• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question for the "Bush lied" crowd.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I have followed this issue CLOSELY since really 2002 (pre invasion).

I do not think Bush "lied" per se. Rather, I think he purposefully exaggerated based on tiny shreds of evidence. I think that his advisers looked only at the information that was favorable to attacking, and ignored all other reports.

At a certain point, ignoring other info comes close to being a lie.
 
The aluminum tubes are enough for me. One CIA operative said they were for nuclear purposes, while people at Oak Ridge, Sandia etc were saying it wasn't possible. Also, there were a substantial number of intel operatives and anaylists who did NOT believe in the WMDs. A great many of those were purged from the CIA and to a lesser degree State and other departments.

If the truth comes to light I believe that there will be discovered a pattern of censorship and threats to produce a certain outcome. Frankly I don't want a Dem in office. I like one party in Congress and another in the WH. Keeps them fighting each other and leaving us alone. The consolation for me is that Presidential obstruction goes away.

While I don't believe Bush can be prosectuted (unless something specifically illegal is found) if he has done as I believe then he will be disgraced in the eyes of history.

We'll see.
 
For anyone claiming bush didn't lie can you please point to one piece of evidence that was not completely made up supporting the claim the Iraq had WMD?
 
Originally posted by: LordSegan
I have followed this issue CLOSELY since really 2002 (pre invasion).

I do not think Bush "lied" per se. Rather, I think he purposefully exaggerated based on tiny shreds of evidence. I think that his advisers looked only at the information that was favorable to attacking, and ignored all other reports.

At a certain point, ignoring other info comes close to being a lie.

The average erect male phallus (96 Journal of Urology) was 5.08 inches.

The average erect male phallus (00 International Journal of Impotence Research) was 5.35 inches.

The average erect male phallus in a survey of college students on Spring Break was 5.9 (SD 0.8) inches.

Now if some guy comes along . . . hehe . . . and claims that his parasympathetic nervous system-driven tool is a foot long . . . and he has proof . . . but he cannot reveal his sources . . . it's a pretty safe bet that he isn't exaggerating. He's lying. When you finally pull out the tape measurer he's still a liar if shows 5, 6, 7, or 8. Anything over that and you give a little credit for stretching the truth.

Bushistas didn't stretch the truth. They created narratives that were NEVER fact-based. Bush got caught with his pants down and now the world can take a gander at just how small he really is.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq.
It wasn't a leap. It was evident from the beginning. I hate to cut and paste a version of my usual reply, but it's the best answer I have to the same question, over and over.

The Bushwhackos lie about anything when the truth doesn't suit their totalitarian megalomania. Their excuses for starting the war in Iraq prgressively and continually changed as each previous lie was outed.
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  • There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Cheney hasn't lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda since... umm.. last month.
Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link as latest Pentagon report

Last Update: Apr 6, 2007 1:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon are offering conflicting views about whether al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Cheney continues to insist there is a connection but a declassified Defense Department report cites more evidence that Saddam's regime did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Speaking to radio host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces. He says terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned Nine-Eleven.

But the Pentagon report released Thursday says seized documents, along with interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides, confirm that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The 9/11 Commission report also found no evidence of a connection.
I think the Bushwhacko cabal should be tried for the murder of over 3,300 (and rising) dead American troops in their WAR OF DECEIT AND DECEPTION and for treason for their wholesale shredding of the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. :thumbsdown: 🙁 :thumbsdown:

I think they should all be given exended, all expenses paid vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the thrilling waterboard ride.

They said waterboarding isn't torture. Would they lie to us? :shocked:
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: LordSegan
I have followed this issue CLOSELY since really 2002 (pre invasion).

I do not think Bush "lied" per se. Rather, I think he purposefully exaggerated based on tiny shreds of evidence. I think that his advisers looked only at the information that was favorable to attacking, and ignored all other reports.

At a certain point, ignoring other info comes close to being a lie.

The average erect male phallus (96 Journal of Urology) was 5.08 inches.

The average erect male phallus (00 International Journal of Impotence Research) was 5.35 inches.

The average erect male phallus in a survey of college students on Spring Break was 5.9 (SD 0.8) inches.

Now if some guy comes along . . . hehe . . . and claims that his parasympathetic nervous system-driven tool is a foot long . . . and he has proof . . . but he cannot reveal his sources . . . it's a pretty safe bet that he isn't exaggerating. He's lying. When you finally pull out the tape measurer he's still a liar if shows 5, 6, 7, or 8. Anything over that and you give a little credit for stretching the truth.

Bushistas didn't stretch the truth. They created narratives that were NEVER fact-based. Bush got caught with his pants down and now the world can take a gander at just how small he really is.

I can agree with you. However, there is one difference. Bush and his people had 2-3 sources claiming an on going weapons program. On the other hand, there were several more reliable sources (mainly the UN inspectors) who said no weapons program.

So using your analogy, the Bush side would claim they based their evidence off 2-3 shady foreign doctors saying, "we saw his 12 inch penis, but can't PROVE it with a photo."

That said, I am not really defending Bush. As I said in my original post, if you ignore enough counter evidence, you are effectively creating a lie.

 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

This topic was already discussed 3 years ago. The libtards were wrong then, they remain wrong today.
 
Heh, thanks for the link Corn. From that thread:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
? White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
? President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
? President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
? President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
? Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
? President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
? President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
? Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
? President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
? President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
? President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
? President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
? President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
? President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
? President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Heh, thanks for the link Corn. From that thread:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
? White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
? President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
? President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
? President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
? Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
? President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
? President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
? Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
? President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
? President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
? President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
? President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
? President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
? President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
? President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Why the heck did Corn feel it was a good time to shoot himself in the foot?

😕

 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"?

It was three parts:

First when the U.N. inspector said there was nothing there, then when Powell addressed the U.N. with 110% bullsh!t.

Then it was when Bush lied about the Nigerian Nuclear material that never existed.

The icing on the cake is the resident pundits still echoing Bush's lies to this day.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Heh, thanks for the link Corn. From that thread:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
? White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
? President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
? President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
? President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
? Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
? President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
? President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
? White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
? Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.?
? White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
? President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
? President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
? President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
? President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
? President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
? President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
? President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
? Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

This should be stickied below our fallen soldiers.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

What difference does it make? Do we have WMD? Does that give Iraq the right to destroy the United States in a war of aggression? Try to think about the implications of what you are saying.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

What "leap". There never was any leap. Bush never was mistaken. It was all deliberate bullshit from the get go, and a lot of us here on this board pointed that out before the invasion. There is no doubt that what Bush did is high crimes and misdemeanors enough for impeachment by any account. But I don't think Bush should be impeached. He should stand trial for crimes against humanity as the massmurder he is.







 
I knew Iraq had no coolio weapons.

It would have taken a magician better then David Copperfield to hide them with how much people have been/where up his ass.
 
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

Name one reason we had to believe Saddam had WMD other then bush said so?
 
After numerous rounds of "We don't know if Osama is still alive," Osama himself decided to send George Bush a note in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game.

Bush opened the note, which appeared to contain a single line of coded message: 370HSSV '0773H.

Bush was baffled, so he E-mailed it to Dick Cheney. Cheney and his aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI, so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA. With no clue as to its meaning, the FBI finally asked Marine Corps Intelligence for help.

Within a few seconds, the Marines cabled back with this reply: "Tell Bush he is holding the message upside down."
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.
I think you're missing the point. 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Not Iraqis, Saudis. Iraq did not support Al Queda.

We were never being threatened by Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a puppet, and he wanted to break his strings (link). It cost him his life, his bloodline, tens to hundreds of thousands of other folks' lives; and who knows how much it cost us in knowledge of our own cultural, and maybe even genetic, history.

Bush lied. He didn't go from being mistaken to lying. He lied right off.

Yes, we all thought he had WMDs. However, if it were not for the 9/11 connection propaganda, that would not have been enough, and many of us knew that was BS from the start.
 
Originally posted by: smack Down
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

Name one reason we had to believe Saddam had WMD other then bush said so?

Because he was caught red handed in the 90's with a chemical weapons program, and he gave us no reason after that fact to trust him?? Oh, and Clinton and Kerry said so too.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: smack Down
In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

Name one reason we had to believe Saddam had WMD other then bush said so?

Because he was caught red handed in the 90's with a chemical weapons program, and he gave us no reason after that fact to trust him?? Oh, and Clinton and Kerry said so too.


Also, several war detractors have said we all thought Saddam had WMD's in this very thread. It was generally assumed by pretty much everyone before the war, and even before Bush took office.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's.


Perhaps a consensus with the Bushfanboi crowd but not with people who actually use their heads. On 9/11 I told my wife "Watch Bush go and invade Iraq now" and a few short months later, that was what he was trying to sell the American public. Those of us with brains knew it was bullsh!t from day one. Sorry you bought his lies hook, line, and sinker, but don't ASSume the rest of use were so gullible.
 
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I'm a former Bush supporter, before I found out Bush wasnt a conservative, so now that we have that out of the way...

How did you make the leap from "Bush was seriously mistaken" to "Bush lied" about the WMD situation in Iraq? When I look back at the time before the invasion, it seemed almost a general consensus that Saddam had WMD's, so the debate centered around whether it was worth it to go to war, even if he did have WMD's. I think this group think permeated American society from the man on the street, all the way up to the decision makers in government. I remember every day during the run to Baghdad, it seems they would stumble on a new Iraqi outpost with a bunch of barrels, and everyone was thinking that would be the slam dunk that most assumed was coming.

In hindsight, we had good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's, though we didnt have proof at the time of the invasion. After all of Saddam's charades in the 90's, and him getting caught red handed at one point, I think we just always assumed that Saddam was always lying. In the runup to the war, Bush was supporting what was generally a foregone conclusion.

With this groupthink predating the Bush presidency, and most Democrats openly saying that they believed Saddam had WMD's even before Bush came to office, how EXACTLY did you arrive at the conclusion that "Bush lied" instead of "Bush was mistaken"? Save the rhetoric about how stupid and evil Bush is, I'd like specific examples, developments, news stories, etc.

This topic was already discussed 3 years ago. The libtards were wrong then, they remain wrong today.

Cornhole in da house. :laugh:
 
Back
Top