Do you believe Pres. Bush lied about Iraq?

Question

Subject: Bush Lied??

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair minded person that I believe you to be--, PASS IT ON TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!!

Answer 1

That was the intelligence report Bush received, and all the
other congressmen saw the same report and most all voted
to invade Iraq. So, if Bush lied - - then so did the rest of the
bunch in D.C. I think you've nailed it with all your well-
documented evidence above. Nancy Pelosi was for sending
more troops to Iraq when Bush was against doing that, but now
that Bush is for it..all of a sudden she's against it. Yes, you've
nailed them......."two tongued philosoophy of Democrats".
Why don't we get as angry at the enemy as we do of the U.S.? Just heard today they killed kids and teachers in two
Elementary schools. What kind of murderers are they? They
also wore American uniforms to fool our military. We've never
encountered an enemy as dirty as these fellows are. Let's get
mad over them killing innocent children on purpose.

Answer 2

You are in Iraq for two reasons
1- It has the third largest oil reserves in the world
2-To put in bases to protect Israel You know Israel don't you. They are the friend of this country who in the 60s with LBJ did their best to sink the USS Liberty
Both parties are the same They have been that way for years. Both have sold out to the Cooperate elite in this country. If you want to know the real reason for most if not all wars read Generals Butler book "War Is A Racket" By the way General Butler won the medal of honor two different times

Answer 3

No one lied. Bush acted on the basis of intelligence, reports and evidence he was given, just as the Democrats did. Once it became evident a big mistake had been made, Democrats called for a withdrawal and Bush decided he'd rather stay there and bring democracy to Iraq, fight insurgents, protect the oil supply from the "turrurists" and whatever else the reason of the month was. Democrats made their mistake, admitted it and were ready to correct it by withdrawing our troops on a realistic timetable. Bush wouldn't admit his mistake, went on making more and will continue doing so until he is finally restrained. Which I hope will be soon.

Answer 4

I am so sick of you people regurgitating quotes from Dems before the war. They got the same intel Bush did and we all know it was flawed.

The bottom line is this: BUSH made the decision to go to war. He is accountable for the results. Congress approved conflict but did not technically declare war and that was based on the administrations direction.

And beyond that, Bush and his people ran the war which has been a miserable failure.

Its funny how the party of personal responsibility and accountability won't even hold their own leader to those standards.

Answer 5

I believe he had the ability to confirm or deny everything you've posted above, but twisted it to fit what he wanted to do. I have no problem going to war, and believe our footprint in Afghanistan is woefully inadequate. That's the right place to be - to fight the people that attacked us.

Saddam was a bad person, no one would deny that. But why him, then? Why not Kim Jong Il? He has the delivery means to hit our west coast now, not in the future. There are just too many inconsistencies with the administration's run-up and conduct of the war. That's the problem I have with them.

Answer 6

no, He most certainly did NOT lie about Iraq. We had every reason to attach Iraq, it was a matter of national security. Iraq was ABSOLUTELY a threat to the USA. Saddam was an evil, brutal dictator who was a theat to his own people, and the people of the middle east.

History will show that we did the right thing. President Bush did what he HAD to do! And the House vote was in agreement with him and gave him the power to act.

Answer 7

it was the intelligence report (that bush put pressure on), that spread the allegations that EVERYONE in congress believed. The most recent quotes come from BEFORE the invasion that revealed that Saddam didn't have any constituting an 'Arsenal'

And during the Clinton years, it was the REPUBLICANS in congress that BLOCKED any actions against the Middle East.


Those quotes don't contain even a hint of their original context.
Try to fact check your stuff next time ;)

Answer 8

The President ran with the reports that fit his agenda. He also passed those reports onto the House and Senate. Plenty of ex-CIA officials have come out and said such. Bush was itching to get into Iraq, and boy did he ever. He ignored reports that said Iraq no longer had viable WMDs or a viable weapons program.

You should ask yourself why, even after Al Qaeda took responsibility for the WTC attacks, Bush pushed for them to find ANY link between Iraq and the WTC attacks.

Answer 9

the government admitted that the were wrong and that they lied...the difference is clinton and the others you listed DIDN'T GET US INTO A WAR!

however bush did, because "they were a threat to america" wrong! they were not threatening america nor were they a threat to us...the highjackers from 9/11 which is what started all this in the first place weren't even from iraq..we've gotten ourselves stuck in a place we can't get out of...

Answer 10

Wow...great STORY...but uh...was I the only one that heard BUSH HIMSELF say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...ok...so the weapons of mass destruction lie didnt work...then it was getting Iraq "freedom"...then it was getting the people of Iraq to vote...then it was..."OH WE FOUND WMD's"...but they were like 30 years old...then it was "We found Saddam Hussein!" then they executed him...then we have thousands of troops dying for what exactly?...I thought we were looking for Bin Laden? This was to be the Hunt For Bin Laden...so how did we get to THE WAR IN IRAQ if Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11??? Our purpose was to find BIN LADEN!!! when will you republicans get that?