Fact A: Bush told Americans that there Saadam was making WMDs. He did this based on information gathered by various inteligence agencies around the world. Almost the entire western world was saying the same thing.
Fact B: We have no found WMDs in Iraq
Fact C: I lost the remote the other day. I, however, am confident that though I can not find the remote, the remote did in fact exist.
2007-03-25 15:17:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because it fits their template: Republicans hate people, are liars, and cheat. Liberals start with their preconceived notions and fit the facts to them.
2007-03-25 15:23:02 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 8⤋
What a ridiculous comparison.
Bush was 100% that there were stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that presented a viable threat to the people of the United States. No one denies that those weapons were, in fact, there at one time - however, Clinton's policies seem to have worked toward the goal of ridding Iraq of WMDs, since BUSH WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY.
While I am not convinced that Bush necessarily lied (as opposed to just being criminally negligent in using old, outdated intel to start a war), the fact remains that the man started a WAR, and people have DIED, based on information that was absolutely incorrect.
Unless your remote control has a "kill people" feature on it, I don't see how you can possibly compare the two.
2007-03-25 15:28:45 · answer #2 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
the fact that you lost your remote the other day and now you can not find it is not a very good comparison, for one you did in fact have the remote the WMDs for example never did exist. Fox news reported that a huge chemical weapons factory had been discovered, just three weeks later fox news reported that weapons grade plutonium possibly found there, neither the factory nor the complex actually existed.
2007-03-25 15:37:11 · answer #3 · answered by helterskelter_beatles 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lying is saying something is true when you know it to be false.
Bush could have been lying. He could have been honestly quoting a lie told by someone else. He could have misunderstood what he was told, or what he was told could have been mistaken. His information might have been accurate at one time, but was out-of-date a few weeks later. It's even possible that everything he said was true, and simply cannot be proven. Absent an admission by him that he intentionally lied, we'll never know for sure after the fact.
It's amazing to me that so many people are hung up on this issue when it makes no legal difference, and no practical difference given that it's all past.
2007-03-25 15:27:49 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh boy, somebody finding for a controversy. - don't recognize that he ever denied desirous to invade Iraq. - The WMD info presented became in the process the CIA and FBI, he overtly shared this info with congress (inclusive of democrats). do no longer forget approximately, maximum all and sundry in Congress voted confident in this conflict. - Are you extreme regarding the inspectors? They have been decrease than UN no longer US governance and he had 0 ability to reserve them out. The IRAQI's consistently unfavourable inspection and did no longer enable get right of entry to to those web content that have been of optimal undertaking for WMD production. do no longer forget approximately - Suddam killed tens of 1000's of people interior the previous decade. individually, the top of this genocide became reason sufficient to invade. - WMD weren't got here across on the levels that intelligence pronounced, yet chemical weapons have been certainly got here across. no person quite likes to talk approximately that actuality. no longer so ironclad.
2016-12-15 08:52:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have 2 in one hand, and I have 2 in the other. I just jumped to the conclusion that I have 4.
Same thing goes with Bush. By the way, he didn't say Saddam was making WMD. He said he KNEW Saddam HAD WMD.
And NOBODY in the Western world was saying that except Blair.
Your revisionism is a joke.
2007-03-25 15:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Bush may not have lied. He held perhaps four intelligence estimates in his hands. Three said no Nigerian connection. One did.
Guess which one he chose to mislead the people with?
ps: I hate those darned remotes. Need to strap it to the tv...but that sort of defeats the purpose now, doesn't it?
2007-03-25 15:21:40 · answer #7 · answered by powhound 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because I am smart enough to know that you have made a ridiculous attempt at an analogy. Your fact C has no comparability to the Iraq situation.
2007-03-25 15:24:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush did lie, few doubt that.
2007-03-25 15:27:18 · answer #9 · answered by Villain 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋