If Bush lied?

Question

..about WMD, then didn't Bill Clinton also lie in 1998 and also Hillary after she looked at the exact same intelligence reports that Bush saw?

Seems everyone forgets about all the Dems who are on the record claiming the same about Iraq's WMD.

Isn't it more realistic that we gave Saddam too much warning prior to invading and he easily had them exported to Iran and Syria. Isn't that more intellectually honest?

Only one person can be honest about this, thanx danny.

The rest result to name calling once they max-out their intellect.

keep in mind, the same people who claimed he lied made the same statements based on the same intel then voted to invade.

Answer 1

I think the whole point is moot. Saddam was not letting inspectors in, after he agreed to, and as earlier sanctions demanded. If your kid is hiding something behind his back and doesn't want to let you see it, that makes it twice as suspicious, and then you REALLY want to know what he's got back there. Don't you make sure you check his hands, whether he likes it or not? Why should we have let a violent, sneaky dictator hide his hands behind his back?

Answer 2

This is your statement, essentially: "Democrats got the same intelligence and reached the same conclusion, so blaming Bush for misleading America is purely political." The conclusion is that if Bush was lying, they must have been lying too.

There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man:

(a) The issue is not whether people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there was any evidence that he had WMD (there was), it's the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to, the knowing exaggeration of the case for war (whether by cherry-picking intel or using defunct intel or by speaking about ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes).

There we were, more than a decade after the first gulf war, two years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. And then suddenly, he was the biggest threat to America. A threat that required a massive invasion. A bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin Laden. A HUGE, IMMEDIATE threat. It simply defied belief.

(b) In addition to the fear-mongering described above, the contention that Bush 'misled' the public is not simply about Saddam's WMD, but about the way the administration stormed ahead with their plans and invaded Iraq in the way they did, at the time they did, with the Pollyanna-ish visions they fed the world, all the while demonizing dissent and smearing their critics.

In both (a) and (b), the crux of the issue is proportionality. Whether or not Bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam was a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic actions (preemptively invading a sovereign nation) were decidedly out of proportion to the level and immediacy of the threat. THAT is the issue.

Answer 3

Saddam did have WMDs (chemical weapons) in the mid-1990s, left over from the first Gulf War.

The question was, did he still have them 6-8 years later, and did he have nuclear weapons. Different question, different facts.

Even if we believe Sada and the other Iraqi officials that Saddam moved the weapons to Syria before the invasion, how is it not a failure of the intelligence community that they only found out 4 years later when somebody wrote a book about it!?

Besides, even if we accept that it was acceptable to invade Iraq and depose Saddam based on obsolete intelligence, what does any of that have to do with staying there for 3 years after "Mission Accomplished"?

Answer 4

in case you're unwell of the final public opinion on Bush stunning you are able to now constantly pay attention to Limbaugh or Coulter... If that would not activity you there is proffesional activities, video games , pornography, romance novels, go-sewing golf equipment, pokemon or beanie toddlers. So, you spot you have many alternatives to listening to how Bush lied. (additionally, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scott Mekllelan, Andrew Card, Judith Meirs, Alberto Gonzoles and Donald Rumsfeld-they lied too).

Answer 5

what's clinton going to say back in 98? " Yep, Saddam doensnt have any WMD's, i guess we dont need any more weapons inspectors, or anymore UN sanctions, and we are no longer justified in enforcing the no-fly zone, and we have no more justification to bomb iraq".

we had saddam in a position that was very advantageous to us. and we wanted to keep it that way.

nobody, clinton or bush knew everything that was in iraq, but they should have had a very good idea of what was there.

clinton knew it was important to maintain the status quo. he had to claim that saddam was not in compliance whether he believed it or not.

--------
edit.

saddam was given too much warning and shipped out his WMD's. that's ridiculous. using WMD's to defend your country against attack is perfectly justifiable. why would saddam get rid of his best weapons when he knew that he was about to be attacked?

Answer 6

IF BUSH LIED?

They all lie. No politician is honest to those he serves. The higher their level, the greater the depth of deception. The Bush and Clinton cabals have run Washington for quite a few decades. They are equally nasty and serve their Rockefeller masters equally. These nasty folk are all equally guilty of games. ALL of these people are Masons, including Saddam. There is a rule among Masons around the world.

“You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons...and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him...It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations.” Ronayne - Handbook of Masonry, page 183

Saddam ticked them off and got into their bad books the moment he eyed oil interests in the Gulf. No matter how much we all take guesses though, we will never find out the truth of what really happened. We just know there was a lot of dishonesty involved. It would not have mattered if he had WMD or not.

Your political leaders under the yoke of their Illuminati masters, have been working towards invasion of Iraq for years and they set about to fabricate enough excuses to justify their actions to the American people. Iraq has even more oil than Arabia and the country is barely half explored.

IF BUSH LIED?

They all lie. No politician is honest to those he serves. The higher their level, the greater the depth of deception. The Bush and Clinton cabals have run Washington for quite a few decades. They are equally nasty and serve their Rockefeller masters equally.

In truth, when you get to this level, there is very little difference between dems and libs. They all follow the same agenda for change. These nasty folk are all equally guilty of games. ALL of these people are Masons, including Saddam. There is a rule among Masons around the world.

“You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons...and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him...It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations.” Ronayne - Handbook of Masonry, page 183

Saddam ticked them off and got into their bad books the moment he eyed oil interests in the Gulf. No matter how much we all take guesses though, we will never find out the truth of what really happened. We just know there was a lot of dishonesty involved. It would not have mattered if he had WMD or not. He had them ages before, they could be anywhere. We will never know the truth about WMD's.

Iraq for years and they set about to fabricate enough excuses to justify their actions to the American people. Iraq has even more oil than Arabia and the country is barely half explored. There is also the Iran factor. We Westerners cannot even begin to understand the politics of the Islamic world. It is all guesses and hearsay.

The wool of deceit is being pulled over the eyes of the American people again. First it was 911, the nastiest cruelest farce played on the American people. Somehow bin Laden became Saddam, and so you went on to Iraq. There is more involved than these men, more involved than just oil. NOW the same thing is techniques are being used to drum up fever against Iran. What we see now is a familiar pattern. Your trigger happy president is playing the same games to get American involved in a confrontation with Iran. He makes a case against any of these leaders then goes ahead with his plans no matter what he is advised. Of course Israel is involved but how, we do not yet understand.

Bush lie? NAWWWWWWWWWWW say it isn’t so? I thought he was a good Christian man!

Instead of analyzing how he lied in the past .. now watch for what he is doing NOW. Remember, you are fooled once, it was a lesson. If you are fooled twice, you are the fool. And Bush and his ilk are about to lie and attempt to fool America again!

Answer 7

Yes, that is intellectually honest if you ask me.

We did get some WMDs out of terrorist hands in all this. Libya, seeing how we pursued Saddam, gave up his WMD's. So, we did good.

Answer 8

Not everyone forgot, only Democrats & their allies in the main stream media. Do not expect intellectual honesty from the left. In fact don't expect any kind of honesty or any kind of intellect.

Answer 9

All I have to say is if Nixon was in office, I would trust him over George W Bush.
George W is finishing off what his Daddy, George SR, started...pathetic....is all over oil, not WMD.

Answer 10

Is it really a coincidence that the only 2 presidents in history that were assassinated just HAPPENED to be the only 2 who weren't part of the secret societies that really run Washington? Figure it out...