The very few Bush supporters left like to point out that democrats such as Hillary voted for the war with Iraq

Question

Why do they fail to mention that the reasons the war was approved was largely due to the lies or uhumm "faulty intelegence" presented by Cheney, Bush, Powell, and others, in their successful attempt to sell the war? Is it a memory lasp or just plain denial at work?

tcb~ still trolling at level 4? Nice of you to keep reporting me.

turboweegie~ Bush's family has long time ties to the intellegence community, recall George H. ran the CIA and when he was in congress he sat on the intell community, so I gave him credit to know when bad intell is around, also Blair has come underfier for the same thing, si it possible they wanted the war?

I am not saying that the democrats didn't utalize the same tactics when they were in the white house , but that was then this is today. FYI I am an independent voter, Libertarian when they have a shot, but Voted fro Ronnie the first time, being a NAm vet I voted against both Bill & George whom I lost respect for in their avoiding regular service

Answer 1

They are hoping people will forget. Their greatest strength has always been the stupidity of American voters (particularly the conservative and religious right).

I would like to think that they have gone to that well once too often, but I’m not sure we fully understand or appreciate just how stupid that hard-core 30% of Bush-bots really is.

Remember, these are, essentially, pre-Copernican morons who still do not know about biological evolution.

----------------------------


turboweegie-


Whoa there Maynard --

That is not true. You can call it true all you want, but it is just another Bush lie.

Think about it, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had (long before the invasion), quit even patrolling their shared borders with Iraq because, as Prince Bandar said, "why would we do that, he [Hussein] can't do anything to anybody".

-------------------------

Hey Larry.fowler40 --

Yet another lie.

It was not a few “pacifists” who opposed the war, it was most of the world - and the half of America - that wanted to pursue the real terrorists and who knew that, in addition to being illegal and immoral, invading Iraq was a stupid idea doomed to failure (which it has accomplished spectacularly) - knowledge available in the President’s own father’s book ‘A World Transformed’, and in Colin Powell’s statement to the monkey who would be President, “if you break it, you own it”.

Don’t insult the intelligent just because of your lack of knowledge and education.

_______________________

-----------------------------------------------

joevette ---

Did any of you go to school? Do you know how many years there are between 1998, 2001, and now?

You don’t remember Clinton bombing Iraq in 1998 and destroying ALL of Saddam’s WMD manufacturing facilities (successfully) and rendering your point moot, stupid, and dishonest?

Answer 2

No Paul it is no memory lapse. The Intel from Bill Clinton's presidency said the same thing about Saddam as did Bush's. Bill and his fellow Dems were saying that action needed to be taken and even considered sending troops (and they should have). There was Intel from about 25 different agencies from the US and abroad that all said the same thing so it makes since to believe it to be true and act accordingly. I for one don't think they Intel was flawed. Bush made his biggest mistake when he let Saddam know when we were coming while he tried to rally support for the invasion. He had to rally support to make the Dems happy but he should have just went in without the advertisement.
Gary I did go to school and I was actually over in the Gulf during Clinton's presidency. Clinton bombed empty training facilities and it did destroy them but they were empty. The point I was making is not an attack on bill but simply stating the fact that it was not Bush alone that followed the intelligence reports (right or wrong). Look at comments and recommendations by the Dems at the end of Clinton's term and see what they said in regards to this issue. I think you can find it on congress.org,

Answer 3

Paul although we don't agree on many issues, most times I do believe you are fairly honest in your positions. This is not one of those times. The intelligence is the same as what was cited by many before Mr. Bush was President including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid and others. The story did not change for Democrats until Mr. Bush took office and they have spent the last 6 years trying to rewrite that history. The problem is that their statements are a matter of public record. I accept that people have a right to their opinions and even to change their minds, but this contention is and always has been dishonest on the intelligence issue. Further it is a disservice to all thinking people to present the idea that the entire United States government and the United Nations were hoodwinked on this matter when their own statements prove otherwise.

Answer 4

Let's clear somethings up. There is a difference between who worked up the intelligence, who "pump up" the intelligence and who "served up" the intelligence.

That having been said,while I don't think , as one guy aid you are a schmuck, you do have a bad memory. Regardless of how we got the intelligence we all (Hillary, Democrats, republican, the media and yes we the people) were for the war after 911. Okay there were a handful of true pacifists (them I respect differ ideology but respect).

The reason it was so easy to sell the war was because those who had an agenda, (strategic, ideologically, oil based whatever) knew that there were two things you can always count on from Americans (fear and anger).

Afghanistan is what you get when Foreign policy and military action is based on fact finding, intelligence, cooperation and strategic planning. Iraq is what you get when you based for Foreig policy on fear and anger.

So, let us all stop trying to shift the blame. The fact is and I never thought I would agree with Pat Buchanan but he is right in on this one. "America can't fight a war without the support of the people Bush had it going in and he has since lost it."

But for the most part were all for then nd had i turned out different in that true American spirit, we would all have been right.

Answer 5

Pablo You know as well as I all the times action was called for By top Democrats during and Inclusive of the Clinton Administration. The UN, France, Germany the UK, Russia and China all said they were there. Saddam could have denied it but did not as well. He would still be in power if he said they were not there.


Bert T no credibility

Check out his wacko answer:


Is anyone able to substantiate the allegation that the United States did not acutally land on the moon in '69?


Bert T
………..If we had actually blasted down, this area should be a hole, or if it was rock, it should have been scrubbed clean of dust by the rockets.

This is the only thing that made me go, "WOW! I never even noticed that before." Hmmmmm........."

As for Nacy Pilosi

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

Answer 6

Hitlery was never my candidate. NEITHER IS RON PAUL! I love this country and KNOW that bother are wrong for our future. I doubt that a liberal voters would consider Paul. You guys must really feel desperate for votes to suggest something like that. And no, we are not afraid of Ron Paul. It is IMPOSSIBLE for him to get enough votes to get the nomination, THANK GOODNESS! Anybody that says Ron Paul is a top tier candidate is looking at emotion, is dreaming or just NOT LOOKING AT FACTS! How can a candidate that has about 1% of the vote on LEGITIMATE polls be considered top tier? Answer - THEY CAN"T!!!!!!! The only polls that Paul come out looking good are either biased, text-message type, Internet driven or from straw polls. NONE are legitimate unbiased polls! Sorry to burst your bubble but Paul is so far down that there isn't much below him. I highly doubt that he will get even one delegate at the convention. He will never have enough support to win ANY state. THESE ARE FACTS, NOT EMOTION! EDIT: Hey Jessica, Hitlery Rotten Clinton is has NEVER been a moderate! Don't insult our intelligence.

Answer 7

when a politician wants to pass the buck he must first point out those who backed the motion ,when a politician wants to point a finger away from himself he must point it at a figure as equally as powerful,

by not including the reasoning behind the action it is able to manipulate the actions justification.

the people of our great nation still don't get it ,before 9-11-01 bush was being mocked publicly. because he was a paper president elect.by that statement he is puppetable and with his past failures he is easily manipulated by those whose agenda he was pushing.

the reality of this current situation is that war is happening in the congress and the Senate ,weapon of choice during these times ,character assassination,political extortion,lobbyist secrets,miss appropriated funding for senate accusations,cooperate investigations where politicians control 40% of businesses getting government contracts.

because there is more focus on Iraq there is less focus on what is happening under our very noses right here in our own land, if the media don't wake up and realize that the f.c.c is not protected by the Constitution and free press is then we will have allowed our country to be sold out for a few to deepen their pockets, by that I mean the press is not to be censored by any government agency ,the government agencies that sensor the press can be indicted for treason under the constitution,the Truth will make them free .

Answer 8

Of course, we all remember almost EVERYONE wanted to go into Afghanistan. Repubs and Dems alinke. To say anything even vaguely thought to defend bin Laden, who ADMITTED he was responsible for the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, would brand the speaker as unpatriotic and the public would have taken them apart.

But where was Bush's concern for terrorists BEFORE Sept 11, 2001? He didnt have ONE intel briefing about terrorism from Jan 1 to Sept 1, he DID receive a report stating "Osama bin Laden determined to attack within the US", and did nothing about it, he received FBI reports about Muslims getting aircraft flight training, but apparently their complete disinterest in learning how to LAND those planes didnt mean much to the Bush administration.

You can blame Clinton all you want, but if HE knew, then BUSH should have known. So put the blame where it belongs

Iraq was a different story. The intelligence there was overwhelming

Answer 9

Whoa, bucky.

The intelligence Bush had from the US intelligence agencies was confirmed by other countries' intelligence agencies, and was a continuation of the same intelligence that Clinton used to justify a bombing campaign on Iraq in 1998.

There was no "lie", despite your desperate attempts to distort the truth. I don't have respect for people, who have to lie about events to justify their biases. The fact is the intelligence agencies assured him there were WMDs, and this was corroborated by foreign intelligence agencies.

You can call that a "lie" all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true.
---
Sorry, your convoluted tale about how he'd know it wasn't good intel doesn't hold water. Tell it to a gullible bubble-gum snapping liberal, don't try to sell that hogwash to me.

And if you're going to castigate Bush for the bad intel, why have you never castigated Clinton for the 1998 bombing campaign, or his continued oppression of Iraq from 1993 to 2001?

Bah!

Answer 10

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, ....." they keep saying the same thing in hope that if we are fed that crap enough we will swallow it. Even Bush said that you have to repeat the propaganda. The problem for them is that people do not care any more who did what, when. They want our boys home now and the Pres. is so blind because he refuses to see the truth. It is up to us to drive home the message that we are sick of this war and do not want any more of our boys to die. Attending the protest in D.C. next week is a good start.