Democrats Pre-Iraq War View on WMD's and Terrorism. After all, under Clinton they amassed all the "intelligence". Remember, Bush was only in office 9 months.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
2007-04-12 02:08:11 · 14 answers · asked by George 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you can get a democrat in congress to actually make a statement, you will if you search long enough either find it to be an out and out lie, or a flip flop, which of course is a lie at one end or the other.
I think americans are lazy and or stupid to believe anything someone in congress tells them, and that stupidity showed greatly in the last election. Once congress discovered they could buy citizens votes with our own money, it was all but over. And any citizen who votes based on what the government will do for them are lazy and worthless piles.
2007-04-12 02:18:47 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If my memory serves me, it wasn't until AFTER 9/11 that anything was done centering on Iraq. A lot had happened in just those 9 months! More horror than had ever happened before in our nation's history. It's no wonder Bush felt forced to turn on somebody to blame in any way he could. It's a pity the war didn't turn out they way we all had hoped. But labeling & liabeling all Democrats liars does not get to the root of our nation's and our world's current problems with terrorism, poverty, hunger, and ignorance.
2007-04-12 02:21:43 · answer #2 · answered by Constant Reader 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush presented slanted intelligence about WMDs. There were none. He wanted to believe they existed. The hill gave him the ability to go to war if he deemed it necessary. They did not tell him to go to war.
Clinton had intelligence. Iraq was "working on", "developing", "pursuing" WMDs. Iraq did not have WMDs.
Bush was in office 9 months when 9/11 happened. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden is still out there. Iraq was a distraction. You can make a baby in 9 months. What did Bush do?
2007-04-12 02:34:32 · answer #3 · answered by NoahTall 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Kurds found WMD's didn't they? Yet every single Democrat spouts the lie that they weren't found. 911 was planned under Cinton's watch. Yet they blame bush for it. Under Clinton's watch the CIA and the FBI were not allowed to trade information. Yet they blame Bush for lack of intellegence data.
Democrats have to lie. each of their values, beliefs and policies are rooted in a lie. They can't help themselves. The party of the poor is run by the father of all lies. The more poor people the democrats make, the more power they have ... simple huh?
2007-04-12 02:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by Homeschool produces winners 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They were going on the same intel Bush was...neither lied, but had bad intel.....the difference is, once the real facts came tolight, Bush has refused to change course, which has left us in the middle of a civil war. I can believe what the Dems say because they are acting on it. They were put in office to end the war and they are taking steps to try and do that. Funny how you point out the Dems statements, but you don't point out the statements made by Bush, Powell, Rice, or anyone else.
2007-04-12 02:13:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Only elected Democrats? What about just Democrats?
2007-04-12 02:14:14 · answer #6 · answered by iraq51 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They all are dishonest to a certain extent on both sides,
its just that Democrats have no shame in outright lies, they
know their voters approve of their conduct..Someone forgot
about the 93 WTC bombing.
2007-04-12 02:21:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
initially, the in elementary words thanks to enact real substitute is to stay engaged and attempt to opt for extra acceptable leaders in case you don't love those in workplace. you are able to help a marketing campaign, donate funds, or maybe run for workplace your self. I agree, there are quite a few human beings in elected workplace which could no longer be there, extremely on the federal factor. that's the reason i extremely trust we could consistently have time period limits for Congress. Secondly, i'm no longer positive what you mean by technique of helping human beings in our personal us of a. in case you mean protecting them, imposing our borders, proscribing authorities regulation on business organization, conserving inflation low, providing sound infrastructure and conserving taxes low then I agree. on the different hand, in case you mean that the authorities should be providing issues for the folk at large then I disagree. the authorities must have little to do with providing different issues for persons than conserving them secure, providing for publis safe practices, judicial device, infrastructure, etc. the federal authorities could haven't got everywhere in social courses in any respect. Any social courses should be administered by technique of the guy states. States can opt for in the adventure that they need physically powerful welfare structures or elementary structures for taking care of in elementary words those persons that are extremely in want with the aid of disease, actual incapacity, or another catastrophic adventure. the authorities isn't the following to safeguard folk, it really is the following to provide and guard a secure & free ecosystem so human beings may have the freedom to pursue their lives free from damage and overly intrusive authorities.
2016-12-03 21:44:34 · answer #8 · answered by talamantez 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nixon. Watergate.
Nothing else you have to say means anything, since you implied that only Democrats are liars.
2007-04-12 02:18:41 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You really can't believe anything ANY OF THEM (Republican or Democrat) have to say. They actions speak much louder.
2007-04-12 02:11:57 · answer #10 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋