For the liberals who continue to say 'bush lied for war".. could you cite your evidence?

Question

and if you are going to cite it, could you remember that the 'downing street memo's" were "destroyed" by the reporter that claims to have retyped the memo.

Is that really enough evidence of a lie? Or do you have something real?

----

(I also know most of you have never heard of the downing street memo's, even though that is the basis of your entire opinion on Bush. If that is the case, one word: Pathetic!)

Answer 1

It really doesn't matter whether he lied or was mistaken, or if he was mostly correct but his information was a few months old.

Congress approved the Iraq invasion and the occupation.
Hence, the war was legal.

Answer 2

How do you sleep 24 hours a day but still manage to ask questions on Yahoo.
His administration lied about many things including the Al Qaeda-Iraq link. Duh, Saddam was a secularist, what would he want with a bunch of religious fundamentalists.
They said saddam was buying uranium and trying to manufacture nuclear weapons. Umm, in case you just missed the whole Libby thing. Basically they exposed her cover because she told them the truth, not what they wanted to hear.
Just look. There is much more evidence if you look with your eyes open.

And of course you discount the Downing memo because it says that they were manipulating the facts to fit their policy. Even when the facts clearly didn't support their agenda.

"Although some elements of the US media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, no official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity, despite being questioned directly about it on numerous occasions. Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")"
Why would Tony Blair be commenting on something that doesn't exist.

Answer 3

Here is a good source for you, but I doubt that you will even read it. I'm guessing you are just looking for people to agree with you and say, "yeah, they have no proof".

http://www.bushlies.net/

Here is a sample for you:

The Bush administration repeatedly has constantly tried to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks. In fact, Bush submitted the following certification to Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq:

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.” This finding led Jon Stewart to quip, “Mr. Vice President, it’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.” (63)

In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence” linking Iraq to 9-11.

Answer 4

Yes he did.

"You're Not Stupid! Get The Truth" by William John Cox

"The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions" by David Ray Griffin.

"The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth" by Frank Rich

They can't all be wrong especially when you consider they cite resources.

Answer 5

Labeling people is more pathetic.

One doesn't have to be a liberal to see that Bush is wrong for this country. They just have to be realistic, something most labelers of liberals aren't.

But as another noted ...... you're just looking for people to agree with you. You might wanna go somewhere else for that.

Answer 6

Keep drinking the kool-aid! Bush's ship is going down and all you loyal Republicans will be crying about how unfair it all is. Stolen elections, signing statements, misuse of the Patriot Act; it is all coming out and this time congress has the subpoena power to dig up all the dirt. You have not yet become indignant, but your time is coming.

Answer 7

there is no evidence. Its only a matter of opinion. A poor one at that! Its incredible that some even think that Bush made it up all on his own! The wmd's, everything! Hey! You know he even plotted 9/11 too, right??

Pathetic.

Hey "Sassy"? Go knock on Syria's door. Of course a wmd will explode in your face, so watch out!!

"Bushlies.net" LOL!!! I cant believe someone actually admitted to using that! LOL!!!

Answer 8

once you asked a query approximately whether Fox information lie, I offered materials yet you chosen as ultimate answer a rambling answer approximately some thing that exceeded off till now Fox information even existed. what's the ingredient of you inquiring for data, you do not prefer data, you have already desperate on the respond till now you ask a query and prefer affirmation from somebody who thinks such as you. that's yet another best occasion of this, you have made up your recommendations in this difficulty and found Zimmerman harmless, till now the data has all been given and the trial has even finished. A closed recommendations is nearly a closed e book; in basic terms a block of wood.

Answer 9

If they had ANYTHING tangible (like a semen stained dress) they would've used it by now. There is NOTHING except the SAME bad intel the Libs are quoted as also believing credible--and are now trying to deny.

Answer 10

Yeah he said we were looking for wmd's. Where are they?