Why do people think Bush lied when he and congress made the decision to go to war?

Question

He and congress went on what intelligence told them about WMB's. I just can't believe their are folks that would believe he deliberately lied. I don't support him 100 %, but he aint no liar.

Answer 1

Because they don't trust him.

Answer 2

Many people are not into politics and do not know alot of what is and has happened, so...I Thank You for this question.

We must face facts---He is a LIAR along with his cohort, the evil cheney !! Oil grubbing mongers.

YES....They knew that there were no WMD's but boldly proceeded to lie to the American people.

Check out the "Downing Street Memos".

It is also a fact that Congress was not given all the information that this corrupt aDministration had available and kept secret--- they ARE LIARS. They used 911 and terror to do this.

Majority of republican congress and repug prez pulled this off.

What ticks me off so much is that so many of our Military continue to and are dying, dead and maimed---for his lies !
30,000 severely maimed and probably so many more that are not counted due to PTSD and trauma....and they are not receiving treatment.

Cruel and inhumane treatment------and very PATHETIC !!!

Sorry for the rant but this entire part of History is disturbing to me.

Answer 3

Of course he is a liar.
----Documented Lie ---

Bush lied to the american people and the world about calling for a second, separate UN resolution authorizing force against iraq. In a press conference he lied to reporters and told them that even if he thought he was going to lose the UN vote on the second resolution, that he would call for a vote in the UN before he attacked Iraq. Bush lied and instructed his ambassador not to call for the vote when it was clear he was going to lose.


Here is what he said :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.


This was a lie, he never called for a UN vote to invade iraq. This is not from a liberal blog, this is from the president's own web site.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

Answer 4

1) He went on very flimsy intelligence. He gathered everything he could get. Some of the most convincing "evidence" was material from a student's master's thesis. Another important source was the word of an avowed double agent.
2) There was no way he would let Hans Blix finish the job of inspecting the place. Nobody suggested an attack from Saddam Hussein was THAT imminent.

He lied. He wanted his war and he got it.
He then proceeded to change the reason for it several times. Now it's no longer about democracy, apparently. It's about containing Iran.
Personally, I have stopped believing a word coming out of that man's mouth a long time ago. Ditto for everybody surrounding him.

Answer 5

Because he did lie to get over there, anything was said to garner support for his 'Preemptive Doctrine', or "the Bush doctrine. It's an old favorite to 'pin' the decision to actually invade Iraq on the donkey, as many democrats distrusted Saddam Hussein. The exaggerations of mushroom clouds and associations with 911 and Iraq are plentiful online. Even the hard core conservatives are 'second guessing' the strategy of preemptive military aggression.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/2003+invasion+of+Iraq

Answer 6

Because cherry-picking intelligence and then insisting that it is 100% reliable (even when conflicting reports exist) is "lying."

"In the upside-down relationship between intelligence and policy that prevailed in the case of Iraq, the administration selected pieces of raw intelligence to use in its public case for war, leaving the intelligence community to register varying degrees of private protest when such use started to go beyond what analysts deemed credible or reasonable. The best-known example was the assertion by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was purchasing uranium ore in Africa. U.S. intelligence analysts had questioned the credibility of the report making this claim, had kept it out of their own unclassified products, and had advised the White House not to use it publicly. But the administration put the claim into the speech anyway, referring to it as information from British sources in order to make the point without explicitly vouching for the intelligence."

And:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.

"The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true."

Answer 7

It's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), not WMB, first of all. Secondly, asserting that he "ain't no liar" doesn't make it so. There were no WMD, there was no grave and gathering threat, there was no credible link between Iraq and 9/11, and major combat is certainly not even remotely close to being over. If anyone cares to respond to any of this with actual coherent arguments- i.e. something other than "moonbat" or "put down the kool-aid" or something comparably insipid- I'm all ears. I will grant you one thing however- Congress enabled him all the way. They had the chance to be the voice of reason and sanity, and they failed miserably. And for that reason I hold them in even greater contempt than Bush himself. (I don't buy into that "we were duped" crap for one millisecond either.)

Answer 8

Actually, he presented the evidence to Congress. Congress didn't decide to go to war - that is the Commander-in-Chief's decision, not Congress's decision, just as conservatives keep saying. Congress voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq if necessary. Bush is the one who ultimately decided to forego planning and thought and just invade the minute he got the "okay" from Congress. And he used false or outdated intel in order to do it.

That explain everything for you?

Answer 9

Maybe because there were no WMDs.Maybe because the few physicists who pointed out the aluminum tubes weren't viable for weapon use were quieted?Even though he claimed he was seeking a diplomatic solution he ordered the UN inspectors out........ignoring their recommendations!Thus alienating many of the members of the UN!Which was established to avoid wars!

Answer 10

Bush has been a liar from the beginning, like the devil. He invaded Iraq to enrich his personal vanity, and for no other reason. "What does it profit a man to (not) gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" This man said that "God told me to invade Iraq" Do you know that the Bible states that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven? What do you think this means for this president?

Answer 11

Bush has lied to the American people about every issue since he became President. So it's perfectly reasonable . . . and obvious by now . . . that he also lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war.