yeah. i made a couple others too this morning. go check those out.
So who are you asking? Since I was asking a question I don't see how I could be right or wrong.
yet, you are advancing a point in the thread
So where, when, and what did Bush lie about?
dont ask me
I'm asking anyone.
well i am one.
You just said,"don't ask me".
since i was asked i answered
To 666 misleading isn't lieing. SW better watch out.
Ok then Dan, what, when, how did Bush "mislead" anyone?To 666 misleading isn't lieing. SW better watch out.
The Bush administration should be held accountable (and hold themselves accountable) for being wrong about WMDs. And Bush's supporters shouldn't be afraid to question why the evidence was erroneous. While there's no doubt that WMDs were not the sole reason for entering Iraq, they were certainly a primary concern for many, if not most, of those who supported the Administration's decision to strike.
But as long as his most vocal detractors continue to try to imply that something more sinister was at work, the Right will continue to argue those accusations instead of considering the reality of the situation, which is somewhere in the middle of "Shrub is a greedy liar" and "George W. Bush is the Great Liberator of People Under Tyranny."
In that sense, Marcus is right. You're both wrong.
Spurm, I never said, "George W. Bush is the Great Liberator of People Under Tyranny."
I was simply asking the where, when, and why.
spurm, pretty much. its one thing to make an argument that you invade iraq because given what was known you have to err on the side of caution and there was a 12 year history of reasons why that was necessary, reasons ultimately based on a threat to national security. making a correct decision based on faulty intel is not necessarily an impeachable offense.
yet, if instead of just admitting that the intel was faulty you put yourself on the path that leads to claiming that the invasion was not about national security but rather "exporting democracy" then i definitely feel that some criticism is warranted, for that standard is much more loose than the national security standard
I wasn't necessarily talking about you, User. I've argued against the "liar" accusations myself. I'm mainly talking about those who refuse to accept the possibility that the Bush Administration erred in some of their justification for the War.
Ok, I totally understand what you said. I never have understood that accusation. I'm not blind to the reasons given and the underlying purposes for going into Iraq. With all the "liar" talk I just wanted to pointed to sometthing of substance if it existed. I think some of the most important reasons for the situation in Iraq were also the least spoken about.
So, answer the question then.
Okay, so when did that happen? When did Iraq go from being a country with WMD's in 1998 to one with no WMD's in 2003? It's a simple question, I don't understand why everyone is having such a hard time answering it instead of vomiting the same "there's no WMD's in Iraq" canard.
Fine, let's accept the premise there were no WMD's in Iraq when Baghdad fell in March of 2003. So, where'd they go?
I'll tell you one thing the David Kay report doesn't say about where they went. It doesn't say they never existed. In fact, the David Kay report speculates they were moved to another country, destroyed, or hidden somewhere in Iraq.
In fact, the David Kay report asks the same question I've been asking. THE ENTIRE WORLD KNEW HE HAD THEM IN 1998. THEY WEREN'T FOUND UPON INVASION IN 2003. SADDAM HUSSEIN AIN'T SAYING WHERE THEY ARE. SO, WHERE ARE THEY?
A reasonable person could assume he still had them. And, there was plenty of evidence to support that assumption.
You know, if Bush Supporters were more activist in nature, we'd be picketing Congress with signs such as "Saddam Lied, People Died." The entire invasion could have been avoided if Iraq had yielded to over a dozen UNSC resolutions and disclosed his entire WMD program...which, by the way, did exist. He could have ceased human rights abuses. He could have ended the Oil-for-food corruption and started feeding the starving children of Iraq. He could have returned our missing U.S. Servicemen from Gulf War I. He could have quit shooting at Coalition forces after agreeing not to in the cease-fire agreement. He could have returned all the plundered spoils from Iraq. He could have rejoined civilized nations of the world.
All these things were demanded in the cease-fire of 1991 (not to mention several UNSC resolutions) under the threat of resumed hostilities...which we recommenced in 2003.
Although I believe it's probably true, I don't recall this administration ever formally saying there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Just that Iraq had relationships with global terrorism and known contacts with al Qaeda. That's a far cry from claiming a connection to 9/11.
That's purely speculation on your part and there's a whole wealth of do entation, video footage, UN resolutions that dispute your claim. I can't help if the crazy left, the Mainstream Media, and Bush Haters were only able to discern one rationalization for going to war in Iraq.
How many, in this forum, remember when it was claimed the only reason Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq was to avenge his father?
Then, it was to enrich his oil buddies...
The fact remains, a joint Congressional Resolution gave President Bush the authority to use military force, in Iraq, to do a number of things (including disarming him of WMD's, if they existed). But, I know it's hard for you to focus on more than one simple hypothesis at a time.
I'm amazed the looney left was able to field such a "nuanced" presidential candidate what with all the simple minds that only know how to regurgitate theh "Bush Lied" lie, over and over again.
It's never just been about WMD's -- that's your perspective -- but, I don't expect you to become any more sophisticated than you are so, I fear any sudden clarity for you, over the situation in Iraq is still a long way off.
I suspect that had we not invaded Iraq the world would be a much more dangerouse place today than it was in February 2003.
as much as you want to blame the media for distorting the reasons for going to war its the administration which has shifted to this "exporting democracy" rationale recently.
sure, the media filters things through a critical point of view with a distinctly left of center flavor but lets not pretend that the administration hasnt been doing the same thing
No one died when Clinton lied.
what if bush made a decision on faulty intel? is that a "lie"?
So Johnny, your saying Bush lied?
Actually, regime change was one of the earliest rationales -- coming from the Clinton Administration -- for invading Iraq. Just because Saddam Hussein made the decision to invade easier by his continued behaviors doesn't change the fact that from the mid-90's, it has been the stated U.S. position that we favor regime change in Iraq.
"Very few" ever die over a blow job!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
