English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

no basis of facts where is your actual proof ?

2007-06-30 19:52:15 · 6 answers · asked by josh m 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Ya john I can see how far your intlligence goes you keep head where its at -

2007-06-30 20:00:44 · update #1

6 answers

They can't prove Bush lied because he probably didn't lie. Lying means you know the truth and you deliberately give wrong facts or purposely mislead the facts to reach a conclusion that can only be wrong.

Bush went off the information that pretty much the entire world's intelligence community went off of and agreed with. If Bush lied then so did the rest of the world. Critics claim Bush linked Iraq and Hussein with helping cause 911 and that is completely untrue. He never linked the 2. He called Hussein a terrorist. He also never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said Iraq was a grave and gathering threat. There is a lot of misleading on the medias and critics side to change what Bush actually said.

You cant call Bush a liar for going off the intelligence reports the majority of the worlds intelligence agreed with. The dems had the same information and agreed with the conclusions of the President. Clinton said, almost word for word when he was president, some of the same things about the threat of Iraq and Hussein to the US. I dont see critics of Bush screaming Clinton lied about Iraq, too. The facts just dont add up to Bush lying. If you think he lied it is based solely on your dislike of him and his politics, but not the facts of the circumstances.

2007-06-30 20:02:27 · answer #1 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 1 3

Bush told of "facts" that supported going to war.

Then he found out that those "facts" were not conclusive and were probably wrong.

He continued anyway.

That my friend turns it into a lie, even my daughter who was 11 years old at the time said that.

Plus he said that Saddam was an immediate threat. That was a bold faced lie, no such threat existed.

Then he gave the inspectors information were the chemical plants were and when they inspected they found no such system in place..........Bush then invaded anyway under wishful thinking.............that makes it a lie as well.

Then when Cheney lied he just smiled..........that, as a leader, when it comes to war turned that smile into a lie.

There is so much proof out there that if someone were to tell you where, what and how, you'd still keep yourself blindfolded.

Peace

Jim

.

2007-07-01 03:00:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Do most of you realize that the President, any President, gets his info from those who work underneath him? Do you really think he reads every little paper that crosses his desk or goes to every meeting that every government organization has?
Seriously he has to rely on what those in charge of offices below him tell him and act accordingly.

He was told their were WMD's, so he acted.
He was told Saddam was a threat, so he acted.

This does not make him a liar, just misinformed.

2007-07-01 03:42:21 · answer #3 · answered by bigdaddy33 4 · 0 2

do you think facts ever mattered to people like the pelosi/reid regime? cmon.

2007-07-01 06:47:31 · answer #4 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0 1

Yellow Cake ayone? (No WMD's)
The Pres lies, its a fact!

2007-07-01 03:10:52 · answer #5 · answered by soulsearcher 5 · 1 2

You don't read much do you?

2007-07-01 06:13:55 · answer #6 · answered by wreaser2000 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers