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

Generally... I don't go for the knee jerk reaction claiming the President of the United States lied.

2007-01-17 05:36:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

If any of those, the 2nd - that he was misinformed. However, I don't think it's quite that simple. Having listened to a number of government intelligence analysts, I think it fell into the category of willful ignorance - his people (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) have a tendency to cherry-pick information and present only that. Bush wasn't getting unbiased information (and/or chose not to see such analysis) and thus his decision-making was based on only information that supported what he wanted to do. So, I don't think he willfully lied, but he made his decisions based on information that he should have known was incomplete and biased.

2007-01-17 06:08:03 · answer #1 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0 1

It's not a matter of "likely". Bush consistently expressed certainty on issues he could not have been certain about - because they were not true. So it is not just that Bush said things that turned out to be untrue- which could have been due to his being misinformed - but he personally removed all doubt from evidence that was inherently vague and presented to him as vague.

That is evidence of lying. Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

2007-01-17 06:13:11 · answer #2 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 0 0

Bush unintentionally lied because he was misinformed about the WMD being in Iraq because they had already been moved to Syria. So, I guess, all of the above.

2007-01-17 05:42:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Bush Lied

2007-01-17 05:39:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

The reasons given for invading Iraq were indeed overstated if not completely fabricated. James Risen, highlights the following in his book, State Of War: The Secret History Of The CIA and The Bush Administration (Free Press):

The CIA and the president had overwhelming evidence that Iraq had no nuclear weapons programs during the run up to the Iraq war obtained from 30 scientists who had worked on the nuclear project. In fact, there was overwhelming evidence received from inside sources that Iraq had discontinued its nuclear program in 1992.

The false evidence used was provided by an Iraqi informant named Curveball, who was discovered to have fabricated to the story due to lack of corroboration and control by the CIA. The intelligence from Curveball formed the basis which was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Members of the CIA were warned by the Germans for whom Curveball was the Iraqi intel source that Curveball was mentally unstable and had suffered a nervous breakdown. They also warned the CIA not to include information provided by the source as it was fabricated.

The CIA provided Iran with the blueprints and plans for its current nuclear program.

Before 9/11 the CIA warned that Osama Bin Laden was a threat to the United States but these intelligence reports were ignored and the annalists responsible for the reports were either sidelined or fired. These reports languished in storage for the last few months of the Clinton administration and for a time under Bush's administration

Before the invasion of Iraq, a meeting was called with various CIA members, informing them that the invasion of Iraq was on Bush's agenda since the start of his time in office and that 9/11 had delayed it.

2007-01-17 18:31:03 · answer #5 · answered by Ni Ten Ichi Ryu 4 · 0 2

I used to try to give him the benefit of the doubt, that the intel was wrong. But then one of our own citizen, a CIA agent, got cr*pped on because her husband who also is in intel told the oval office there were no WMD in Iraq. You don't punish someone for being truthful if you yourself have integrity.

2007-01-17 05:47:05 · answer #6 · answered by catcha22 3 · 1 0

well, since President Clinton recently said, without a doubt, that Iraq had WMD at the time he left office, I would say they were moved.

Not to mention the ten years of democrats and republicans agreeing that they had them, prior to Bush being elected.


But, since it is easier to believe anything bad about someone you are told not to like, by their hollywood liberal hero's, many here will say, "bush lied", without wanting any validation for that "lie".

And they will not respond to evidence supporting the "downing street memo's" to have been faked, which is the entire basis of their "lie" argument.

They believe anything negative about the President, without validation, and when someone questions the validaty of their accusation, they want evidence to prove your doubt.

2007-01-17 05:44:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

WMD Moved. If there was no WMD, then 5,000 Children, Women, and Men would still be alive in the town of Hallabjah.

2007-01-17 05:46:03 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

the skinny is ,,,bush is to believe his own lies,,,that's makes it a catch 22,and you are dismissed sir,,,,and misinformed ,no wmd,s,,,,only in the mind and fear ,,,does such exist....the beauty of it ,,,the mastery of the moment,,,eat it up ,,,,,like we all did,,,now that its done,,,,fried like Texas steak.....who you gonna call GB,,,,,,,,civilian p,s if i say the ,non existent wmd,s...where moved to the moon,can you 100% say it is not true,biased on a lie?

2007-01-17 05:48:19 · answer #9 · answered by CIVILIAN 4 · 0 0

Bush lied and knew the intelligence was incorrect and knowingly supplied false information to Congress in order to get approval for this war.

2007-01-17 05:42:47 · answer #10 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers