Bush lied???!!!

D

DasBoot

Moderator
Would someone PLLLLEEEAAASSSSEEEEEE explain to me the reasoning, if any, behind the idea that president Bush "lied" about going to war in Iraq.
To my way of thinking, in order for someone to lie, they must A) Know what the truth is.
And B), Knowingly say something CONTRARY to that truth.
The President gets his information from the intelligence community.
From what I know, not only did everyone in our intelligence community firmly believe Iraq had WMDs, but so did the Isrealis and the Soviets.
And let's not forget Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and a host of other Democrats that stated publicly that Saddam had WMDs and that we "must act" on this growing threat to America.

So, we have the previous administration believing, and current agencies telling Bush, there are WMDs.
We are hit on 911.
The President must act based on past & present intelligence.
He acts.
The intelligence turns out to be wrong, at least to the degree initially thought to be true.

Please show me where, throughout this entire scenario, that "Bush lied"!
And no wild rants please!:rolleyes:
I am sincerely interested in how, based on all the info, anyone could say he lied.:confused:
 
I subscribe to an intell. report. This is their take.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Iraq. From the beginning, it was not clear why the United States invaded Iraq. The Bush administration offered three explanations: First, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; second, that Iraq was complicit with al Qaeda; and finally, that a democratic Iraq -- and creation of a democratic Muslim world -- would help to stop terrorism (or more precisely, al Qaeda).

The three explanations were untenable on their face. Contrary to myth, the Bush administration did not rush to go to war in Iraq. The administration had been talking about it for nearly a year before the invasion began. That would not have been the case if there truly was a fear that the Iraqis might be capable of building atomic bombs, since they might hurry up and build them. You don't give a heads-up in that situation. The United States did. Hence, it wasn't about WMD. Second, it wasn't about Iraq's terrorist ties. Saddam Hussein had no problem with the concept of terrorism, but he was an ideological enemy of everything bin Laden stood for. Hussein was a secular militarist; bin Laden, a religious ideologue. Cooperation between them wasn't likely, and pointing to obscure meetings that Mohammed Atta may or may not have had with an Iraqi in Prague didn't make the case. Finally, the democracy explanation came late in the game. Bush had campaigned against nation-building in places like Kosovo -- and if he now believed in nation-building as a justification for war, it meant he stood with Bill Clinton. He dodged that criticism, though, because the media couldn't remember Kosovo or spell it any more by the time Iraq rolled around.

Bush's enemies argued that he invaded Iraq in order to (a) avenge the fact that Hussein had tried to kill his father; (b) as part of a long-term strategy planned years before to dominate the Middle East; (c) to dominate all of the oil in Iraq; (d) because he was a bad man or (e) just because. The fact was that his critics had no idea why he did it and generated fantastic theories because they couldn't figure it out any more than Bush could explain it.

1. To bring pressure on the Saudi government, which was allowing Saudis to funnel money to al Qaeda, to halt this enablement and to cooperate with U.S. intelligence. The presence of U.S. troops to the north of Saudi Arabia was intended to drive home the seriousness of the situation.
2. To take control of the most strategic country in the Middle East -- Iraq borders seven critical countries -- and to use it as a base of operations against other countries that were cooperating with al Qaeda.
3. To demonstrate in the Muslim world that the American reputation for weakness and indecisiveness -- well-earned in the two decades prior to the Sept. 11 attacks -- was no longer valid. The United States was aware that the invasion of Iraq would enrage the Muslim world, but banked on it also frightening them.

Let's put it this way: The key to understanding the situation was that Bush wanted to blackmail the Saudis, use Iraq as a military base and terrify Muslims. He wanted to do this, but he did not want to admit this was what he was doing. He therefore provided implausible justifications, operating under the theory that a rapid victory brushes aside troubling questions. Clinton had gotten out of Kosovo without explaining why signs of genocide were never found, because the war was over quickly and everyone was sick of it. Bush figured he would do the same thing in Iraq.

It was precisely at this point that the situation got out of control. The biggest intelligence failure of the United States was not 9-11 -- only Monday morning quarterbacks can claim that they would have spotted al Qaeda's plot and been able to block it. Nor was the failure to find WMD in Iraq. Not only was that not the point, but actually, everyone was certain that Hussein at least had chemical weapons. Even the French believed he did. The biggest mistake was the intelligence that said that the Iraqis wouldn’t fight, that U.S. forces would be welcomed or at least not greeted hostilely by the Iraqi public, and that the end of the conventional combat would end the war.
 
For many telling part of the truth doesn't constitute a lie...some call it the "gray area", white lie or stretching the truth. For the most part these people live deceptive lives and are continually rationalizing their behavior when caught. (ie: Bill Clinton regarding sexual relations with Monica) For some odd reason his definition of sexual relations meant intercourse....?????

Others view truth in black and white terms, if any part of this truth is exaggerated then it's all a lie. So is it a lie IF proven wrong after the fact?....no. I see these things as black and white and beleive Bush acted honestly on the information he had at the time. Interesting that a recent book by a former Iraq General claims the WMD were smuggled into Syria just before the war began. In time more details will surface to show if that's true.
 
What doesn't make sense is that there are other countries who actually are building them or have them, yet he chose to pick on Iraq based on shoddy intelligence about some purchase in Africa. It lends weight to the argument that it was something more personal or economically strategic.
 
It lends weight to the argument that it was something more personal or economically strategic.
Click to expand...

I'd call it geo-political strategy. How do you convince the public that it is in the country's best interest to send our boys to Iraq to show the Saudi's that we can neutralize their air force in the matter of a week if needed; and show Iran that we have no qualms about playing in their backyard (Not to mention N. Korea.) Now we are forced to "finish what we started."

Is it justified? Yes, IMO. But try telling that to parents who have lost children/soldiers. The whole WOMD thing is a mask. I'd prefer to weigh the results over the justification.
 
Would someone PLLLLEEEAAASSSSEEEEEE explain to me the reasoning, if any, behind the idea that president Bush "lied" about going to war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Sure - it's all politics... They figure if they knock down the pres some then they'll look better as a whole, breing in opposition. It's that "bucket of crabs" mentality.

Right, wrong or indifferent - it's just Politics. :barf:
 
People say President Bush lied, because they cannot find anything else wrong worth talking about. Alot of people thrive off of finding what is wrong with someone, rather than finding the good points. They live for the purpose of that.
 
I have yet to hear an explaination as to why the other intelligence agencies all felt Saddam was such a threat if he wasn't?
I can't believe they were all independently wrong.
Regardless of the reasons, I think it's a great strategic move to have our forces over there.
The middle east is a serious trouble spot, and having a base right in the heart of it makes a lot of sense to me.
 
It is my understanding that gwb had legislative approval to use force if neccessary in persuit of the perpetrators of an attack on the US (9/11), not to attack Iraq.

IN MY OPINION GWB launched the attack on Iraq for 3 reasons

1. To improve his chances of being elected for a second term. IT DID!

2. To boost a failing economy. IT DID!

3. To insure huge profits for his big oil buddies. IT DID!
 
3. To insure huge profits for his big oil buddies. IT DID!
Click to expand...
I can see the other 2, but this doesn't make sense. I only saw high prices and high profits after the Katrina/hurricane disasters. First year we were in Iraq, there was none of that.

And just how does that Iraqui oil lead to big US profits?
 
With elections coming up the Dems/liberals are simply throwing anything against the wall often enough hoping the american public will start believing it. Fact is, there DEFINITELY WAS WMD in Iraq. Otherwise how did Iraq kill 10000 Kurds or Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war? It's ridiculous that Bill Clinton, HRC, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer any many other obstructionists conveniently forget that they themselves in '98 spoke about the importance of stopping Saddam's quest for WMD. Many of the same critics of the war in Iraq saw the same intelligence GWB saw and gave their blessing for the war. They just keep losing elections and have the stones to wonder why.:barf:
 
When you're presented with half the facts, you make your decision based on that.

From what I seem to be able to discertain, the Bush administration had all the facts, but OSI chose to only let the legislative branch see some of it.

Stop thinking abotu it as a political situation with the people you like, or want to, versus the ones you don't. Think about it logically, as if you were a parent and your child was telling you lies by omission.
 
+1 to that harry! Look at how the libs are tripping over each others feet today because of judge ALITO! HA HA
Here come da judge.
 
As far as WMD, this might be interesting:
The former number two official in Saddam Hussein's Iraqi air force claims the former Iraqi dictator moved weapons of mass destruction from Iraq to Syria in the months preceding the current Iraq war.
Click to expand...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/115712.shtml?s=lh

This jives with satillite intellegence that clearly showed Iraqi army trucks being loaded in Salman Pak, a known WMD storage site, that were tracked to Syria.

That Saddam had WMD is irrefutable - he used them to kill tens of thousands of Kurds, and many more Iranians. Did he have current stockpiles of the weapons previous to the war? A lot of intelligence, from many different sources, and Saddam's refusal to allow inspections clearly point to yes.

That Bush gave 14 months of notice before attacking, the evidence of those trucks, and now this new report, make one think that the weapons were indeed moved to Syria.

Of course, the liberal/left has put way too much capital into the "Bush lied people died" mantra to ever admit the possibility even exists.
 
There are times when statesmen must have the courage to do something unpopular. But their unpopular actions must be properly prepared, and must be put in the proper form, so that their peoples will understand. The man on the street is usually not as unreasonable as some think.
 
original by Dave R: I can see the other 2, but this doesn't make sense. I only saw high prices and high profits after the Katrina/hurricane disasters. First year we were in Iraq, there was none of that.
Click to expand...

Man u must not have done much driving before Katrina. Gasoline was at about 225 when katrina came in and that was about double what it was when gwb went into office in 2000. The price went to +300 after katrina, the oil industry had already reported unprecedented profitts.
 
Lied?

The liberals say he lied because they hate him and will say anything they think might stick and hurt his popularity, no matter what the truth is. The liberals are the enemy from within, the ACLU, etc. who are trying to bring down this country, if this would better their chances of taking back power.
 
Of course there were WMDs there. But we spent 14 months askin permission, and they got moved out. I know I've said this before but it bears repeating. Most folks hear the words 40 tons of anthrax, mustard gas, vx, pick your poison, and they think, HOLY CRAP thats alot. It isn't. Just to put it in perspective, my partner and I could load it ALL up in one load and move it 600 miles in about 10 hrs. It was there. The Bush lied crowd (present company, if any, Excepted) are more than willing to sacrifice natl. security for their own political power, celebrity, and/ or financial gain. I don't think he lied at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top