How can anyone argue that Bush didn't lie and the Iraq war isn't illegal?

Question

Do they think there is no record of what Bush said about WMD on the eve of the war?

Do they think people like Kofi Annan don't know anything about international law?

sociald, your obfuscating answer is typical. Bush said he KNEW Iraq had WMD. Why did he say that when, as you admit, nobody knew? Indeed, the whole point of the inspections, which Bush ended, was to get to the truth of that.

So Moltar, if you get away with murder, it's not murder?

Answer 1

Whos gonna stop them? Government officials dont have to follow the law. And who changes the laws to prevent public corruption? The corrupt. So either way the average person cant do a thing about. Why are insurance companies aloud to terrorize victims of car accidents for years and years....Because obviously they can...because they are scandelous and dont want to compinsate the victims.All the laws in this country need to change.Our constitution means nothing anymore.

Answer 2

Did Saddam not use WMD'S against the Kurds of Iraq after UN sanctions were handed down to him? Where was Kofi Annan on that one? Our intelligence was wrong, it wasn't that Bush lied, he was mis-informed. You seem to think that Saddam was a stupid person because he wasn't American. He was smart enough to get rid of what he hadn't used on his people. Or did he only use what he had and just ran out of WMD's before the inspectors that he wouldn't allow in for some time got to inspect. Saddam was a bad man, though I'm sure you'll disagree. You hate Bush plain and simple if not for this reason it would be something else.

Answer 3

Well because every intellegence community in the world believed Saddam had WMD. Un inspectors could not specifically say Saddam didn't have WMD, seeing he wasn't fully co=operating.

So anyone who can claim they knew Saddam didn't have WMD are either better informed than any intellegence agency of any country in the world or about as upfront as Bush was.

As for the legality of the war, you can find an equal number of international law experts who will argue the case from both sides. SO the real answer is no one can 100% say it'a a legal or illegal war.

That's unless you want to make claims that mey be proven wrong..

Answer 4

I don't understand how anyone can argue that Bush did lie. To do so you must have proof that he claimed WMD's were in Iraq while he knew that they weren't. You might as well claim that all of Congress also lied about Iraq as there is as much proof that they voted for the war knowing WMD's would not be found. As yet, I've seen no evidence of this. As for international law. Are we or are we not a sovereign nation. The only law that matters in any way is US law. We will not cater to our foreign enemies by letting them dictate to us what constitutes legality.

Answer 5

Bush did say there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, is that a lie if he believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? According to the evidence, he believed that there were WMD in Iraq. There is no evidence to support that he knew there were no WMD in Iraq and that he lied about it. He turned out to be wrong about it. For him to be lying, someone would have to find evidence that showed that Bush knew of intelligence that said that Iraq had no WMD and that this intelligence was more reliable than any other that he had recieved.

As for international law, I do not recognize anything in the US constitution that says the US has to follow laws made outside this country. The US constitution is what the US will follow.

Answer 6

longhair im going to go over this one more time for you since your a bit .. slow.

Bush did not originate the information.
The Senate Intelligence Committe was given the same information.
Resolutions 660 clear through 1440 authorized action.
Not one member of the Senate voted against the war except Russ Feingold. The were all for it.

You know damn well you can find quotes from Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, as well as by many world leaders and from UN advisors saying it was believed Saddamn had WMD.

Since no one could inspect in Iraq there was no way to know he didnt.

You have not ounce of a thought of a semblance of anything even close to imaginable to stand on with your contention.
So ... repeating it just makes ya look... dense.

so your saying when everyone says they believe he has WMDs and Bush says he knows they have them... which of course I dont see your link showin that. then he lied...
who is obfuscating here??

Answer 7

If you stop to remember, the majority of the free world leaders and all intelligence reports pointed to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Sadam used them on his own people! Why do you think the UN weapons inspectors wandered around looking for them all those months? Is it not possible that Iraq disposed of them during that time since it was not exactly a secret the UN was looking? Bush didn't dream this up all by himself and was, by no means, alone in reaching this conclusion. If you read your history, you'll find there was more than ample reason to believe that they existed. Because of this I am of the opinion that Sadam outfoxed everyone and found a way to dispose of them.
As for Annan, he was the leader of what's become a spineless organization that, for the most part, is little more than an elite discussion group.

Answer 8

Son, you wisely mentioned it. "i don't comprehend"! you are not getting it. you have been fed the a techniques, a techniques, a techniques left lib hate crammed dogma. the rationalization why you are able to not comprehend is which you will on no account be questioning for your self. don't think each and every thing you pay attention on CNN or the dislike websites. issues at the instant are not as undesirable as you think of. try vacationing the international as many human beings do and notice in basic terms how lots the united statesis somewhat rich. additionally, undergo in strategies a president can purely do lots. there's a component called "exams and balances" interior the U.S. It assures the risk-free practices of the country from a rogue president (like Chavez in Venezuala). Your speech of contempt additionally must incorporate the dems who've a super section in any "problems" you are going to be able to think of are happening. As for the conflict. you're in basic terms spouting the lib mantra it fairly is taught in faculties everywhere in the country. it fairly is not an unlawful conflict. The U.N made infinite resolutions that the coalition enforced. era. Have a stunning existence in case you decide on for to stay in a pot of hate. lol

Answer 9

Hey this is the US we don't live under the laws of other countries. What the heck does Kofi Annan have to do with your question? Kofi Annan is a corrupt politician.

I guess you don't remember that all the intelligence gathered, including some from other countries like your favorite Mother Russia, all pointed to Hussein trying to get WMDs.

Or are your comrades in Russia and Europe lying too?

Answer 10

It's not a war. And, Congress approved the actions in Iraq.

Whether Bush was simply lying or just plain wrong, it doesn't excuse the individual members of congress from acting without proper information and necessary consideration. That's what they are there for. They should shoulder the blame, instead of passing it.

If you came home from school and told your mother that it's Johhnny's fault you stole from the 7-11 because he told you the owner doesn't mind...she would smack you for being so stupid.

Answer 11

Well freak, you certainly fit your namesake. You would turn our nation over to the likes of Annan? Of course, freaks think that!!! The only country in the world that has a Bill of Rights. You are a perfect dupe for enemies of the US. If you are American, that is.