Of Bush's "lies". I've just read several more answers from Libs stating "Bush is a proven liar". What lies? WMD? That was due to the intel BOTH sides and many other countries agreed at the time was fact. If you have proof (not opinion) give it to me.
2007-05-05
08:24:50
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Cherie
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
Truth seeker--t#1 The WMD agrument does not hold water. Everyone believed it. He used WMD
on his own people. #2 To deny Huessein was part of the war on terror, would deny his past terrorist acts and documented past associations with terrorist organizations. Huessein paid
Palistinian homiside bomber's families $25000 and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists and the bombers
of the WTC in 1993. His committment to obtain WMD and use them against the US was well known.
According to the Deulfer Report of the ISG-Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US and the rest of the world. #3 If Bush invaded for oil, we'd have much lower oil prices by now. Not higher. If we wanted
to seize Iraq's oil we would've capture the oil fields and KEPT them with the 1/2million toops who were deployed during the Gulf War. #4--You're back to WMD? Doesn't hold water. See #1. Also note that former President Clinton concurred that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US national security.
2007-05-06
03:08:06 ·
update #1
#5--You're citing intel which everyone believed to be true--including the 30 other countries who were threatened enough to go to war with us including Spain, Poland, Italy, Australia, and
Great Britian. They had the same intel. Did they 'cherry pick' too? Most following quotes are from
OTHER PEOPLE....not Bush.
To answer your Question--no I don't need more, because you have not proven anything. Zip, zero, nada! The "top secret" papers you're referring to are the Downing Street Memos....if there was any
validity to them the MSM would be all over it. What you Libs are fixated on is this paragraph:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
2007-05-06
03:09:56 ·
update #2
You took one word (fixed) out of context and are trying to convince me that Bush lied on that? So basically, we have a third hand account of what the perception was in Washington and the word "fixed," which the lefty kooks have seized upon to mean that evidence of WMD's was being forged, instead of what it obviously means, that Washington was trying to justify it's policy Those same memos prove the Brits believed WMDs as well. Did you read them?
Nice try--I admire your persistence.
2007-05-06
03:12:31 ·
update #3
Poops--I'd give you #1--if Bush was clairvoyant.
2007-05-06
03:16:36 ·
update #4
Libs. don't count the Chemical weapons we found as WMD's, however his own people, the Kurds sure do.
2007-05-05 08:34:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ken C 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
He received the same intelligence that all Presidents get and made the choice to do what he did from it ... other presidents know when the BS is to thick to believe and act on.
BTW, there are tons of sites with many many more examples.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
--Zero Chemical Weapons Found
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
--Zero Munitions Found
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
--Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
--The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/
Bush: ‘We’ve Never Been Stay The Course’
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401707.html
"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.
Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties.
2007-05-06 00:46:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by friendlyflyr 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I say, let's find out! let's have a full investigation of just what actual intel we were in possession of and who knew of the intel.
In that way, we will know if Bush actually lied or if he was simply not in possession of good intel.
2007-05-05 15:55:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by afreshpath_admin 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
actually, no, many other countries disagreed, and knew the US was lying about the wmds. When they said so, they were by and large ignored by american media and ridiculed by the white house.
doesnt change the fact that bush lied, and millions of people around the world knew it was lies
2007-05-05 15:37:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Lie #1 - Major combat operations are over.
Lie #2 - Anyone connected to the outing of Valerie Plame in my administration will be fired.
Lie #3 - Military Force will be used as a last resort against Saddam Hussein
Lie #4 - I'm a compassionate conservative
The list goes on and on my friend. Don't let party loyalty to the repugs blind you to reality.
2007-05-05 15:29:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by PoopsMagee 2
·
6⤊
5⤋
the sign on the aircraft carrier said clearly, mission accomplished, but he removed that evidence too.
2007-05-05 17:04:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mission accomplished
WMD - he spoke of his new intelligence, don't try to divert. No one else acted upon the old intel.
2007-05-05 15:30:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
First you have to ask yourself what YOUR definition is of "lying"...
And then see Bill Moyers' "Buying the War":
It's on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQ1L0EuNoQ
2007-05-05 15:35:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sangria 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
What will you say when and if such proof surfaces?
2007-05-05 15:31:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? ? ? ? 3
·
5⤊
1⤋
actually it isn't only liberal who say that bush lies...only people who haven't been paying attention or are liars themselves think he hasn't
2007-05-05 15:31:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋