Pls explain why intel used by President Bush to invade Iraq was a lie?

Question

If President Clinton had the same intel as President Bush, it is called a lie when Bush used it to petition congress to go to war. Also John Kerry and Hillary Clinton said the intel was true. google the cover of Time magazine where President Clinton and many democratic congressmen were concerned about Iraq and wmd's

Bromide where have you been Clinton was in office before Bush and he had the intel in 1998

Answer 1

There was no lie. Saddam kicked the U.N. weapon inspectors out of Iraq, Bush gave Saddam plenty of warning to let them back in. After months of not letting the U.N. inspectors in Bush told Saddam that we would invade. It would have been a lie if we did not invade after Bush told him we would. Some think that the WMD was a lie, but it wasn't, we found W.M.D. in form of chemical weapons.

Answer 2

The "intel" used by Bush was NOT the same available to Clinton. First, There was no clear evidence that Saddam had WMD. He did continue attempts to develop them after the Prsioan Gulf War, but--by the time of the run-up to the Iraq qar, had abandoned those attempts. Which the UN TRIED to tell Bush.

The claim that Iraq was involved with al-Qaida, and the claim that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Nigeria, were outright fabrications.

The neocons keep trying to rewrite history--but here's the bottom line: whatever intel Clinton had is not the issue. What is the issue is what intel Bush had--MORE THAN 2 YEARS AFTER Clinton left office.

Andbasing the war on that intel was a lie--because it did not support or jsutify an invasion.

Answer 3

President Bush used the Niger Uranium 'evidence' as a source of intelligence information even after it was proved to be questionable by the people in his administration!

When Colin Powell went before the U.N. to illustrate the need for an invasion of Iraq he omitted that Niger Uranium 'evidence' because he knew it wasn't sound intelligence.

Before George Bush spoke to the Nation he was advised by his speech writers not to use the Niger story but he chose to anyway!

EDIT: However, this doesn't change the fact that everything else you stated is true also!! The Clintons are just as much every bit as involved in economic globalization as Bush is.
Bush was just more willing to use the military to advance this movement than Bill was!

Soon real soon I hope people will realize that BOTH parties are involved in this one world government movement!

Answer 4

Bush was the only one naive enough to invade because of it. He also had a lot of info saying there was no proof of many reports. He never did show any of that to congress, just the slam dunk stuff, he made sure to make his case as strong as possible, and not sharing the reports about the doubts on the info is his lies to get us into the war.

Answer 5

Don't forget that the UK, Egypt, Jordan, and the soviets all said he had WMD's. Russia and France voted against the invsion due to the oil-for-food scandle. Any way the US had a right to invade due to Saddam breakin 17 UN resolutions. I didn't care if we went or not.

Answer 6

So, the Clintons are liars too. What a news flash. But Bush is the one that actually pulled the trigger, so he is the one who will go down in everlasting infamy for this horrendous war.

Answer 7

Clinton and Kerry were "briefed" by the Intel that BUsh's lie-mongering administration fabricated

Answer 8

aThe intel was used selectively that makes it a lie, there was NO CONSENSUS in the intelligent community about how grave or not the threat may be, we could have contained him and the sanctions would have held after he violated U N Resolutions, an example could be I say your a jerk, Bob says you're a great guy, neither of us can actually substantiate our claim but Bill chooses to believe you're a jerk because he wants to, That's as good as a lie

Answer 9

a lie... is a lie... is a lie...

it doesn't matter if it's the devil or Jesus saying it... if it's not true, it's a lie

they are all politicans... is anyone that shocked really?

now there is an intentional lie... and an unintentional lie...

and there is also pushing the accuracy of a report that may not really be that accurate...

it's one thing to talk about a report or two... but it's another step in trust to base a war off of it...

Answer 10

OF COURSE THEY DID , THEY ARE ON THE SAME NEW WORLD ORDER TEAM. THEY WANTED TO TO INVADE THE MIDDLE EAST , THATS WHY THEY LIED. DONT FORGET THAT THE U.N. WAS IN IRAQ AND HAD UNLIMITED ACCESS TO IRAQ AND WE THREW THEM OUT AGAINST THEIR BETTER JUDGEMANT. THEY TOLD US THAT THEY DID NOT THINK HE HAD WMD'S . KERRY AND HILLARY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE SAME INFORMATION THAT WAS BEING USED AS NO ONE DID AND THEY BOTH SAID THEY TOOK BUSH'S WORD FOR WHAT HE WAS SAYING. HERE IS PLENTY OF GOOD READING FOR YOU ON THE SUBJECT