Is it an example of "hate" if I insist that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD?

Question

After all, these were his exact words and they are a bald-faced lie:

"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."

chump, saying there is "no doubt", when there obviously is doubt, is a lie.

jfk - which fact did I "cherrypick" - that obscure little one: THERE WERE NO WMD IN IRAQ?

Kate, I will blame anyone who lied by saying they knew Iraq had WMD.

Alex C - why not simply let the inspectors find them, if "everybody" knew they were there?

Answer 1

No, it is a fact.

Answer 2

The wheels of government grind slowly. no one needed it prove that the 'king had no clothing'. anybody, even the Bush Junta's worst critics was hoping they have been incorrect. yet you will not be able to concealed BS under a greater pile of BS invariably. Bush and organization began a conflict for no good reason and prefer a dogs chasing a automobile, whilst they caught the automobile, thus Iraq, they had no theory what to do with it. of direction the ineffective-enders of the GOP nonetheless deny the glaring and that they're going to till the democrats take administration of congress and the White abode. At that ingredient the investigations and the ratting out will start up. George Bush would be left twisting slowly interior the wind and his former allies would be saying..."George who?" No kiddin'!

Answer 3

Ah, the question that's been asked again and again by liberals everywhere in a feeble attempt to undercut the president's arguments for invading Iraq. "Where are the weapons of mass destruction we've heard so much about?" It's this sort of query which makes most thinking people shudder in disbelief. The rational view of the matter is that Saddam Hussein was a vicious, even psychotic man who not only possessed WMD but actually used them on innocent people. Every reputable intelligence source on earth knew he had them, including that of the U.N., which is considered sacrosanct by most liberals. The justification for the invasion was that Hussein failed to explain what he did with his weapons even though we gave him every opportunity to do so, and we couldn't very well wait around forever for him to live up to his obligation to come clean. The fact that we have found little in the way of actual, physical weapons of mass destruction since the war began is, therefore, irrelevant, but just try to get a liberal to follow that simple line of reasoning.

While a reasonable person might well ask what has become of those weapons out of genuine concern for the future safety of innocent people, a leftists' motive for asking this question is purely political in nature. We simply have to find those weapons, and if we don't then Bush is a liar, case closed. This assertion is, of course, nonsensical, but they repeat it over and over again anyway. It never occurs to them that a person can be wrong about something without being a liar. I'm not suggesting that Bush was wrong in this case, in fact, recent developments in Iraq strongly suggest that he was not, I'm simply pointing out that being mistaken and lying are two different things. Liberals also overlook all of the obvious explanations as to why we aren't finding huge stockpiles of WMD in that country, and leap directly to the most unsound conclusion for no other reason than they hate the president and everything he stands for.

That hatred allows them to feel justified in embracing the most untenable of positions simply because they are the exact opposite of what conservatives believe. Oftentimes the causes they champion are as harmful to them as they are to other people, but they seem to be perfectly willing to endure pointless suffering just as long as everyone else suffers along with them. I guess that's their idea of "shared sacrifice."

Answer 4

The fact that Saddam Hussein had WMD's is NOT a lie...

Have you ever done REAL research on the subject, i mean REAL research on the subject, not articles people write or statements congressmen give...

I mean, import/export records of Iraq between 1996-2002...

I wonder why Saddam bought hundreds of switches in 2002 for a small communications line which only needed a few switches...leaving hundreds of switches unused and uneeded for the project...

oh.. did i mention the switches could also be used as bomb triggers for the "al Samud II" missile and the "Al-Fat'h" missile?
Both Iraqi made missiles using Chinese + Russian parts, also documented in ink... OH and can i ask why, in 2001, Abd al-Wahab, one of Saddam's top appointed IIS security officials, while stationed at Iraq's Embassy in China, bought 10-20 gyroscopes and 10-20 accelerometers from an "unknown" Chinese company for $180,000 dollars used for the guidance and control system of both the "al Samud II" missiles and the "Al-Fat'h" missiles?

the Al-Fat'h can travel 150 km... and 32, UN reports state, had already been sent to army units in February of 2003.

the al Samud II can travel 160-193km ... Tehran, Saddam's target and enemy, is only 150km away...

according to intelligence provided by Kamal Mustafa Abdallah Sultan Al-Tikriti, Iraq's Secretary General of the Republican Guard under Saddam and one of the members in Saddams inner circle who surrendered to US troops in July, 2003 after war was declared on Saddam's Regime, "Huwaysh in the summer of 1999 gave a speech to the Republican Guard and SRG audience in which he stated that Iraq was developing a missile with a range of 500 km and that it would take five years to develop. At a June 2000 meeting, Saddam ordered Huwaysh to develop a missile with a range greater than the range of the Samud II"

Hey, one more bit of info i can remember reading about off the top of my head after researching this extensively...

While US coalition forces were traveling down a road in West Baghdad ... guess what they happened to stumble accross laying on the side of the street? ... a shell filled with mustard gas.

How about the 500 shells of sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq after in 2004...

(this is when the left started the WMD lie rumor) Democrats proclaimed the findings were NOT harmful, as Bush stated they were, because the findings were 15-18 years old, and sarin doesnt have a long enough shelf life to last that long...

however, scientists who did tests on the material concluded the findings were still in their "purist" form, rendering them still dangerous if launched in a missile warhead or if exposed to human cells... the reason they lasted so long even though sarin has a relatively short shelf life is unknown.. environment conditions or some sort of preservation method may have caused the chemicals to last so long.

So ... wait ... when exactly did bush lie? ...

"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."

you have to lie, to be a liar... theres not one lie in that sentence, so no you cant "hate" bush because of something.. that's just not true....

Answer 5

Just to let you know everybody in congress had the exact same information as president Bush. If you choose to blame president Bush for Iraq you must also blame everybody in congress who voted for us to enter Iraq including both democrats and republicans.

Answer 6

longhair,no hate ,but no wmd,s either is a bust...now in Iraq the shiiiiit is hitting the fan for bush,,,wmd,s is not the main feature now.its the failure of the u,s,a led security crackdown in Baghdad.decider

Answer 7

Bush did NOT lie. You are demonstrating hatred of Bush or ignorance of reality.

Answer 8

If there was no doubt, then instead of arguing about something you really don't know about, don't you think we should be worried about where they are now?

Answer 9

I don't think he lied he just had bad intelligence.President and Mrs Clinton thought they were there too.

Answer 10

Not hate! It's a refusal to look at the facts and live in reality! Plus, are you against other nations having freedom?

Answer 11

No, it's not hateful to speak the truth. But that's a particular truth that the Republicans hate, and rarely accept as true... in spite of the obvious. They go right back to that "book of lies" again; the same lies they tell themselves over and over to justify the unjustifiable.