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.
Bush did not lie about WMDs. There are a lot of truthers out there who will believe in any conspiracy.
Even Saddam's generals thought Saddam had and was working on WMDs.
Even Democrats that looked at the same evidence thought Saddam had and was working on WMDs.
Even President Bill Clinton as president said he had evidence of Saddam with WMDs and making WMDs.
At some point the politics needs to stop...it won't be here though.
There is a good PBS special that comes to the conclusion that Bush and others including Democrats sincerely believed that there were WMDs, but they used faulty evidence and evidence was withheld from Bush - because intelligence officers wanted to be well liked by Bush - and Bush can be blamed for creating that kind of an atmosphere.
That is all nonsense.
Did Bush lie us into a war in Iraq? File that under "Duh!"
What really sickens me though is how spokesmen for the Bush Administration were intimating that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 on 9/11! Within less than 24 hours, while people were not even accounted for at the Trade Center, there were neocons on all the major networks hinting, or even suggesting, that Hussein was behind the attacks.
This suggests two things:
1) A decision was made, almost immediately, to link someone completely unconnected to the attacks in order to foment war.
2) They did not give a damn about 3000 innocent Americans murdered by Al Qaeda.
Every US president is exactly like you.....presidents only know what people tell them....and if people mislead them.......intentionally.....because there's a group within the government that has an agenda.....
I mean how daft are you people that you can't figure it out?
Seriously, some of you have some really bizarre fantasies about how your government actually works.
Bored...
Mircea
Except for Bush, that guy was a super sleuth, expert terrorism analyst, better then anyone in the CIA, and he was a mind reader who knew more about the truth behind WMDs then Al Gore, John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton and George Tenet all combined.
Did Bush lie us into a war in Iraq? File that under "Duh!"
What really sickens me though is how spokesmen for the Bush Administration were intimating that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 on 9/11! Within less than 24 hours, while people were not even accounted for at the Trade Center, there were neocons on all the major networks hinting, or even suggesting, that Hussein was behind the attacks.
This suggests two things:
1) A decision was made, almost immediately, to link someone completely unconnected to the attacks in order to foment war.
2) They did not give a damn about 3000 innocent Americans murdered by Al Qaeda.
Shameful and soulless.
All you libs have are stables full of your straw dogs.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
I wish you libs would make up your freaking minds.
A) On the one hand, it's okay for 0bama to invade Libya, when we had no national security threat, but not okay to invade Iraq when we had a decade where Saddam was enemy #1.
You just compared 30 CIA operatives to an army of 250,000 americans, 50,000 U.K. Soilders, and 100,000 other coalition soldiers.
I wish you libs would make up your freaking minds.
A) On the one hand, it's okay for 0bama to invade Libya, when we had no national security threat, but not okay to invade Iraq when we had adecade where Saddam was enemy #1.
You have been misled if you thought Saddam was enemy #1. Enemy #1 attacked America.
B) On the other hand, Bush cannot use the murders of thousands of Iraqi people by Saddam, as a reason to invade, but 0bama can use a threat against the Libyan people as a justification to overthrow Qaddafi.
So you do admit that Bush had no justification to invade Iraq.
C) Not to mention adding $4 trillion in debt over eight years, justifies calling Bush unpatriotic and irresponsible.
Bush spent and spent like a out of control teenager with a credit card.
D) But 0bama can add $4 trillion in new debt in 2.5 years and you guys approve of it, and complain if we don't go to $7 or even $9 trillion in eight years.
That debt is mainly compounding interest from the credit card bill Bush ran up.
When you guys start making sense, will you let us know?
You are right, invading Iraq made no sense at all.
As I recall the congressional leadership had same inteligence and they recommedned to their mebers to vote yea. i fact mnay democpracts actually predicted thousands of death from chemical weapons. I interviews sadddam sad id he want to ,mislead to keep the iranian from inveading after the gulf war ehen he had losss mnay soldier and equipment.I seem to remmber even the media hypi gthe loss to come.Certainly the Un inspectors thoght their were still weapons from when they had left omany.
You are right, invading Iraq made no sense at all.
Like i said, liberals are unable to follow a single thought thru to a rational and cogent conclusion, so let me know when you fools male up your minds what principles you stand for.
This is a debate up until today on whether Bush purposely mislead the nation into agreeing with the invasion.
Of course, and both parties, the Democrats and Republicans backed him up.
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.
