AEB, tell me whether or not you to consider this to be a lie:
Bush starts by trying to lead the American public into believing that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 even though no intelligence has proven it. Ask a common politically uneducated U.S. citizen and I bet at least 50% will say that Iraq had a hand in Iraq or that Saddam himself bombed us on 9-11. This admin was intentionally misleading in order to gain political favor amongst the population.
Then you go to the State of the Union last year in which he outlined how Iraq was trying to get nuclear materials and had actually purchased uranium from Niger; big surprise that intel was less then reliable, some think the CIA even knew it was unreliable before the speech was made. I don't remember Bush going on air after that and saying "OOPs Disregard that!"
The fact is that Bush grabbed at less then reliable intelligence to mislead the American public into thinking the threat from Iraq was imminent and immediate (even if they're going to argue semantics of that first word, poor Rummy got his lies handed to him on Face the Nation at least). Bush stated as FACT that Iraq was:
A. Essentially part of 9-11
B. Had nuclear capability or was getting more
C. Had WMDs
He stated as fact that weapons inspections wouldn't work and that Iraq couldn't be disarmed; he said as fact that once we got in there it'd all be clear.
Well we're there and we don't have jack. The president goes up on his last state of the union and says Iraq had "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities", whatever the hell that means. I don't remember that a couple of years ago. He says Saddam is a madman and the U.S. won't deal with madmen; well there's a ton of madmen, one that actually hit us for 3000 citizens a couple years ago that Bush doesn't much like to talk about anymore. Bush didn't go in on "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" or Saddam is a bad man; he went in on Iraq has WMDs, we're going to find them and destroy them.
He mislead the public on intel time and time again, implying he had facts when in reality they clearly did not. If you state something as fact that you don't know is fact or can't prove is fact you're lying. If you lead a nation into a war that will last an indeterminate amount of time while taking focus away from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda you better have some concrete facts and something to back it up with. This is revisionist history the administartion is trying to pull now. Hopefully the general public begins to see this and this next election will be a referendum on his administration.
Bush starts by trying to lead the American public into believing that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 even though no intelligence has proven it. Ask a common politically uneducated U.S. citizen and I bet at least 50% will say that Iraq had a hand in Iraq or that Saddam himself bombed us on 9-11. This admin was intentionally misleading in order to gain political favor amongst the population.
Then you go to the State of the Union last year in which he outlined how Iraq was trying to get nuclear materials and had actually purchased uranium from Niger; big surprise that intel was less then reliable, some think the CIA even knew it was unreliable before the speech was made. I don't remember Bush going on air after that and saying "OOPs Disregard that!"
The fact is that Bush grabbed at less then reliable intelligence to mislead the American public into thinking the threat from Iraq was imminent and immediate (even if they're going to argue semantics of that first word, poor Rummy got his lies handed to him on Face the Nation at least). Bush stated as FACT that Iraq was:
A. Essentially part of 9-11
B. Had nuclear capability or was getting more
C. Had WMDs
He stated as fact that weapons inspections wouldn't work and that Iraq couldn't be disarmed; he said as fact that once we got in there it'd all be clear.
Well we're there and we don't have jack. The president goes up on his last state of the union and says Iraq had "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities", whatever the hell that means. I don't remember that a couple of years ago. He says Saddam is a madman and the U.S. won't deal with madmen; well there's a ton of madmen, one that actually hit us for 3000 citizens a couple years ago that Bush doesn't much like to talk about anymore. Bush didn't go in on "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" or Saddam is a bad man; he went in on Iraq has WMDs, we're going to find them and destroy them.
He mislead the public on intel time and time again, implying he had facts when in reality they clearly did not. If you state something as fact that you don't know is fact or can't prove is fact you're lying. If you lead a nation into a war that will last an indeterminate amount of time while taking focus away from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda you better have some concrete facts and something to back it up with. This is revisionist history the administartion is trying to pull now. Hopefully the general public begins to see this and this next election will be a referendum on his administration.
Facebook
Twitter