Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice try, but Clinton didn't invade Iraq with a useless ground war costing this country trillions, as well as too many American lives.
Once again, leftists can't do anything but deflect. The thread is about lying about wmds. Given that speech, Clinton was lying and should never have bombed Iraq.
When it comes to Saddam as a threat possessing WMDs, developing nuclear weapons and fears of him using WMDs again in the future, where did Bush say anything different than Bill Clinton or any of the other leading democrats?
When it comes to Saddam as a threat possessing WMDs, developing nuclear weapons and fears of him using WMDs again in the future, where did Bush say anything different than Bill Clinton or any of the other leading democrats?
Yeah, but when Bill Clinton said it, he was just jacking everyone off.
Yeah, but when Bill Clinton said it, he was just jacking everyone off.
As Josh Earnest would say, when Bill Clinton said Saddam was a dire threat to world peace with his WMDs, it was just “intended for a domestic political audience.”
We've all seen the bumper stickers: "Bush lied, thousands died."
Is it lying to only listen to evidence that supports your desire, and go after those who talk against you? (Valerie Plame).
To lie you must KNOW that there was no weapons in Iraq, and still tell your story. I find any accusation that the administration lied (instead of being grossly incompetent) is a reach. There was significant evidence that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. That evidence was hidden. . not due to a conspiracy of sorts but more that. . the boss didn't want to hear bad news, so you kept bad news to yourself.
Lie is far further than I'll give bush. Incompetent administration filled with yes men who didn't challenge their leader. . yes I'll give you that. To give Bush the CREDIBILITY that he lied. That his administration understood and manipulated the media is far more intelligence, power, and credibility I would give the administration
lied - no, they weren't that smart.
a bunch of f'n idiots and yes men - yes
and i'm no liberal, just a freaking independent . .
THEY IGNORED f'n Osama, because they were so hell bent on Saddam. F'n numb nuts they were
Quote:
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.
As Josh Earnest would say, when Bill Clinton said Saddam was a dire threat to world peace with his WMDs, it was just “intended for a domestic political audience.”
Dat true - I don't even think it was a pre-ruptial performance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
