2007-02-12 15:41:11 · 21 answers · asked by True Grit 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
.
The Libby trial is prooving what many have been saying for years. Bush lied. Our soldiers died.
Tune in next week to: "As the War Turns"
2007-02-12 15:44:35 · update #1
.
Supressing evidence that contradict your conclusion(s) equates to lying doesn't it?
2007-02-12 15:49:45 · update #2
-- Suppressing --
2007-02-12 15:50:18 · update #3
ask the survivors of the troops that have lost their lives. they would rather have their sons, daughters, uncles, Dads, Mothers, brothers, sisters, etc. back any day........ if only the truth had been told. They didn't have to die.
Lauren Says, inadvertently said it best when she said "only an absolute IDIOT likes war".
2007-02-12 15:53:09 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, soldiers do not have a choice, they DO take an oath to follow orders, so whatever. They are braver than you sitting behind your computer mouse. But to your question, if lying to start a war with a country that needs to be crushed anyway is a crime, then I say I WOULD LOVE TO BE GUILTY...
2007-02-12 15:50:16 · answer #2 · answered by M CEE 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A lie is intentional deception. Knowing the truth, but intentionally misleading someone. I would say since you know you are being fellated, then say otherwise, that is definitely a lie. Starting a war based on intelligence collected by numerous nations thinking it was correct, does not constitute a lie. Bad planning, yes, but not intentional deceit. So the former is the worse lie. As far as the worse effect in the long run......
2007-02-12 15:46:55 · answer #3 · answered by Tucson Hooligan 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It's just amazing how some of these people still not getting it. And believing, what Clinton did, justifies Bush's action, is beyond me. What Bush has done is a crime to humanity, just to get free oil, not to mention, his personal reasons. Defending this idiot, makes this group as ignorant as Bush is. They're still talking about EVIDENCE !!!!
2007-02-12 16:50:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
bush is an idiot..... except for the fact that he has realized that the only way to possibly save his administrations reputation, is to start a war. by this i mean that he realized that war = jobs and jobs = better economy. This war is his way of trying to save an economy that he flushed down the crapper when he first came into power. Noboy else (cuz brainwashed conservatives don't count as people) wanted this war. War in afganistan? sure they have osaama. War in Iraq? they did what? ohhh yeah they DIDN'T have WMDs thats right. Nobody else saw in the UN's report, "yep they deffinetly have WMD." Good to know that the UN is writing important information is bush's native language, idiot! Anyway Kudos to bush for fixing one mistake with an even bigger one.
2007-02-12 15:57:25 · answer #5 · answered by hauntingzero 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No-brainer: Lying to start a war.
Anyone claiming that lying about adultery (which Clinton was acquitted on, btw, granted on a technicality, though) is worse than lying to start a war is operating under a political agenda.
Oh, and righties... stop repeating that tired line that the "intelligence was good at the time"... no it was not!
Scott Ridder, a former member of our military AND a former WMD inspector who worked on our behalf under the banner of the UN in Iraq in the 90s was giving talks prior to the invasion pointing out the flaws in their "intelligence"... then you have the fact that Ambassador Wilson had informed them about the flaw in the intelligence regarding the Nigerian yellow cake "intelligence".
The administration cited portions of reports, aged reports, that pointed out WMD levels from questionable sources and disregarded portions of those reports that were not favorable to them (including one report from a former WMD scientist where he first gave WMD numbers and later in the report said that those were destroyed... the administration used his numbers in their claims, disregarding the fact that they were refuted in the same report.)...
So stop repeating that tired line. No one believed the administration's claims aside from the right-wing "news" media (i.e. talk radio and the tabloid channels like Fox) and those gullible enough to believe them.
It doesn't take much logic to know that their claims, which cited 1991 level WMD holdings at some points, weren't reflective of reality.
Edit: People die in wars. Death and war are tied together. You can't separate the war from the death. If you start the war, the deaths are on your head. Saying otherwise is silly.
2007-02-12 15:44:38 · answer #6 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
My morals do not operate that way. Adultery is wrong. Lying is wrong.
I do not believe Bush lied about the war.
Same deal about "suppression of evidence." No proof of this from Bush. Maybe Clinton.
2007-02-12 15:47:28 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
"Which is worse, lying about adultery, or lying to start a war in which people die?"
The worst one would necessarily be the one that actually took place and not the one which is just left wing rhetoric.
2007-02-12 15:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
People don't start wars for the people to die. You can't compare those two because adultery is for sex and sex only. Starting a war is to obtain safety and security hopefully in the long run. They aren't the same.
2007-02-12 15:45:45 · answer #9 · answered by The Small Elephant 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Why do you ALWAYS say "lie"?
Based on "reasonable" evidence, he decided it was the best thing to do. Why would anyone 'lie' to go to war? It's uneconomical, and only an absolute IDIOT likes war.
The thing between Clinton and Bush is they had similiar theories, but Bush actually carried them out. Except now everyone hates him for it because _______.
2007-02-12 15:45:22 · answer #10 · answered by Picard Facepalm 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋