willing to blindly accept the flimsiest of evidence to "justify" going into Iraq. Now that the war is more fully under the microscope along with the insanity leading up to it, why wouldn't a man with as little moral courage or mental caliber resort to lying to further his inept causes.

Answer 7

I would find it extremely hard to put a different spin on the actions of Mr GW Bush. He and Tony Blair deliberatly misled the world into believing that we were 75 minutes away from destruction and we had to act immediately.

Answer 8

I accepted it from day one. He's had this Iraq invasion on the drawing board since 2000, if not earlier.....enough to distract him from the jets moving towards the Pentagon and the WTC, but not so much he just HAD to finish reading the kid's book about the little goat.

Answer 9

I think that is a pretty well-known fact by now that will be written in history books. The question that may not ever be answered is the real reason he was adamant about invading Iraq.

Answer 10

Accept, accept, accept, accept a thousand times accept!

Answer 11

I do not believe he lied, but I do believe he was wrong along with the rest of the world leaders.