How did Bush Lie?

Question

From everything the facts suggest, not NBC, CNN, ABC who obviously have ulterior motives shown by the coverage of the last presidential race what did Bush lie about? We know Iraq had chemical weapons, he used them on the Kurds. We know France and Germany were abusing the oil for food program. He told us things that the UN security council told him. IF the data is flawed how would any leader know? And last, last time I checked attacking a US military installation IS a declaration of war. Iraq fired many times at fighters patrolling the UN sanctioned no fly zone. This is a Problem that Clinton should have dealt more strongly with. It was a cauldron that finally came to head after a Presidential change.

Please only serious replies.

And, for the record the only reason I didn't vote for Kerry is because he couldn't maintain a stand on ANY issue.

BEARDOG, would you deny then that Iraq declared war on us long before we attacked them?? If so read my question again regarding attacking OUR military.

HONESTAMERICAN... Imagine if he would have acted on that intell and grounded all planes 9-11. Us Americans would have been like yeah right that would never have happened all the while the president averted the attack. How many days could our economy survive with no air travel? How many threats do you think he receives every single day? What would you have done?

Lonewoff... That was a very KERRY like link... Well said.

Kevin O, I appreciate your opinion but, Iraq did attack us on many occasions by Firing on AMERICAN jets. We should have attacked long before Bush got in office. Also if the underlying reason is really oil then unless Bush Naysayers give up their automobiles are they not hippocrits?

Answer 1

People who believe that Bush lied will rely on hindsight and cherry pick every piece of data, irregardless of its relavance at the time, that tends to support this belief - while intentionally neglecting to include the over whelming evidence to the contrary.
Saddam's own soldiers believed he had WMD's as well as many of the world's intellegence agencies. Even Scott Ritter, in a press release extremely critical of any invasion of Iraq admitted that even after 7 years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq, after the location and distruction of chemical laboratories, production equipment and over 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 tons of chemical agents - he could not verify or confirm that Saddam did not have any more chemical arsenals. Given Saddam's dismal compliance to the UN resolutions and his history - President Bush would have been very fool hardy to ASSUME that Saddam had actually complied with the resolutions. We know now that, discoubting the possibility of shipping these arsenals out of the country, Iraq had no WMD's of any significant quantity following the initial invasion..
After the events of 9/11 - it was simply too risky to assume that any chemical arsenals left in Iraq would not have ended up in alQaeda's hands.
As a side note, President Bush has been resolute in his efforts to try and end this fanatical ideology of hatred and blood lust - a conflict that was inevitable due to our inaction and failure to effectively respond to the prior attacks - and these policies only allowed the Islamic militants to fester and grow as they slaughtered thousands of innocent victims with pretty much impunity. I'm proud the United States has confronted this ideology - they can no longer carry out their threats and objectives with impunity - there will be serious consequences.

Answer 2

We know Iraq had chemical weapons because the US was the country that gave them to Saddam just prior to the Iran-Iraq War. But the main reason given for the invasion of Iraq was the yellow cake uranium (needed to make nuclear weapons) that Bush stated on more than one occasion, Saddam had already purchased (remember the act now or wait for the mushroom cloud comment Bush made). He reported that information as fact knowing full well that the our own, French, and British intelligence reports he had on the subject were dubious from the beginning.

Answer 3

while you're unwell of the generic public opinion on Bush suitable you are able to now continually pay attention to Limbaugh or Coulter... If that doesn't interest you there is proffesional activities, video games , pornography, romance novels, pass-sewing golf equipment, pokemon or beanie babies. So, you spot you have many possibilities to listening to how Bush lied. (additionally, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scott Mekllelan, Andrew Card, Judith Meirs, Alberto Gonzoles and Donald Rumsfeld-they lied too).

Answer 4

I will give you one of many that even my 11 year old at the time understood was a lie.

Bush stated facts to the nation and the world that he thought were correct. After he found out the facts had serious questions, had even been proved wrong, he still kept stating those as facts because if he didn't, then the case for war would be in serious jeopardy.

That my friend turns it into a lie.

As I said, even my 11 year old at the time understood that.

It appears you can't.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 5

That sounds like an awful lot of backpeddling. The simple fact is, not only did the President claim that he knew there were weapons, he claimed to know WHERE they were. There were no weapons, so either the evidence was absolutely incorrectly interpreted by the President, or correctly interpreted but incorrectly acted upon. The choices I'm left with are that my President is either Stupid, or Dishonest. I'm not really a fan of either.

He can blame the CIA all he wants- when it comes time to launch an attack, it's the President's call, and the responsibility falls on his shoulders. If the evidence seemed at all sketchy, there was absolutely NO evidence of an imminent threat, so there was no reason to act hastily. He should have sent the CIA back to check their facts more thoroughly, until they came up with a more compelling case.

Answer 6

OK, seriously, everything the commander in thief says is a lie. Bearing that in mind let's address the WMD's. Yes, Saddam did have them, ronnie raygun gave them to him. What he did not have was the means to manufacture them nor to maintain them (WMD's are not like twinkies which have a very long shelf life). Iraq is about oil, power and greed... period, everything else gw has said about it is a lie. I know, I know you want to wave your 'Made in China' flag and rave about the Patriotic duty blah, blah, blah. However intelligent people can see through the propaganda and ascertain the bush reich for what it is, a fascist Imperialistic bunch of corporate whores with an agenda for the destruction of America. God Bless America and our brave Soldiers and May God Give America back to the Patriots and deliver Her from the hands of terrorists aka the rethuglicon and demosquat parties.

Answer 7

CIA doubts

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
http://www.answers.com/topic/niger-uranium-forgeries

Also: Condi Rice lied and said Iraq had aluminum tubes to enrich uranium.

IAEA Report disputing Rice claims
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n005.shtml

IAEA Conclusion (linked above)

"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq."

Answer 8

I have never said he lied!
However I have said he has perhaps betrayed our people!
Everyone knows about the daily briefing he got on August 6,2001.Stating Bin Laden wanted to strike inside the US.
Did you also know Moussaoui the 20th hijacker was in FBI custody in Minneapolis for more then 2 weeks before 9/11?Do you also know FBI HQ denied Mineapolis' request for FISA warrants which OBSTRUCTED their terror investigations?
What did Bush do after the briefing to protect the nation?
How can any Bush supporter explain those FACTS?

Answer 9

he doesn't so much directly lie... but here are some things that are pretty close:

1. he said that Iraq had chemical weapons made post-gulf war...

there is ZERO evidence to support this claim after we have occupied the nation for 5+ years...

2. he said he would bring Osama to justice...

then said he wasn't that "concerend" about Osama...

3. he said he was going to be a "uniter"... and I'm unaware of even an attempt to unite anyone?

Answer 10

We probably hold him more responsible than he is for what happened, but that goes with the territory of being president. The main thing he's charged with misleading us about is the uranium from Niger.