Seriously. You can hate the war and think it was a big mistake. But here you have numerous intelligence sources telling you that Iraq has WMD's. He was given the intel. Senators Clinton and Edwards were given that intel. They all decided to trust that intel (that may have been a mistake - but a lie?).
So, our leaders trusted in the intelligence community, and made a decision that they felt was the best for America.
Once again, you can say it was faulty intelligence, a mistake, etc,etc (which undoubtedly you will). But the real issue is - how can you say it was a lie?
2007-06-18 06:46:07 · 19 answers · asked by Sleeck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wow, apparently not, lol. Appears their hatred has blinded them to the facts :(
2007-06-18 06:56:59 · update #1
Wow. Such hate.
Well, if the intelligence was later proven wrong, that is an entirely different issue. In fact, that proves my point. Being wrong and being a liar are two different things. Would that liberals could distinguish the difference - all of this hate is unhealthy
2007-06-18 08:01:36 · update #2
The tricky question here is this: does faulty intelligence equal a lie?
Someone who tells a lie does so because of two reasons: 1) they are purposely trying to mislead by giving out information they know is incorrect and 2) they are passing along information that is wrong but *think* it is true. For the first case, that is clearly lying.
The faulty intelligence here is the second case--there are people passing on information that is incorrect but they may or may not know it is incorrect.
In the intelligence field, when information comes across your desk you have to presume that your field agents have given you accurate information, especially when you receive corroboration from other sources. You then pass that information up the chain of command with the claim that the information is correct.
The confluence of events--11 September and faulty intelligence--combined to make a bad situation worse, and a majority of people agreed with the intelligence at the time.
Having said all that...let me then answer the question. Did Bush lie? No...he believed the information that the intelligence community gave to him, as would anyone in the same situation.
2007-06-18 07:08:37 · answer #1 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes and pray tell, when will the Right admit that it is a possibility that faulty intelligence was intentionally concocted?
That perhaps this apparently 'easy' war was planned a long time ago and all that was required was the justification, which aptly matched the national mood at the time - one of revenge and fear.
I have no idea if Bush lied, most politicians tend to - but on this issue, it's a damn scary possibility.
2007-06-18 06:54:57 · answer #2 · answered by (notso)Gloriouspipecleaner 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why would someone admit to something that is not true. Bush lied, and when he was done he lied some more. That is all he does. You saying he doesn't won't change the facts.
You can point out faulty intellegence that he was quick to embrace without double checking anything but that is not the only thing one should consider. He has lied about nearly everything not just the lie that got us into Iraq.
2007-06-18 06:52:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
You seem to be ignoring the "yellow cake uranium from Niger" statement that was proved to be false by our own intelligence.
Or how about the "high purity aluminum tubes for uranium processing" that our own physicists from Green River said were at least 10 times the diameter of what was physically possible to use for that purpose.
Both of these issues were proven false before the invasion and were used as propaganda to convince our congress to vote for the war.
You can deny it all you want but it won't make what you are saying true
2007-06-18 06:58:11 · answer #4 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush DID lie about going into Iraq. He told them that Iraq was a direct threat to America. They weren't. They never attacked us. Yet we invaded.
You can listen to whatever FOX News tells you, but at the end of the day, all you did was waste your time listening to propaganda.
2007-06-18 07:01:58 · answer #5 · answered by Jeremiah 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
why play the blaming game while we are already in a big mess?
do u like the fact that because of one man so many american boys are dying?
do u like the fact that a country is on its way to civil war?
we want peace which can never be won by this war.
2007-06-18 06:55:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Like the first poster suggested, read what Colin Powell has said about the intel.
He called it a "Chinese menu" of intel and was told to pick one and go with it.
If you never want to know the truth, you have every right to keep your head buried in the sand.
Just don't come here to try and convince us of the complete load of BS you happen to subscribe to.
2007-06-18 06:55:50 · answer #7 · answered by Josh 4 · 10⤊ 1⤋
I'm not going to blame it on the intelligence. Bush had a choice. He could have sought a dilpomatic resolution instead of taking unilateral action. We now look like the greedy pigs of the world.
2007-06-18 06:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by lei 5 · 11⤊ 1⤋
But who lied about the "no-bid" contracts? Who lied about Iraq having a bloody thing to do with 9/11? Who lied about the White House blowing a CIA operative’s cover?
2007-06-18 06:50:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 12⤊ 1⤋
everyone knows that Bush "forced" this war. The intelligence that existed was far from the type that was acceptable for a war. Bush knew that. It didn't matter. He WANTED this war.
2007-06-18 06:52:43 · answer #10 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋