Why does GWB get called a liar about Iraq and WMD's?

Question

I have often wondered why GWB gets all the blame for the war in Iraq. Don't get me wrong, mistakes were made and the top guy gets the blame and he should. However, top democrats made these comments:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons." Al Gore 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection program." Nancy Pelosi 1998

Should these people and other top democrats also be made accountable especially since many of these statements were made before GWB took office?

What do you think?

Well "Your Mom", if you were paying attention, you have to realize that democrats were making these statements before GWB came into office. It was an agenda being pushed by the Clinton administration in the late 90's.

And please, intelligent answers!!

Cassandra. Saddam Hussien did everything he could to keep the UN inspectors out and even made demands that he be given proir notice before inspections were to occur. The rest of your answer is gibberish. Back up your claims with facts not nonsense.

Guys, read the question before you answer. Many of you are just Bush bashing an giving no intelligent answers and in some cases contradicting yourselves all together. Please, INTELLIGENT ANSWERS!

btexpress...
shakes....
coulterbasher.....

Read the question and explain your answer. Or is that to hard to do?

Goodness, how many of you are this missinformed? How have you stayed alive thus far in your lives? LOL.

X

because they are not the ones calling a person a liar when they helped spread the same lie. Think before you speak.

Answer 1

Amazing isn't it? They all saw the same information. They all agreed. Now these same people who claim GW is the biggest idiot on Earth are also claiming that he 'duped' them.

Answer 2

I was going to answer this question, but having read the answers supplied by the people I stand with, that would be left wingers, Democrats and liberals, I would just be repeating the same answers. While I know it takes repeating over and over again to even make a small dent in the thick headed people who stand behind Bush, It's tiring to continually read the same answers over and over again, to the Democrats. I will only say this, all the quotes that are being thrown in our faces having been said by Democrats, were said before the inspectors went into Iraq and came back with a report that there were no WMD's, and so, while the quotes were stating that it would be dangerous if Saddam had these WMD's, they backed off when confronted with the proof that none existed. Unlike our President, who fired them and decided to invade Iraq despite the proof that he was given. So, now why do we blame Bush? Hhummmm.....

Answer 3

Qpid. Dont You think BUSH was WELL AWARE of The PLANNED WTC Attacks, ?? OF COARSE HE KNEW After Being INFORMED BOTH WTC 1 & 2 Were Hit/ON Fire, The JERK Just SAT THERE.. ANYONE that tries to Justify that other that HIGH TREASON, has stock in Halliburton, PNAC, AMEC, , or is Just Plain Ignorant !! Statements from 1998 about Iraqs Possible Left_Over Weapons (Supplied by U.S. to Invade Kuwait) were NOT FOUND, were to be Non Existent , stated when Inspectors Reported from Iraq before the BushCrimeSyndicate & Co...T Time, You are Absolutely about Dumbya being a MonkeyPuppet. He was "Placed" into the oval Office by The ZionistNaziNeocon-ILLUMINATI-Skull & Bones Society- Big Oil- Big Defense Contracts- and Daddys SICK Dream of a NewWorldOrder, a ONEGovernment, Total Rule and Global Domination. Bushe is a Liar, Condi Rice is a Liar, Herr Karl Von RovenNazi is a Flamer, Chainknee is showing signs related to Reptilian, The Israeli-Jewish-ZIONISTS are The MAJORITY of Bushies Gang of Thugs, These SCUMBAGS Include: Wolfowitz - Zelikow - Perle -- Abrams ---William"Queen Bee" Kristol -- Fleisher Bros. -- Richard Haas -- Pipes -- Gaffney -- Douglas Feith --- HEY !! When are You O'Liely, Hannphaggity BONE BRAINS Going To Wake T F UP ?!?!?!????? http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

Answer 4

Ok because the war in Iraq was being planned long before Bush came to power. The squabbling that goes on between the parties is just a smokescreen. They both have an overriding interest in securing the world's oil reserves for the United States and the only reason the democrats have been opposing more troops being sent to Iraq is because they are playing on the American publics emotions on the war to win votes. They will continously lie to the public in order to gain a few poll percentage points in order to run the country and then once they are in power they will turn around and say "hey you know what we really do need to stay in Iraq because of the threat of terrorism from the region." Its all a game but politicians are the only ones playing it. The public are merely spectators that are paying extortionately high prices to watch it.

Answer 5

Your declare seems to be: "Democrats have been given the comparable intelligence and reached the comparable end, so blaming Bush for deceptive usa is only political." the top is that if Bush grew to become into mendacity, they might desire to have been mendacity too. there's a pretend assumption underlying this argument, fairly that Dems gained the comparable intel as Bush (they did not), yet placing that aside, listed right here are 2 explanation why it incredibly is a straw guy: a) the project isn't no rely if human beings believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or no rely if there grew to become into any info that he had WMD (there grew to become into), that's the shown fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the info to hand, brooking no dissent and brushing off doubters interior and outdoors the government as cowardly or treasonous. that's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "deceptive the accepted public" refers to, the understanding exaggeration of the case for conflict (no rely if via cherry-selecting intel or utilising defunct intel or via conversing approximately ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). There we've been, greater suitable than a decade after the 1st gulf conflict, 2 years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. and then all of sudden, he grew to become into the main important probability to usa. A probability that required a huge invasion. an better probability than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin laden. a great, instantaneous probability. It in simple terms defied theory. b) to boot to the worry-mongering defined above, the rivalry that Bush 'misled' the accepted public isn't in simple terms approximately Saddam's WMD, yet correct to the way the administration stormed forward with their plans and invaded Iraq interior the way they did, on the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the international, all the mutually as demonizing dissent and smearing their critics. In the two (a) and (b), the crux of the project is proportionality. no rely if or not invoice Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam grew to become right into a probability, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic movements (preemptively invading a sovereign united states of america) have been decidedly out of share to the point and immediacy of the prospect. that's the project.

Answer 6

It is clear that many people have lied all around about Iraq and the WMD.

What is also clear is that it was GWB that decided to invade a country and much misinformation was put out within media to support such a move.

It no longer is a "Republican vs. Democrat" thing. It is just who knew what and who continues to lie and hind points of fact?

I have made the choice to vote the person vs. a party the next election - even if that person turns out not to be a member of either of those parties.

Answer 7

Despite the quotes from top democrats as some poster decided to collect and line up for us here, President Clinton still decided to use the U.N. and the international community's diplomatic means to put pressure on Saddam. It was these diplomatic means that allowed the UN inspectors to go in and make the determination that WMD's did not exist.
CIA said Saddam was not linked to 9/11.

So here is the difference. Clinton held off on making a bad decision on going to war despite his information.

Bush went to war knowing better.

Answer 8

I know the Bush deliberately lied about WMDs and Saddam's involvement in 9/11. This has been proven even though Bush says he was fed faulty info. He came into the white house after he was first elected, intent on attacking Saddam.
Bush cannot hold anyone else accountable for the decisions HE made, the lies HE told and the war HE sold. He is the president, the buck stops there.

Answer 9

Yet despite all the democratic AND republican (why didn't you include the republican quotes of the time?) rabble, cooler heads prevailed. Clinton instead went to the UN and applied diplomatic pressures which got the inspectors back into the country.

And what did those inspectors find? No WMDs.

There is a difference between saying something and actually doing something. Any politician can tell you that.

~X~

Answer 10

After reading those quotes, there's not much argument that you can't totally blame the Bush admin. So many Democrats wanted the war too. If you blame Bush for not making sure the intelligence was reliable, why not blame the democrats for the same thing. And don't tell me that they shouldn't have to investigate it that someone else should have. They are just as responsible for making those statements without the proper info.

Answer 11

The White House has been shown to be behind most of the faulty intelligence. That is, they used intelligence reports that the CIA, DIA, and MI 6 all said were uncorroborated and suspect at best. Cheney personally oversaw a cherry picking of information and played a game of leak-then-quote with the media, so as to appear like he had morethan one source.

True, the democrats were gullible enough to fall for it for some time, but that doesn't mean Bush and Co. weren't the culprits. The entire intelligence community had concerns about he intelligence but were silenced by the strong-arm tactics of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.