Question for the democrats that accuse bush of "faking" intelligence?

Question

I'm not going to say that all the intelligence was correct. It is apparent that some was wrong. this is for the 'Bush haters', who accuse him of intentionally misleading congress:


What was the information that you think Bush "lied" about, that we were not told the same under the Clinton administration.

As you know, Clinton said Saddam had WMD at the time he left his office, and many (if not all) democrats agreed adamantly.
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Answer 1

Bush lied about the reasons to go to war. He presented only evidence he thought would accomplish his goal. He made up evidence that was not there. He sent Dick Cheney to the C.I.A. to make something up.
They needed to start a war to stay in power. It was a long term investment for them that did not turn out. For all the killing they engaged in the proccess of obtaining power is a crime with special circumstances and under their rules they should all be executed.

Answer 2

faked intelligence?

14 days prior to the US invasion into Iraq, Hans Blix published a report to the United Nations stating that he believed Iraq had WMD's and had a WMD development program but that neither he nor his inspectors could find the weapons or the research centers. Hans Blix was the chief inspector if you recall. Not only did he publish this report, but during a TV interview after WMD's were not found, he restated that opinion.

Everyone everywhere believed iraq had WMD's. Everyone.

Now, of course, the democratic party is pointing the finger at the republicans and calling them liars. Why? Very simple. TO WIN AN ELECTION. I find that to be an insult to my intelligence. Sort of like the ridiculus claim of "i smoked pot but didn't inhale".

Remember, both parties had the same information and both parties voted and authorized an invasion into Iraq. Period. Including Hillary Clinton!

The real question to ask is this.

Should we as a nation, invade and destroy the government of an obviously unfriendly nation for 1) possession and development of weapons of mass destruction, and 2) high potential threat to US interests.

Our lawmakers, democrats and republicans, voted yes to those two questions for the case of Iraq. And we then invaded Iraq. At the time, the question of Iraq possessing WMD's was answered. The world said yes, Iraq had them.

I thought long and hard about the pre-emptive invasion question. Because many other countries possess such weapons and we are not invading them. Tough call. Glad I didn't have to make it.

But as to deceit, the deceit is pointing the finger at the other party calling them liars, while knowing everyone had the same info and believed the same thing, for the sole purpose of winning an election. The result is a divided country instead of a unified one focused on solving todays problems.

**** update ****
my apologies chainsaw. I do agree there was element of how long will the daily flights, missles, bombs, sanctions, and violations of the cease fire treaty agreement continue before the world took action. I left that out because I didn't want to get into who in what high positions in the United Nations, and various European governments were getting kickbacks from the oil for food program.

Answer 3

Exactly!!! I'm impressed by this link and will be able to use it as a backup now!! How can any of those trying to deny what you are saying do so when the proof is right there in front of them??!!! Talk about a state of denial!! I didn't know that about Pelosi!

Answer 4

How dare you destroy their trumped up charges. You induce facts to a emotional group.

The main reason why we went into Iraq was to enforce the cease fire treaty after the Gulf War. Most Americans cannot state this.

Answer 5

Libs are just mad because Clinton didn't do anything with all the intelligence he had and all we needed was one piece of bogus intelligence from a source the CIA nicknamed "Screwball" to justify an entire war.

Thats why we conservatives are awesome. We are much more efficient. If we don't have enough intelligence to back up what we want to do, we just take the little piece we do have, throw away all the stuff that contradicts it and then throw everything we've got behind that one little piece of nonsense about yellow cake uranium in niger. Throw in a couple of theories about mobile weapons labs on trucks, then make the most credible guy we've got testify about it in front of the world and we're in like Flynn!

Answer 6

It's time to stop fight each other and start fighting the enemy. I am a liberal- but one thing need I might say- I don't care if you're conservative or not- it's time to admit one thing: anybody could have caused 9/11 but Bush is not responsible for it. However he was irresponsible for not taking the Cia seriously about the reports, and focusing his whole campaign on a war that nobody in their right minds truly wants. But congratulations Bush: you accomplished your wish to become a 'war president' and that's all you'll be remembered as- if at all.

Answer 7

im not saying that the intel was fake... im just saying he saw it and saw that it was part of Iraq and that was his chance to go in. plus alot of people blaim clinton. atleast clinton wanted the approval of everyone before he did. usama bin laden would be dead if he had the approval of the republicans

Answer 8

Thank-you!!

Answer 9

This can only go one way or the other:

1- Bush has terrible judgement and can not manage his organization, or

2- He was going to invade Iraq under any circumstances

Either way he is a failed leader.

Answer 10

Who said he was "faking " intellitgence?? LOL i dont even think he is capable of even faking intelligence.