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.
So now it is "well Saddam lied about WMDs" and thus that was the "brilliant" reason for invading and killing many Americans. Remind us, what was the death toll and how many WMDs did we find in Iraq?
Bush lied and you still believe him.
Some lies are so good, with all their artistry, an' all, that many believe they have earned being taken as true.
Congress was lied to by the Bush administration as they told Congress how important this war was. It doesn't change the fact that Bush lied, and Americans died..
So bush being lied to and him believing it makes him an idiot but congress being lied to and believing it gets a pass?
Let's see if I can find a catchy slogan that rhymes with Hypocrite.
Perhaps a few of the 935 documented false statements said by the GW bush White House about Iraq were true (but the GW Bush White House still said 100's of lies about Iraq.)
(emphasis mine, to demonstrate a point. Notice how you subtly morph from 'false statement' to 'lie.')
You keep posting that bogus link. BTW that was a Soros-funded "study."
First of all let's review the definition of lie. A lie is a false statement with intent to deceive. "Lie" and "false statement" are not equivalent. If I say that the Golden State Warriors are going to win the NBA title for sure this year, and it turns out that they don't is that a lie? No.
This thread is about whether Bush lied about WMD to get us into war with Iraq. He didn't. In fact it would have been difficult for him to do so since, for about the 10th time, everyone at the time, including Saddam's own senior officers, believed that he still had WMD.
Thus the massive database of dishonesty and mountain of mendacity they unearthed, dutifully reported by the Associated Press... with but a single effort to elicit a general response from the administration -- and no attempt whatsoever to delve into these alleged "false statements" to see whether there is even a contradiction between what the administration said and what the Center for Pubic Integrity said. Yet there is also this unanswered (unasked) question that seems somewhat pertinent, at least to me:
How many of these "false statements" were, in fact, believed true by virtually everybody, Republican and Democrat alike, when they were made? How many were parroted by Democrats, including those on the House and Senate Permanent Select Intelligence Committees, who thereby had access to the same intelligence as la Casablanca? The Center doesn't tell, and the incurious media elites don't ask.
WTF, did you join this forum without the capability to read. I said the exact opposite.
He is a idiot. A clueless idiot. He is supported by yes man. They wanted to believe there was WMD. So they propped up all evidence that there was WMD. Ignored evidence that there wasn't. . .people got the hint, and only showed positive information.
I'm sure it went like this
"latest intel shows WMD program ended in"
"dave, you know thats not what the bosses want to hear. . .keep digging"
no mastermind needed. Just a bunch of idiots and yes men.
No manipulation needed. you just focus on the story you want to tell.
Mastermind
yeah - what the f'. They went to war with the wrong country because they were IDIOTS not because they were masterminds.
All the other nations in the world are not tied down by what Bush wanted them to believe about Saddam and his WMDs, they can all think for themselves.
You act as if the previous decade before Bush was president never existed, as if all the talk of Saddam's WMDs never occurred, as if GW Bush was some kind of a Svengali who fooled the entire world into excepting only his version of events.
It's not even worth discussing this topic with you if you are going to act like some kind of half-baked conspiracy nut.
It was increasingly clear that Bush and Blair meant to go to war by early 2003. Thus the intelligence agencies were faced with the need to find a way to document what they believed to be true but couldn’t quite prove. As Corera points out, the enemy of good intelligence work is often time. It can take months or years to determine whether a bit of information is even true -- longer still to figure out what it means. The faster the spies have to work, the greater the likelihood of error.
Well, kudos for being the FIRST poster not to skedaddle from the question.
I don't think that I ever said that Bush should be let "off the hook" over the decision-making process that led up to the invasion. I have my own problems with the way things were handled. It is little-noted that Richard Armitage once said that he and Powell were not necessarily against an invasion of Iraq, but they wanted to wait until after the 2004 election. That would have given more time for the planning of phase IV (occupation), along with perhaps time for better intel.
But again the question is whether Bush lied about WMD to get us into war, and even Prof. Carter agrees that the answer is no.
So bush being lied to and him believing it makes him an idiot but congress being lied to and believing it gets a pass?
Let's see if I can find a catchy slogan that rhymes with Hypocrite.
No, that is just right wingers trying to shift the blame. Though I do agree with you, it was stupid of anyone in Congress to think Bush was telling the truth.
Same as the democrats, including Hillary, who voted for war along with the republicans.
They will themselves to forget that 90% of the dems voted for the war too. They also forget that Obama went to war against Libya, and did not even say a single word to the nation, nor the Congress. Obama just sent the bombers into Libya on Friday and went golfing on Saturday.
I guess that is how GW Booosh should have done it, eh libs? Just send in the military without a word to anyone. See how clean that is, no lies, just bombs dropping from US warplanes. Sweet, simple and clean.
Bush should have handled Iraq like Obama handled Libya. Just blow the country up, and when Saddam is murdered in the streets like Qaddafi, Bush could have just wiped his hands of Iraq and walked away, just like Obama did with Libya. Then the libs would be singing Bush's praises.
Notice the MSM doesn't report on the failed state of Libya.
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.
