Why is it so hard for some people to admit Bush intentionally lied about Iraq to get us into a war?

Question

What more proof do you need?

Answer 1

Because he didn't. And the Liberals' repeating it 5,000 times a day does not proof make.

Answer 2

If there were proof of a lie, it would be easy to admit it. Unfortunately for you, there is no proof because there was NO LIE. It was bad intell worldwide that led to the discussions, and Saddam needed to be taken out anyway.

Of course, we could have just waited for the UN to make a command decision and beg us to go in and do the same thing we did anyway, but they would still be weighing their options and there would be another 1/2 million dead at the hands of Saddam and his evil sons.

But that would be OK, wouldn't it? You only want to keep your compassion at home, after all...

Answer 3

All the PROOF that I have seen shows that the entire world was lying, including (Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Clinton & Clinton, & Al Gore) Maybe you are the one that needs to check the FACTS (proof).

Answer 4

The democrats got the same information bush got. They voted for the war and now denying it.

Answer 5

how can you Prove there was any form of pre mediatated lie made?The brits still hold to the idea that Saddam was trying to get the yellow cake. Right now though it seems conspiricy theories are the "in" thing, armchair intellligence experts, hindsighters, and what-ifs seem to be in very high supply as of late

Answer 6

I don't need MORE proof, I need ANY proof. You, along with the rest of the American-hating world, have provided nothing indicative of a lie. Get over it.

Answer 7

Ask the UN, Clintons, Kerry, Gore, Albright, et al. What more proof do you need.

Answer 8

It's politics!!! Just like the democrats! Both parties suck! PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE! Wake Up! Give Freedom ~ Libertarian

Answer 9

then President Clinton also lied about Iraq.

for example:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
{SNIP}

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
{SNIP}

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Answer 10

What do you mean? "More proof"? I have not seen ANY proof at all, not even anything remotely resembling proof.