A "Tale of Two "LIES"???

healthmyths

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2011
29,043
10,525
900
Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."
 
The big difference between Benghazi and Bush was Bush put the country first... Obama his re-election first!
 
Bush was skeptical?

He didn't sound skeptical in March of 2003 when he made his speech selling the war:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Full text Bush s speech US news The Guardian

BUT DID HE LIE? Did he tell people that Saddam had WMDs when Bush knew that Saddam did not?

Please explain how a dictator also a human would even allow this...
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

1991 CEASE FIRE to 1995 is 4 years.. 576,000 starved is 144,000 kids a year.
All because Saddam would NOT admit he didn't have WMDs!
I don't think people like you understand the magnitude of that act...i.e. why would Saddam
NOT certify the WMDs destruction?
Civilized leaders can not imagine letting their children die unless Saddam couldn't certify!
Every leader in the world asks themselves, why wouldn't he certify unless he DID have WMDs!
 
By your own posted definition, Republican CON$ervative BooB Woodward is a liar.
Case closed.
 
Bush was skeptical?

He didn't sound skeptical in March of 2003 when he made his speech selling the war:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Full text Bush s speech US news The Guardian

BUT DID HE LIE? Did he tell people that Saddam had WMDs when Bush knew that Saddam did not?

Please explain how a dictator also a human would even allow this...
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

1991 CEASE FIRE to 1995 is 4 years.. 576,000 starved is 144,000 kids a year.
All because Saddam would NOT admit he didn't have WMDs!
I don't think people like you understand the magnitude of that act...i.e. why would Saddam
NOT certify the WMDs destruction?
Civilized leaders can not imagine letting their children die unless Saddam couldn't certify!
Every leader in the world asks themselves, why wouldn't he certify unless he DID have WMDs!
Have you ever read all the actual inspections reports. I have. There were times where Saddam didn't comply and gave them a hard time, There were also times when the US interfered trying to add things that were not part the original resolution. All 4 main inspectors (Ritter, Blix, Butler, Duelfer) have gone on record to say their reports were cherry picked by the US. Saddam also accused the US of sending in spies which we found out was true later on. Can you make this out?
"Iraq accepted the first monitoring team to the Ibn Al-Haytham Centre in accordance with resolution 687 (1991). However, it appears from the modalities of the monitoring team that the Special Commission is trying to overlap in a discreet fashion Iraqi obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and resolution 715 (1991). This is very clever. Iraq knows that, using Iraqi cooperation under resolution 687 (1991), the Special Commission wants to assert Iraqi obligations under resolution 715 (1991). Iraq is fully aware of this effort. If the objective of the Special Commission is to make sure that no prohibited activities are going on, prohibited items are destroyed and Iraq has no capability to reactivate proscribed programmes, Iraq has no objections as this is part of resolution 687 (1991). However, if the objective is to start a de facto implementation of resolution 715 (1991) without Special Commission testament to the Security Council that Iraq is in full compliance with resolution 687 (1991) and without implementing paragraph 22 of that resolution, Iraq will not welcome this mission. The monitoring missions would not be welcome. But, even in this case, Iraq will still cooperate with the Special Commission to see the true objectives of these missions and to explore the intentions of the Special Commission. Iraq told the Special Commission that resolution 715 (1991) could be discussed only in connection with the implementation of paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991). You should never think or believe that it could be done otherwise.";
It's not an exciting read.

http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s25977.htm

I remember one of the inspectors saying in a report that Saddam was doing everhing possible to lift the sanctions. When I find it I will post it. There are literally hundreds of pages like this one.
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
 
Hey look, I can cherry pick too.

This from 1993

"16. After intensive discussions on all outstanding issues, Iraq did hand over a more detailed account of its chemical weapons production in the past and, for the first time, details on the suppliers of critical equipment or materials in each of the categories, including on those who provided technical advice. However, in exchange for this, Iraq sought to have the information treated as solely confidential to the Commission and requested a statement from the Commission that Iraq was now fully in compliance with section C of resolution 687 (1991), less the future monitoring aspects thereof. This latter statement the Commission could not give, rather wording the report with caveats relating to adequate verification of the newly received information. This did not fully satisfy the Iraqi side, which still sought a definitive statement on the part of the Commission and IAEA to the effect that Iraq was now in full compliance with its obligations. In particular, it sought a statement that the Commission was fully satisfied with the newly provided data. In recognition that the Commission might need some time to study, verify and assess the new data, Iraq accepted instead that there would be a further round of talks in New York.

17. This further round of talks took place in New York from 15 to 30 November 1993, comprising high-level technical talks and, during the second week, parallel political talks. A full report of this round is to be found in document S/26825.

18. In the technical talks, the Commission informed Iraq that, at that stage, the information available in all areas had been deemed to be credible and that the Commission would deploy its best efforts to expedite the process of further verifying that information with a view to arriving at a definitive conclusion in the shortest possible time. In subsequent working groups, Iraq provided information supplementary to that provided in the previous round in Baghdad on its past proscribed programmes and on sites, equipment and materials to be monitored pursuant to the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. Discussions were held on alternative means of verification, on a process to address past difficulties in verification and on how ongoing monitoring and verification would be implemented."

http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s26910.htm
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG


doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG


doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam
It was one of the 2 big selling points for the war. The other was the ties to Al Qaeda.
 
The big difference between Benghazi and Bush was Bush put the country first... Obama his re-election first!

The big difference between Iraq and Benghazi:

5,000 US troops died and 200,000 Iraqis died on Bush's watch in Iraq. Subsequently over half a million Iraqis have died in the war related conflicts since Bush's adventures in Iraq.

In Benghazi 4 Americans died and a few Libyans died as a result of Libyan mob action, not US troops.

Do you understand the difference now or do you want me to repeat this slowly once again?
 
"A "Tale of Two "LIES"???"

It's the tale of ridiculous rightwing partisan hacks such as the OP attempting to propagate their revisionist history and lies as to the cause of the war in Iraq, a war that started as a consequence of the lies of GWB.
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG


doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam
It was one of the 2 big selling points for the war. The other was the ties to Al Qaeda.


not according to the 2002 US congress Irag war resolution

it certainly was not half of the points

or the other half being Alqeada

obviously

you dont know zip other then what

you have been spoon fed

--LOL


im sorry i mistakenly thought yo knew something about the invasion

carry on
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG


doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam
It was one of the 2 big selling points for the war. The other was the ties to Al Qaeda.


not according to the 2002 US congress Irag war resolution

it certainly was not half of the points

or the other half being Alqeada

obviously

you dont know zip other then what

you have been spoon fed

--LOL


im sorry i mistakenly thought yo knew something about the invasion

carry on
There were 12 cited factors in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 but the Bush adminstration's main arguments for war were the 2 factors I pointed out. Go look at all their speeches. These 2 areas cover 90% of them.
 
speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage
Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG


doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam
It was one of the 2 big selling points for the war. The other was the ties to Al Qaeda.


not according to the 2002 US congress Irag war resolution

it certainly was not half of the points

or the other half being Alqeada

obviously

you dont know zip other then what

you have been spoon fed

--LOL


im sorry i mistakenly thought yo knew something about the invasion

carry on
There were 12 cited factors in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 but the Bush adminstration's main arguments for war were the 2 factors I pointed out. Go look at all their speeches. These 2 areas cover 90% of them.

i dont like the bushs either

however

you are being disingenuous
 
Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top