Why do years of no proof whatsoever, do some people still think that G Bush lied about Iraq?

Question

It continues to amaze me that after years of only making claims by leftist groups that George Bush lied about starting the Iraq war without ever producing one shred of verifiable evidence that so many people still hold on to the myth that our President lied about this. Heck, even the 9/11 Commision report, as biased as it was did not support such a theory. Are people just that full of hate or what?

Answer 1

When you are the leader of a nation and you invade another against the wishes of the UN, every single reason for your invasion must be proven true over time.

I'm not saying Bush lied about anything, but his reason for invading Iraq (WMD) has not been proven.

Answer 2

not one reason that bush gave for going to war in iraq has been true.

he frightened americans with the prospect of 'the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over an american city,' and then lied in his state of the union address when he stated that iraq was trying to obtain yellow cake uranium from africa.

don't sit there and pretend that events on the ground in iraq somehow give you a retroactive reason for going to iraq.

we now hear about what a terrible dictator that saddam was and are asked the rhetorical question 'are you happier with saddam in or out of power' as if that had the slightest thing to do with what our president stated were the reasons for going to war with iraq.

i'd also like to point out that the administration stated clearly and for the record that this war would take a few months and probably not even cost $60 billion dollars.

to be blunt, i'm having a problem find a single thing about the iraq debacle that has been handled in a straightforward and forthright manner.

not one decision related to iraq has been even right minded.

never has such a tremendous blunder been perpetrated by such low minded, arrogant idiots.

Answer 3

Let us say you are telling the actual truth, why hasn't the same people with your 'leader' from the beginning, such as Gen Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and others have not come to the support of your 'glorious' leader? Plain blind loyal Bushie mentality.

Answer 4

Why did we go to war in Iraq?
WMD? We haven't found any. Not after four years of searching.

To go after terrorists? The only instances of Al Qaida in Iraq were reports of possible contacts between the Kurds (who were our allies). Other reports of contacts between high level Al Qaida and Iraqi government officials were all discredited.

Because Saddam WANTED to get WMD? We didn't go to war over Israel, South Africa, India, China, England, France, Pakistan or North Korea developing nuclear weapons.

Because Saddam used WMD on Iranians and Iraqi(Kurdish) civilians? Yes, he did. He used weapons given to him by the Untied States government headed by Ronald Reagan, with direct assistance from this guy named Donald Rumsfeld. Maybe you've heard of them?

Because Saddam had a direct link to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01? About three quarters of the people who voted for Bush in 2004 believed that one, but even he admitted (on one single occasion) that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaida. Meanwhile, using a common advertising technique called "linking," he and his administration have linked Saddam and Al Qaida on thousands of instances.

Because invading Iraq was going to cost significantly more than we were led to believe? Before the invasion, Republican talking points were that the war would cost fifty billion, with the US withdrawing forces in six months. The president himself didn't say anything that precise, though. However, when the GAO put out a report that it would cost over three hundred billion dollars, the director of the GAO was fired.
Too bad, too. The GAO now says the war will cost us around two trillion dollars, all told.

Should we be upset the president ignored the advice of his non-political advisors? The State Department warned there would be serious difficulties in an invasion. George H W Bush spelled out the reasons he refused to continue the march to Baghdad during Gulf War I. The first set of generals said they needed a half million troops to win the war. They were fired. The second set of generals said they needed a few hundred thousand troops. They were fired. Rumsfeld the Sec Def said we needed 140,000. The last set of generals said we needed 140,000 troops. They kept their jobs. At least until things really hit the fan, when 140,000 troops weren't enough to keep a lid on the security situation.


Lastly, because invading Iraq drew forces and resources from fighting the war on terror in countries and areas where there WAS a serious threat. Even more than that, the war in Iraq and the scandals that have come from it have drastically reduced the prestige of the United States, turned world opinion against the United States, made international cooperation neccessary to stop international terrorists less likely, and broken the United States military, as WELL as given the world a blueprint in how to defeat the United States in an armed conflict.

So, aside from the fact that so many people predicted the end result of the invasion of Iraq would be a terrible charlie foxtrot (people in the GOP, too), why should we hate the president?

Because, even with an approval rating of 30% and the voters turning out his party in force in the 2006 elections, he STILL doesn't think he's done anything wrong.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud.

Answer 5

Did you pay any attention to the Libby trial at all? To make a long story short Cheney knew the yellow cake uranium story was bogus before Bush gave his 2003 SOTU Address, in which he still used that intel to convince us of the need to attack Iraq. Even the CIA advised against using that intel to prop up the reasons for this war. But they used the intel anyway, and you don't think that is lying to the American public and to Congress? Please. No one was really surprised either, imagine that. Many of us have heard enough of the rhetoric and now heard enough of the facts to get the distinct impression that we were all taken for a ride by this Administration. Libby's trial just confirmed it. I'm not full of hate, I'm full of contempt and disdain for an incompetent and arrogant President who has no conscience about lying to the American people who put him in office. If just one of the reasons he gave for going to war turned out to be true, he might not be held in such disfavor by the American public. Just ONE. He knew about Tillman and allowed that lie to continue as well. Stick your head in the sand if you must, but most of us care very much about the truth and we haven't been seeing a whole lot of it from this President.

Answer 6

Why did we go to war...
This time?
Weapons of mass destruction? The UN was looking for them. Nothing found but 25 year old gas that would only cause a rash at worst.
Potential for making weapons of mass destruction? Tubes found that were not fit to make weapons?
Sadam was a sadistic barbarian, look a Dofur. Ethiopia, .....There was order in Iraq....
To rid Iraq of Husain.... He is gone... we are still there...
And the best one yet.. Iraq was behind 9-11.
Now Bush states he never said this and it is a ludicrious statement.

Lying? Deception?

Halabutin does like their new headquarters though and the oil companies and energy companies are doing well.

Answer 7

Colin Powell lied in his presentation about the Mobile Weapons Labs, as they had already been classified as erroneous information by the CIA.

Britain downloaded their presentation from the internet and plagiarized a college students essay on Iraq's pre-gulf war WMD from 1992.

George W Bush claimed that he had evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program, but it did not exist.

Any more stupid questions?

Answer 8

I believe that GW has built up such an agreeable government over the years that no one can bring him down. Therefore he appears to do no wrong.
The improvement of Teflon sees no bounderies.

Answer 9

Bush made a claim that there were weapons there... it's up to him to prove that they were there.

How do you prove something didn't exist? You only prove things did exsit, which Bush has failed to do. Not one verifiable piece of evidence has he provided to back up any of his claims?

You can say ANY crazy thing exists, but you have to prove that it does, not prove that it doesn't exist.

and this has NOTHING to do with the 9-11 report in any way? that was about 9-11, this is about WMD? try reading it sometime?

Answer 10

Then where are the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had? I never saw tehm paraded about to show the whole world there was something there.

Even Colin Powell has ratted out Bush