Why is it so hard for some people to admit that there were no lies from our President about Iraq?

Question

Just bad intelligence worldwide.

Show me proof that there was a lie; here is your chance.

Answer 1

Some people inhabit a funny little thing called REALITY.

In REALITY bush is a PATHOLOGICAL liar of EPIC proportions!

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

It is hilarious watching you fools that claim to believe him.

The FACT that you REFUSE to go FIGHT in the WARS he started just goes to show that deep down you really don't believe in what he says.

Answer 2

Why is it so hard for you to admit he lied?

Did you forget Wilson's trip to the Niger where there was no yellow cake, nor any centrifuges to make weapons grade material..Bush hated that report so much he had his aid leak
Valerie Plames name, a treasonous action! Now Scooter is a convict!

The forged documents provided by the British that Bush put in his speech knowing they were forged! THAT'S A LIE! The intelligence community PULLED IT OUT of his speech, but it was put back and given in his lying SOU!

Where are all the WMD's? The UN report from Hans Blix said he didn't have them before the war! In that report, the US had 6,000 pages redacted!

There were no terrorist from Iraq involved in 9/11, nor did they have anything to do with it though that is what George peppered the US with!

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. --10.22.02, Washington Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tQeBNjjFbQ&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNws6IG696M&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LwMTjeu5f4&mode=related&search=

Answer 3

Well, here's a copy of the indictment of Scotter Libby, which now been proven in a court of law that when intelligence offer by our CIA counter the White House claimed Saddam was obtaining Nuclear Ore from Niger for WMD program. Those field agents identity were leaked to the press, which can cause death to our Intelligence people. After knowing these facts the White House still claimed that Saddam was still getting yellowcake uranium from Niger to the public. This all public record. Lastly, the White House have always known about A Q Khan, the Father of the Pakistan Nuclear Bomb. They also know that he has given or sold those secrets to Iran and N Korea. Yet we are allied with Pakistan against the Taliban. Here read it...its good reading.

Answer 4

"the most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our number one priority. AND WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL WE FIND HIM." --George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I don't really care. It's not that important. IT'S NOT OUR PRIORITY."
--George W. Bush, March 13, 2002


On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, [phone], to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

hmmm. lets see, if the FBI can't get enough evidence to connect Bin Laden, then why the hell did we go to war? Didn't George W. say he was "attacking our freedom"

anyway there is the FBI phone number call them yourself.

good luck and God bless.

Answer 5

For starters, the White House was told--before the State of the Union address in which Bush claimed Saddam was seeking uranium from Nigeria, that no such events had happened.

Yet Bush continued to make that claim. That's a lie, pure and simple. And all the "spin" in the world won't turn that lie--or all the rest of Bush's dishonesty--into truth.

Answer 6

i guess you haven't read Wesley Clark's book or been following the Plame outing case. there was plenty of intelligence disputing the justifications for Bush's war agenda but the Bush admin only wanted to hear and present what they wanted to hear and present.

all GW ET AL had to do to void warring on Iraq was to allow the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job. however, attacking Iraq was a done deal, a plan to be implemented at the first "Pearl Harbor-like" opportunity as per PNAC long before GW was installed in the Whitehouse.

PS. the fact that PNAC was waiting and hoping for a "Pearl Harbor-like event" so they could implement their war on Iraq (and Iran) is why so many Americans consider the "9/11 Inside Job" conspiracy theory plausible.

Answer 7

Well, they sure did fire Tom Brokaw for not checking his sources when he said Bush was AWOL from the air national gaurd, didn't they? So what, maybe he didn't LIE, but why shouldn't he be responsible for NOT checking his sources before starting a war that was responsible for the deaths of countless thousands? He should be held accountable.

Answer 8

Oh there are so many!

Look at my link, I can't repeat them all here, not enough room.

Here is a good one though patriot...

enjoy - keep that flag wrapped tightly around your ears eyes and mouth too please, wouldn't want you to read or hear about Imperialism in Africa or slavery or HISTORY for that matter... remember Crazy Horse? No you don't... never dun red that huh?

here -

George W. Bush - "Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies."

According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq:

HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO GIVE OUT.

“had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended.

Iraq failed “to acquire long range delivery systems “to replace inventory exhausted in the Iran/Iraq war.”

The survey group “uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles” and “documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.”

Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.

“Initial, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety. . . [but] [a]ggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender compenents of the program.”

“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Bagdad resumed production of chemical munitions therafter.”

“With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995 . . . Baghdad [destroyed undeclared stocks of biological weapons] and abandoned its existing BW [biological warfare] program in the belief it constituted a potential embarrassment” which would undercut any ability to lift sanctions.

In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”

Answer 9

For me it is not about lies or politics, but about the fundamental worth of human life, be it American, Iraqi, or Somali. I'm honestly torn between whether the war is justified, moreso if it is even my place to justify it. The concept of war is at odds with me, especially the idea of preemptive war. Whether there were weapons of mass destruction makes no difference to me.

Answer 10

anyone can lie about WMD's being in a country, i really cant see a country move all biological and chemical weapons TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, also Saddam never harbored Al-Qaeda like they said, and remember that nice oil pipeline they HAD to put in right after