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

22 answers

Absolutely!

"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."

IAEA Report on Iraq NOT enriching Uranium
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n005.shtml

2007-10-29 16:53:55 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 6 0

Of course he's lied...he just doesn't believe he's lied. Bush is a stooge for some of the darkest reactionaries ever to be granted political responsiblility in the history of the United States. Bush has been prepped to say and to believe some of the most outlandish things ever said in public by a public official. Iraqi oil will pay for the war is one. No..Iraqi oil isn't going to pay for the war! At the time Bush said that a hundred other folks rolled their eyes and wondered just what the hell was going on. Rove and Rumsfeld and Rice made believe that this war wasn't going to grow to be a massive national expense. To paraphrase Johnny Cash, supposedly we'd take 'one piece of Iraq at a time/and it wouldn't cost us a dime! Even the entire WMD business was a total lie...it 'could have been true', but it just as easily could have been false. Therefore saying it was 'true' is by definition a lie because there was massive doubt about the entire concept. Two 'lies'....lots of dead and maimed on both sides and a massive debt......Oh, yeah...the entire Bush Junta is incompetent as well....!!!

2007-10-30 00:16:34 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 4 0

Yes. "Saddam Hussien has recently sought significant quantaties of uranium from Africa". It was a lie, and he knew it. Darth sucks!

Common tactic: Deny, them blame Clinton as if thats what we're talking about! Bush is the current F.U. in the White House. Lets hold him accountable like a true patriot would! Leave your partisanship at the door. You impeached Clinton gor something that had nothing to do with national security. The least we can do is impeach Bush, which means we question him UNDER OATH, and then have a trial in the senate to remove him from office. He will survive the trail and serve out his term, but at least America will have exercised the principal, that, if you lie or mislead America, you are held to account.

Incompetancy is not an excuse. Period. Thats worse.

2007-10-29 23:54:42 · answer #3 · answered by McCains InSane 2 · 7 1

Yes!!! Spefically, he claimed in a state of union speech that Iraq was attempting to obtain Uranium yellowcake from Niger which was false.

Furthermore, senior members of his administration claimed that they knew Iraq had specific amounts of chemical weapon when he knew that the evidence was not conclusive.

To the guy above me, I do not give the dems a free pass. That was not the question though. The Dems continued the big lie b/c of political cowardice!

2007-10-29 23:56:57 · answer #4 · answered by John V 5 · 7 0

When he said "I serve my country" he looked like
a four years old, caught at night near the frig, finger
still sticky from peanut butter - but fervently denying.

Actually I see that positive, so no one with an IQ gt13.5 can
be fooled, as a sandwich needs 14, not to fall from the table.

2007-10-30 00:05:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

The way he connected Iraq with 9-11 was a total misrepresentation of the facts, completely distorted. What a butthole.

2007-10-30 00:04:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6 0

No my friend he did not make any mistakes ? it was all well planed ahead of times ? And he has met his goals ? Although it has destroyed many lives, and been devastating to many people, but it doesn't concern him a bit??!!

2007-10-30 00:16:22 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2 0

He has said nothing that could convict him for perjury. He has made statements that mislead people about facts and his intentions. He talked about Iraq and mushroom clouds and yellow cake, and said intelligence services thought Iraq had WMD. Many people took it to mean that there was a nuclear weapons program in Iraq, but he never said they did in so many words. People would not have supported the war if they had been told that we were going to war to destroy some Chemical weapons Iraq probably had left over from their war with Iran . You would think that after Clinton's "depends what the meaning of is, is." people would learn to listen more carefully to what presidents are really saying,

2007-10-30 00:33:30 · answer #8 · answered by meg 7 · 1 4

He said during his 2000 campaign that he would work for a humble foreign policy that would curb American intervention.

Changed his tone on that one pretty quick.

2007-10-29 23:53:23 · answer #9 · answered by yo yo yo 3 · 6 0

In a sense, you can say that he hasn't actually lied about anything..... his handlers have him surrounded in such a tight bubble that when he speaks, he truely believes that he is telling the truth.
From his point of view, he probably see's it as 'I'm the president, why would they lie to me?'
Karl Rove lies! David Addington lies! Dana Perino lies! FOX Noise lies! Robert Novak lies! Paul Wolfowitz lies! Dick Cheney lies! (But is anyone really brave enough to say it to Satan's face... or is it Darth Vader?)
Even though what Bush says to us are, in actuality...lies, but because, as I said, if you see it from his point of view, he really isn't lying, even though he really is! He just doesn't know that he is, even though many of us do!

2007-10-30 00:11:31 · answer #10 · answered by AngelWolf_22 3 · 4 3

fedest.com, questions and answers