Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[NotfooledbyW]

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Please prove it was a lie.

You must know that when a President cites 'intelligence sources' as evidence for starting a war of choice that we the people are at the mercy of the President with regard to 'proving' that evidence to be solid and genuine or not.

Bush's lie here was in his use of the word 'evidence'. Whatever Bush had with regard to the Saddam / AQ connection was flimsy evidence at best. Bush should have used the word "information" or "leads" in place of "evidence" in order to be truthful.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If Bush lied then so did the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham and many other prominent Democrats as far back as the late nineties....

Knock it off, this shit is debunked B.S. and has been for a long time.

You need new material.

 

[Jarhead]

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Please prove it was a lie.

You must know that when a President cites 'intelligence sources' as evidence for starting a war of choice that we the people are at the mercy of the President with regard to 'proving' that evidence to be solid and genuine or not.

Bush's lie here was in his use of the word 'evidence'. Whatever Bush had with regard to the Saddam / AQ connection was flimsy evidence at best. Bush should have used the word "information" or "leads" in place of "evidence" in order to be truthful.

Hey Sparky...

Bush had to share the intelligence of many nations with congress before he got approval to take military action.

Now, you may allow yourself to be convinced by irresponsible politicians looking to be elected when they responded to questions of "why did you support the war" with the claim that the intelligence Bush gave them was cherry picked......

But only a fool would believe that the intelligence of OTHER nations was ALSO cherry picked by the heads of those nations to accommodate Bush.

So are you a fool?

 

[Jarhead]

Videos posted at post #'s 189 and 194 of this thread and re-posted in some quotes.

Are you referring to this from his 2003 SOU?

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Please prove it was a lie.

What happened to the "Evidence from secret sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody"?

SO in other words, you can not prove it was a lie.

Cool.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

How could anyone NOT believe such a claim?

As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

I believe everyone here understands that this discussion is about stockpiles of CW that were supposed to be concealed from UN inspectors by Iraq after the end of 2002. It has nothing to do with 1987.

 

[Camp]

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Please prove it was a lie.

You must know that when a President cites 'intelligence sources' as evidence for starting a war of choice that we the people are at the mercy of the President with regard to 'proving' that evidence to be solid and genuine or not.

Bush's lie here was in his use of the word 'evidence'. Whatever Bush had with regard to the Saddam / AQ connection was flimsy evidence at best. Bush should have used the word "information" or "leads" in place of "evidence" in order to be truthful.

No, he didn't have any of the evidence he claimed. He never provided evidence or proof of secret communications and the intelligence agencies testified in congress that none existed. The same for the "people in custody claim". There was not a person in custody making these claims and once again, the intelligence agencies testified to not have anyone in custody making the claims that would back up the President. They were blatant lies. He claimed in his State of the Union Address that he had secret intelligence, communications and people in custody to verify collusion and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and he had none of it. It was an outright, clear blatant lie.
Does anyone have any evidence or links or whatever to back-up the claims made by President Bush? Maybe I am missing something.

 

[Jarhead]

Please prove it was a lie.

You must know that when a President cites 'intelligence sources' as evidence for starting a war of choice that we the people are at the mercy of the President with regard to 'proving' that evidence to be solid and genuine or not.

Bush's lie here was in his use of the word 'evidence'. Whatever Bush had with regard to the Saddam / AQ connection was flimsy evidence at best. Bush should have used the word "information" or "leads" in place of "evidence" in order to be truthful.

No, he didn't have any of the evidence he claimed. He never provided evidence or proof of secret communications and the intelligence agencies testified in congress that none existed. The same for the "people in custody claim". There was not a person in custody making these claims and once again, the intelligence agencies testified to not have anyone in custody making the claims that would back up the President. They were blatant lies. He claimed in his State of the Union Address that he had secret intelligence, communications and people in custody to verify collusion and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and he had none of it. It was an outright, clear blatant lie.

So are you saying that people like Hillary Clinton agreed to send thousands of men and women to their death based on the word of a President she admitted she never really trusted or agreed with? With absolutely no concrete evidence to back up his claims?

And you want to see her run for President?

 

[Camp]

You must know that when a President cites 'intelligence sources' as evidence for starting a war of choice that we the people are at the mercy of the President with regard to 'proving' that evidence to be solid and genuine or not.

Bush's lie here was in his use of the word 'evidence'. Whatever Bush had with regard to the Saddam / AQ connection was flimsy evidence at best. Bush should have used the word "information" or "leads" in place of "evidence" in order to be truthful.

No, he didn't have any of the evidence he claimed. He never provided evidence or proof of secret communications and the intelligence agencies testified in congress that none existed. The same for the "people in custody claim". There was not a person in custody making these claims and once again, the intelligence agencies testified to not have anyone in custody making the claims that would back up the President. They were blatant lies. He claimed in his State of the Union Address that he had secret intelligence, communications and people in custody to verify collusion and a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and he had none of it. It was an outright, clear blatant lie.

So are you saying that people like Hillary Clinton agreed to send thousands of men and women to their death based on the word of a President she admitted she never really trusted or agreed with? With absolutely no concrete evidence to back up his claims?

And you want to see her run for President?

Yup, Hillary Clinton shares in the blame for listening to Bush as does every other politician that supported that war. And I do not want to see her even run for President let alone become a President.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ya gotta love it.. Clinton the genius was fooled by Bush the idiot.

These people are certifiable.

 

[KissMy]

Inaccurate intelligence is not an example of lying. There is no proof that Bush ever lied about anything. Bush was re-elected by the American people in November 2004 with the first majority win in the popular vote since 1988.

Bush only won because we did not know the truth. Most of the info we know today is from documents that were declassified or leaked after the 2004 election. Democrats swept Congress House & Senate after the info was declassified. Then Obama kicked McCain's lying ass.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush had to share the intelligence of many nations with congress before he got approval to take military action.

Now, you may allow yourself to be convinced by irresponsible politicians looking to be elected when they responded to questions of "why did you support the war" with the claim that the intelligence Bush gave them was cherry picked......

But only a fool would believe that the intelligence of OTHER nations was ALSO cherry picked by the heads of those nations to accommodate Bush.

There is more conviction that the Brits massaged the intel more so than the US did. And Colin Powell cleansed his speech at the UN of all Saddam/AQ ties. And those ties are the intelligence that is being discussed. And why do you presume that the intelligence being discussed came from foreign sources?

 

[Camp]

Ya gotta love it.. Clinton the genius was fooled by Bush the idiot.

These people are certifiable.

Well no one expected the President of the United States to lie like that after 9/11. Everyone sort of assumed the President would put aside politics and agendas and be totally prioritized to the nations security. The last thing anyone expected was that he would be tricked or purposely become a brazen, blatant dishonest liar. Folks just didn't consider the impact and influence Dick Cheney and the neo cons would have over the President. Bush may have been the biggest sucker of all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So are you saying that people like Hillary Clinton agreed to send thousands of men and women to their death based on the word of a President she admitted she never really trusted or agreed with? With absolutely no concrete evidence to back up his claims?

And you want to see her run for Presidenit?

When HRC voted yes for the AUMF 'if necessary' it was October 2002. Were there any UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq at that pivotal moment in time?

Bush was correct to confront Saddam Hussein in October 2002 because the dictator was in violation of international law as defined in many UNSC Resolutions at that time.

So why would HRC not be qualified to run for President for agreeing with Bush that SH's lawlessness and history was a threat our national security.

You point makes no sense since I assume you are a Dubya supporter.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ya gotta love it.. Clinton the genius was fooled by Bush the idiot.

These people are certifiable.

Well no one expected the President of the United States to lie like that after 9/11. Everyone sort of assumed the President would put aside politics and agendas and be totally prioritized to the nations security. The last thing anyone expected was that he would be tricked or purposely become a brazen, blatant dishonest liar. Folks just didn't consider the impact and influence Dick Cheney and the neo cons would have over the President. Bush may have been the biggest sucker of all.

Bush said the same things and cited the same evidence that was cited in the late nineties by the Clinton admin...

Let it go man...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If Bush lied then so did the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham and many other prominent Democrats as far back as the late nineties....

Bush lied on March 17, 2003 when he addressed the nation saying that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Saddam's regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN Resolution 1441 inspectors at that time. None of those you mentioned above told that lie. It is solely Bush's lie at that pivotal moment in time.

 

[Camp]

Are you referring to this from his 2003 SOU?



Please prove it was a lie.

What happened to the "Evidence from secret sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody"?

SO in other words, you can not prove it was a lie.

Cool.

Thanks for your honesty.

It was proven to be lies when the CIA and others in his administration had to admit that no such evidence existed.
The only people in the entire world that do not recognize Bush and his administration lied are the small minority of his supporters who won't believe he lied even when they see video's of him doing so.

 

[Camp]

Ya gotta love it.. Clinton the genius was fooled by Bush the idiot.

These people are certifiable.

Well no one expected the President of the United States to lie like that after 9/11. Everyone sort of assumed the President would put aside politics and agendas and be totally prioritized to the nations security. The last thing anyone expected was that he would be tricked or purposely become a brazen, blatant dishonest liar. Folks just didn't consider the impact and influence Dick Cheney and the neo cons would have over the President. Bush may have been the biggest sucker of all.

Bush said the same things and cited the same evidence that was cited in the late nineties by the Clinton admin...

Let it go man...

Clinton nor anyone else told the nation and world after the attack of 9/11 that Saddam was in any way connected to or in collusion with al Qaeda. A fair debate can be made that without the belief that Saddam was connected and in collusion with the 9/11 attackers there would not have been support for the war against Saddam. That was the lie that closed the deal and that is why his supporters always deflect away from it and bring up WMD's. The WMD issue by itself wasn't enough. Otherwise we would have had to invade N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and a few others.

 

[Camp]

If Bush lied then so did the Clintons, John Kerry, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham and many other prominent Democrats as far back as the late nineties....

Knock it off, this shit is debunked B.S. and has been for a long time.

You need new material.

Never been debunked. If it had the debunking articles and sources would be all over the net. I found two attempts by rw blogs that concentrated of WMD's with quotes from Clinton, etc.,. All statements made years earlier or statements from people based on the Bush administration lies.
The Downing Street Memo's leave no doubt as they document the US and British purposeful agenda of misleading the public. With the declassified US documents added to the Downing Street Memo's there isn't even a serious attempt to debunk the lies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You were saying?

Yes Bush lied on March 17, 2003 when he told us that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors.

This chemical weapons site that IS terrorists have seized was inspected and well known to inspectors back in 2003 according to FoxNews:

Feb. 18, 2003:

• Weapons inspectors visited at least eight military and industrial sites outside Baghdad, including a chemical factory and Al Muthanna military complex, where they have been destroying artillery shells and mustard gas found.

The items at Al Muthanna were declared by Iraq in accordance with UN Res 1441.

You have discovered nothing new.

 

[Slyhunter]

You've got that right. Pretty low class of you to be joking about it.

There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.

Actually there is no evidence that Bush told the truth on March 17 2003 when he declared to all the world that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors. He lied that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN inspectors on March 7 through 17 to start a war and has been lying everyday since and will continue to lie as long as there are people out there that fall for it.

Yes there is.
And if you claim Bush lied then your also claimed a bunch of Democrats also lied who said the same damn thing.