Why is it so hard to believe that Bush knowingly lied about WMD?

Question

Especially when he said this:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "

NO doubt?

Somehow that doesn't make me feel better...

msicord - the UN had an oil for food program because the US and UK, and ONLY those countries, refused to simply lift sanctions after no more evidence of WMD was found.

Inspectors were sent in in 2002 because Bush was threatening war.

US aggression was the ONLY thing keeping the issue alive.

And you provide me ANY statement by an international leader other than Bush or Blair who said there was "no doubt" Iraq had WMD.

Jim G - is there any evidence he moved the WMD to Syria? No. So why do you believe it?

Same reason you don't believe Bush lied. You are a sucker.

Answer 1

Once the truth came to light, Bush quickly switched tracks and said it was all about spreading "dumbmockracy" and "freedumbs".

I have enough trouble believing every word coming out of that lying SOB.

But hey...!

If the next President comes to power and is a Democrat, gets caught in a lie, we can say: "If Bush can get away with it, why can't s/he?"

Answer 2

Enough with this bogus and inaccurate lefty talking point. Bush and all the other Senators and members of Congress (including your beloved Mrs. Clinton and Pelosi) acted in unison on information they received at the time, and for the most part were in agreement about WMD's, some of which, and evidence of, were found.

Answer 3

Well once again someone hears only what they want to hear.
Eveyone thought they had them to include your democrat leaders also. And the Intelligence was presented at the time by President Clintons Intelligence Director.
Please see webpage below and you will see that EVERYONE was wrong,not just President Bush.
Facts are a wonderful thing, and President Bush already addmitted that Intelligence was wrong.

Ok he is asking for words from a foreign leader, will this suffice? And this is from a Liberal minded guy also.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Answer 4

i fairly trust it. I keep in innovations the run-as a lot because the warfare, besides because the numberous UN weapon inspectors reporting they did not locate something in the course of the finest years of Clinton's administration. i trust Bush and Cheney went into place of work with the point of searching a fashion to justify "taking Saddam out." The 9/11 assaults gave them an beginning, and via suited spinning the WMD intelligence, they managed to persuade the yank human beings and Congress. I thoroughly trust Bush and his administration deliberately misrepresented the WMD intelligence as a way to whip u . s . of america into an anti-Iraq fervor. keep in innovations, we the widespread public under no circumstances see those intelligence comments. We in simple terms listen what the administration tells us they say.

Answer 5

One main reason: EVERYONE ELSE CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.

Why did the UN have an oil-for-food program if Iraq had already met its obligation to verify that its WMD program was dismantled? Why send inspectors in to find the WMD when there is none there to begin with? Why would the UN sanction Iraq if they had already met their obligation under the 1991 ceasefire?

The point is: everyone assumed Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD. Look at all the statements made by both national and international figures before the war. No one doubted Saddam had WMD, there was just no consensus on how to proceed and deal with it.

Answer 6

Its not hard at all. Its just people who have made up there minds that no matter what evidence comes out George Bush can do no wrong. They refuse to see an apple as an apple.

Answer 7

I think it is a better question to ask why you assume he knowingly lied. He was wrong. That is obvious. But the majority of the experts believed the same things. How do you expect Bush to know more than the experts who were his sources?

Answer 8

There is no doubt and obvously you are too blinded by your misguided hate to see that Saddam moved all that garbage to Syria. So get your head unlocked, wake up and smell the coffee. If Bush lied, so did Clinton, Kerry and Gore. Quit being so damn hateful and look beyond what the biased media ON ALL SIDES are saying and look for facts.

You need to quit smoking crack and wake up. Its hate like you are spewing that helps to drive this nation apart and give our enemies usable P R.

Answer 9

Bush told his biographer in '98 and '99 that he wanted to be a popular war president by invading Iraq. Given that, any excuse to go to war was a good one in his small, twisted, mind.

Answer 10

It isnt hard to believe at all. I think Bush and his cronies would lie in a second without thinking about it if it served them well and only them.

Hes one of the dumbest, ignorant, manipulative, fake, and crooked people I know him to be...and he's our President! (makes it even worse)