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

Who thinks President Bush lied? What type of evidence is available to support your claims? I would like to do some research on the subject, and I would like to know how those of you that think the president lied about Iraq having WMD’s made you decision.
Where can I find the evidence that he lied?

2007-01-17 06:09:03 · 37 answers · asked by nick w 2 in Politics & Government Politics

I spent about six hours yesterday researching the list of lies presented by truth seeker. First I went to the web site that presented the lies to check the validity of the source. First and foremost I have to say that the lie accusations are far more disingenuous than the statements made by the president. The reason for this is that web sites lie are spliced together. They are not the full statement made by the president. I have not done any searches on who funds the site, however I will before my research is complete. I cross-referenced transcripts of the Presidents speeches with the Iraq post invasion reports. Including the dates of the speeches and the dates of the original intelligence reports. After six hours I have only researched the first three lies.

2007-01-18 08:13:30 · update #1

37 answers

The claim that he lied is unsubstantiated. He made a decision based on the same information congress had. If he lied so did many, many others in Congress.

It is just a claim that uninformed people like to throw around.

2007-01-17 06:17:08 · answer #1 · answered by C B 6 · 3 4

The Bush team was pulling out all the stops to find reasons to invade Iraq because this was the key to his election for a second term. Remembering the general tone of the news at the time, I was quite skeptical. They were searching for anything that could justify the end they wanted. Even today if people disagree with the end Bush wants, they are history.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
July 19 issue - The more he read, the more uneasy he became. In early February 2003 Colin Powell was putting the finishing touches on his speech to the United Nations spelling out the case for war in Iraq. Across the Potomac River, a Pentagon intelligence analyst going over the facts in the speech was alarmed at how shaky that case was. Powell's presentation relied heavily on the claims of one especially dubious Iraqi defector, dubbed "Curve Ball" inside the intel community. A self-proclaimed chemical engineer who was the brother of a top aide to Iraqi National Congress chief Ahmad Chalabi, Curve Ball had told the German intelligence service that Iraq had a fleet of seven mobile labs used to manufacture deadly biological weapons. But nobody inside the U.S. government had ever actually spoken to the informant—except the Pentagon analyst, who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source. He recalled that Curve Ball had shown up for their only meeting nursing a "terrible hangover."

2007-01-17 06:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by Pey 7 · 2 1

Bush in a December press conference admitted that he lies to the press to get them to stop asking questions.

This is public record search it.

As for the dozens of war related lies they are listed on numerous websites. Sort them out for yourself. Some are obvious some are a stretch. Like the Yellow Cake Lie in his State of the Union address. It was a stressful moment standing before the Nation he could have forgot that he had been advised the Yellow Cake was non existent. That makes it a speech error not a lie.

Go big Red Go

2007-01-17 06:32:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

you're mind-blowing to a element. The intel replace into an analogous up till Bush got here into workplace and Cheney appeared for something and each thing he might desire to discover to create a hyperlink between Iraq and terrorism. The Yellow Cake Uranium tale replace into area of this attempt. Why replace into this mandatory?? because of the fact the winning intelligence replace into not proving the faster held notions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. besides, Blix wasn't finding something the two. Saddam did not help concerns by being evasive and confrontational, notwithstanding if it replace into in all probability his purely thank you to tweek the powers that be. And ultimately keep in mind that Clinton's intel stopped after 2000...after that it belongs to Bush...and keep in mind conservatives take accountability.

2016-10-07 07:23:32 · answer #4 · answered by haslinger 4 · 0 0

I have heard a speech given by a journalist (I know what you are thinking, but hear me out). He had gone all through the government and the Whitehouse and said that there was a threat. But I don't think they were as important to him as just getting in Iraq and getting rid of Suddam. WMDs just provided a method and reason to go in there.*

President Bush is a very pure president (try to catch last Sunday's 60 Minutes interview). His reasons for being in Iraq are definetly NOT for popularity. He is there because it is the right thing to do.


*the journalist also said that oil was definetly not an issue in Iraq. Sorry, but I do not remember the name of the journalist

2007-01-17 06:16:28 · answer #5 · answered by sealguy77 2 · 3 3

He said that the American troops would be welcomed by to Iraqi populous.

He said the invasion would take 2 weeks at most.

He lied about pictures supposedly showing the movement of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Bush repeatedly lied about the ending of the war many times.

http://www.bushlies.net/index.html

http://bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm

2007-01-17 06:26:30 · answer #6 · answered by Russel J 1 · 1 1

I am not sure you will find proof. It someone had it I am sure the press would have it all over the news. I think overall he was a puppet... I think people asking him to run told him that Cheney, Powell and Runsfeld would run things and he could be messenger. I think those three made all of the decisions and he just presented them to the public. I do think he wanted Saddam because of the threat he made against his dad, George Bush Sr. but I think that the other three lied about the WMDs.

2007-01-17 06:17:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

I don't believe the President lied. I think he might be a little absent-minded but I doubt he lied (though anything is possible). Now regarding us being in Iraq, I fully support it. I've seen pictures of what the culture there used to be like. A little boy took an apple because he was hungry then in front of the entire city they crushed his arm with an automotive vehicle as punishment to where he could never use it again. This kid was no older then six and just because his parents couldn't take care of him and he was hungry this happened. Cruelty in the world such as that should never exist.

2007-01-17 06:14:03 · answer #8 · answered by Lhynne 2 · 4 4

well, I dont have any evidence because I am not motivated at all to find it. I think he lied but I also think all presidents lie. What can we do about it? NOTHING besides voting against them. There have been worse leaders, there have been better. The only two presidents I have liked in my lifetime are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. So much for my opinion.

2007-01-17 06:17:14 · answer #9 · answered by babyj248 4 · 1 3

no since the military said they found 500 WMDs in Iraq

2007-01-17 06:34:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There is no such evidence, because he told the truth. Iraq did have WMD -- it used them. It was required by the cease-fire accord and numerous UN resolutions to dispose of them in an accountable manner, and did not do so. So, what happened to the WMD? They got moved to Syria in June 2002, where presumably they still are. They do not pose an immediate threat, as the Syrians are not equipped to develop or use them.

2007-01-17 06:14:44 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

fedest.com, questions and answers