No...Bush will not acknowledge Soldiers that have died, been maimed, or just returning. He is only nice to the Soldiers that are on their way over to Iraq. All smiles and handshakes then.
2007-04-13 03:35:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ugly Betty 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
Commanders dont apologize for command decisions.
Bush only lied in the little minds of libs like you that cant see the big picture.
A. Bush doesnt work for the CIA or any of the other surveilance agencies of other countries that all said the same thing: SADDAM HAS WMD's.
B. The UN prior to 2003 itself voted unanimously that Saddam was hiding something about his WMD program because he wasnt allowing UN weapons inspectors to fully do their jobs not to mention the 17 security council resolutions he violated since 1991. If he had nothing to hide and was such a great guy, why all the deception and defiance?
C. We have satelitte evidence of heavy traffic in and out of facilities on nights prior to a UN weapons inspectors visit. What do you think were loaded on all those trucks?
D. Not only were the American people wanting the war, so were democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who stood on the floor of the senate and made a case for WMD's in Iraq based on what the intel and their own advisors said, not anything Bush said.
E. We did find 600 canisters of sarin gas in April 06, so your asertion that we found nothing is false.
Tell your friend he is a greater American than you. If anybody should be apoligizing to him its you for trying to undercut the reason he went over to begin with. Fighting tyranny is always a just cause whether its communists, imperialists, or islamicists. And people like you only make our country weaker when you mindlessly hate our leaders and cant examine the evidence properly.
2007-04-13 03:54:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It amazes me that all you people that want President Bush to apologize for lying always forget that President Clinton was also saying the same thing about Saddam Hussein and his potential for WMD's. President Bush didn't just sit in the Oval Office for 6 months making up a list of possible weapons, he looked at the intelligence reports from officers that were working when President Clinton was in office. I'm sorry about your friend's arm, but you need to do more research before you start bitching and calling my president a lying monkey.
BTW if we are going to use your standard of "when Clinton lied nobody died " then as a nation we are truly screwed.
2007-04-13 03:59:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by rmoss9686 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
I dont believe he should any more than Pelosi,Reid,Clinton and the rest of the bunch should, they all believed and said the same stuff,because they all had the same intelligence.
The US policy on regime change in Iraq was signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton based on the same intelligence.
At least Bush has admitted that the intelligence was wrong.
I am here for 2nd time and I am sorry about your friend, but your friend joined the MILITARY, and the military fights war, and that is the risk we take when we VOLUNTEER.
Please read all the "lies" as you call them on Iraq. It is quite interesting to see who is really lying or at least flip-flopping.
2007-04-13 03:42:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jon B 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
your right (when Clinton lied nobody died)and (when bush lied thousands of people died)and also bush will never apologize because its his way or the highway but he does need to apologize to the American people and the family's who lost their children for a war about oil not nuclear weapons cause they are nowhere to be found after how many years has he been looking for them
2007-04-13 03:29:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Eddy361 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Bush made the best decision based on the information he had. Bad information is not the same as lying. Lying is when you know the facts and say something else.
9/11 happened because we didn't understand what the worst thing that could happen was. Nobody thought terrorist would turn our passenger jets into missles. Bush decided he wouldn't make that mistake twice.
Will you quit reading your MoveOn.org talking points and think for yourself.
2007-04-13 03:27:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
First you need to have a "Lie" not just the political theater driven "Bush Lied Label" I also know people who were wounded and died and will be waiting for an apology from the Elite Leftist that use their service as failure for political posturing in Congress.
2007-04-13 03:28:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by garyb1616 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
I renounce in want of my pricey buddy vp Chaney. he's the perfect and the in elementary words one which has the stress of personality to unite each and each of the folk in u . s . a ., inspite of celebration, colour of epidermis, factor of training, if any, faith and economic status in our society, if any. he's the guy you want to take with you at the same time as searching for truth, quail or severe beliefs. yet, a deferential distance and stance seems suitable -a bullet-evidence vest does no longer damage, both..
2016-12-03 23:12:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think he's smart enough to know he's lied. People give him too much credit for being that crafty. I personally think he's just a 10-stepper whose latest crutch is religion, and who had the advantage to grow up privileged with a pretty intelligent father. End of story.
2007-04-13 03:49:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Not so looney afterall 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
It's like that other George, Jerry Seinfeld's friend Costanza, put it: "It's not a lie... if you believe it." Who is more dangerous, the man who is told lies and doesn't know they're lies, and believes them; or the man who knows he's lying and doesn't give a damn? In other words, who is more dangerous, Bush or Cheney?
2007-04-13 03:31:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋