When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[IlarMeilyr]

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

We've been through this lots of times.

YOU are the liar.

President Bush and folks in his Administration DID say that there was "no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Even if that was incorrect, however, that is not a valid basis on which to claim that it was a "lie." You remain a dishonest bullshit flinging asshole liar.

Fact.

so you are saying that, when Bush and folks in his administration DID say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's, they were all totally unaware that doubt did, in fact exist within the intelligence community? You are saying that NONE of them had read the intelligence assessments that contained a myriad of caveats and qualifiers that did indeed cast doubt on the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles?

It would seem that, if you are so hellbent on defending their HONESTY, that you must then be willing to admit to their profound incompetence. The only way that someone on Team Bush could say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and have that not be a lie, would be for them to have willfully neglected to read the documents provided to them by the intelligence community. Which was it? Prevarication, or total criminal incompetence?

Clearly, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

Wrong again. It's good to be consistent. But you should strive to be consistent in areas other than just being wrong.

What I am saying is that YOU have zero evidence that President Bush didn't believe what he was saying. Thus, you have no factual basis to claim that he "lied," you moron.

That is a fact. I know facts and I know opinions. YOU calling your asshole opinions "facts" doesn't make them any less your mere asshole opinions.

Try to be right once in a while. You'll shock the world.

 

[expatriate]

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

the point is exactly correct. I, for one, a lifelong democrat, was totally behind Bush's actions in the immediate wake of 9/11. I was completely supportive of his actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy volunteering to come out of retirement and back on active duty to assist in the efforts there.

I was NOT supportive of his decisions to effectively abandon the fight against Al Qaeda and to shift targets to Iraq.

Look, we agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money. Bush, congress, the UN, and everyone else made a very bad judgement. Viet Nam was equally stupid but on a larger scale. neither accomplished anything.

the only point I am trying to make here is that Bush did not do it alone and he did not lie about the intel. believing bad intel is not lying.

and if team Bush had stated that they BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, it would NOT have been a lie. When they stated that THERE WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles, even though the intelligence estimates all contained varying degrees of doubt, that WAS a lie. Plain and simple.

 

[Seawytch]

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

(the threads you run away from?)

Fish, I have two of these...you?

then you either know the truth and choose to lie about it, or you are a bad example of a partisan hack.

Fish, you tried to make me "run along like a good little dyke" when I commented in a thread that I, obviously, have a valid opinion about...since I served during both gulf conflicts. Even outside of that, the dyke can have opinions outside of who she's eating for lunch. Fuck off.

Nothing funnier than a partisan hack calling someone else a partisan hack. Pot, have you met the kettle?

 

[Redfish]

so you are saying that, when Bush and folks in his administration DID say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's, they were all totally unaware that doubt did, in fact exist within the intelligence community? You are saying that NONE of them had read the intelligence assessments that contained a myriad of caveats and qualifiers that did indeed cast doubt on the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles?

It would seem that, if you are so hellbent on defending their HONESTY, that you must then be willing to admit to their profound incompetence. The only way that someone on Team Bush could say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and have that not be a lie, would be for them to have willfully neglected to read the documents provided to them by the intelligence community. Which was it? Prevarication, or total criminal incompetence?

Clearly, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

do you ask the same questions about the UN, UK, EU, germany, france, spain, italy, japan, saudi arabia, israel, russia, et. al? if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

I personally felt that anyone who stated certainty about Saddam's stockpiles was full of shit. Of the leaders of the countries you have listed, however, none of them had the ability or actually DID send American men and women to die in Iraq, did they? It has nothing to do with being partisan. I served in the middle east many years ago. I know a bit more about the players on that stage than most folks do. If Bush had been a democrat, I STILL would have been incensed by his invasion of Iraq.

wrong, the UK sent troops, so did some of the others.

I did business in the mid east for many years in many countries, so I too know the players and their motives.

we agree that going in as we did was a mistake, we agree that it was a waste of american lives and money, just as was viet nam, kosovo, and afghanistan.

what pisses me off is the left wing lies that Bush did it all on his own and created lies to convince the rest of the world to go along with it because he just loved war.

 

[expatriate]

We've been through this lots of times.

YOU are the liar.

President Bush and folks in his Administration DID say that there was "no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Even if that was incorrect, however, that is not a valid basis on which to claim that it was a "lie." You remain a dishonest bullshit flinging asshole liar.

Fact.

so you are saying that, when Bush and folks in his administration DID say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's, they were all totally unaware that doubt did, in fact exist within the intelligence community? You are saying that NONE of them had read the intelligence assessments that contained a myriad of caveats and qualifiers that did indeed cast doubt on the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles?

It would seem that, if you are so hellbent on defending their HONESTY, that you must then be willing to admit to their profound incompetence. The only way that someone on Team Bush could say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and have that not be a lie, would be for them to have willfully neglected to read the documents provided to them by the intelligence community. Which was it? Prevarication, or total criminal incompetence?

Clearly, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

Wrong again. It's good to be consistent. But you should strive to be consistent in areas other than just being wrong.

What I am saying is that YOU have zero evidence that President Bush didn't believe what he was saying. Thus, you have no factual basis to claim that he "lied," you moron.

That is a fact. I know facts and I know opinions. YOU calling your asshole opinions "facts" doesn't make them any less your mere asshole opinions.

Try to be right once in a while. You'll shock the world.

Again. Everyone agrees that the intelligence assessments contained varying degrees of doubt concerning those stockpiles. Are you really suggesting that the president had never read them? If he HAD read them, and been briefed on them, as we all assume and hope that he had, then he would have KNOWN of the existence of doubt and uncertainty. WHen he then said, THERE IS NO DOUBT, that WAS, in fact, a lie.

 

[Redfish]

the point is exactly correct. I, for one, a lifelong democrat, was totally behind Bush's actions in the immediate wake of 9/11. I was completely supportive of his actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy volunteering to come out of retirement and back on active duty to assist in the efforts there.

I was NOT supportive of his decisions to effectively abandon the fight against Al Qaeda and to shift targets to Iraq.

Look, we agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money. Bush, congress, the UN, and everyone else made a very bad judgement. Viet Nam was equally stupid but on a larger scale. neither accomplished anything.

the only point I am trying to make here is that Bush did not do it alone and he did not lie about the intel. believing bad intel is not lying.

and if team Bush had stated that they BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, it would NOT have been a lie. When they stated that THERE WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles, even though the intelligence estimates all contained varying degrees of doubt, that WAS a lie. Plain and simple.

nice try at hair splitting, but FAIL.

 

[Redfish]

(the threads you run away from?)

Fish, I have two of these...you?

then you either know the truth and choose to lie about it, or you are a bad example of a partisan hack.

Fish, you tried to make me "run along like a good little dyke" when I commented in a thread that I, obviously, have a valid opinion about...since I served during both gulf conflicts. Even outside of that, the dyke can have opinions outside of who she's eating for lunch. Fuck off.

Nothing funnier than a partisan hack calling someone else a partisan hack. Pot, have you met the kettle?

one lesbian said to the other: let me be frank with you, the other one answered, no, you were frank last night.

 

[expatriate]

do you ask the same questions about the UN, UK, EU, germany, france, spain, italy, japan, saudi arabia, israel, russia, et. al? if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

I personally felt that anyone who stated certainty about Saddam's stockpiles was full of shit. Of the leaders of the countries you have listed, however, none of them had the ability or actually DID send American men and women to die in Iraq, did they? It has nothing to do with being partisan. I served in the middle east many years ago. I know a bit more about the players on that stage than most folks do. If Bush had been a democrat, I STILL would have been incensed by his invasion of Iraq.

wrong, the UK sent troops, so did some of the others.

I did business in the mid east for many years in many countries, so I too know the players and their motives.

we agree that going in as we did was a mistake, we agree that it was a waste of american lives and money, just as was viet nam, kosovo, and afghanistan.

what pisses me off is the left wing lies that Bush did it all on his own and created lies to convince the rest of the world to go along with it because he just loved war.

wrong??? did the UK send American troops? I think not. If Britain wants to send their young men to be cannon fodder, I have no say in that decision. I am not a citizen of that country.

I agree with you as to the error of this operation, but Bush did, in fact, do this on his own. HE alone made the decision to commit troops to battle. I have never said he loved war, only that, as CinC, he bears the sole responsibility for sending our troops into the fray.

And... I am certain that he lied when he spoke of absolute certainty, and when you couple absolute certainty with the suggestion that Saddam was in cahoots with AQ during the lead up to 9/11, a scared and angry American population was swayed into believing that invading Saddam would somehow prevent AQ from causing a mushroom cloud over an AMerican city.

 

[expatriate]

Look, we agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money. Bush, congress, the UN, and everyone else made a very bad judgement. Viet Nam was equally stupid but on a larger scale. neither accomplished anything.

the only point I am trying to make here is that Bush did not do it alone and he did not lie about the intel. believing bad intel is not lying.

and if team Bush had stated that they BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, it would NOT have been a lie. When they stated that THERE WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles, even though the intelligence estimates all contained varying degrees of doubt, that WAS a lie. Plain and simple.

nice try at hair splitting, but FAIL.

because you SAY so? Are you suggesting that stating an opinion is the same thing as asserting a fact?

 

[expatriate]

leaning over to your companion in the movie theater and asking, "do you smell smoke" is, therefore, exactly the same thing as standing up in that same theater and screaming at the top of your lungs, "OMIGOD!!!!! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT THE THEATER IS ON FIRE!!!!!"

got it.

but you see... I happen to think that the former is stating an opinion, where the latter, in absence of actually seeing flames, is a lie.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?

Wow.

I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.

not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.

again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:

1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.

He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.

We could have also done all of those things had Obama chosen to finish the job...

So.....how many (more) Americans had to die....how much (more) American trea$ure had to be $pent....and, how much longer would it have taken....to finish the job???



I guess you're much-too-young to remember.....​

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON, March 1968: Now to meet the needs of these fighting men, we shall do whatever is required. Make no mistake about it. I don't want a man in here to go back home thinking otherwise. We are going to win!

NARRATOR: Johnson did meet the needs of his men at Khesanh. He unleashed the Air Force against the North Vietnamese encircling the base in one of the most intensive bombing campaigns in history. By early March, assured that Khesanh was safe and the Tet offensive repelled, Johnson quietly shelved the request for 206,000 troops. But the troop request had deeply influenced his new secretary of defense.

CLARK CLIFFORD: I know for three full days I spent down in the tank with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where you sit with all of the communications devices that go all over the world. We had long talks.

How long would it take? They didn't know.

How many more troops would it take? They didn't know.

Would 206,000 answer the demand? They didn't know.

Might there be more? Yes, there might be more.

So, when it was all over, I said, "What is the plan to win the war in Vietnam?" Well, the only plan is that ultimately the attrition will wear down the North Vietnamese and they will have had enough.

Is there any indication that we've reached that point? No, there isn't.

As a result of that kind of interview, and that kind of information, before the final examination was over and we submitted our reports to President Johnson, I had turned against the war.

Tet (1968)​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You mean -- holy shit -- you disagree with the considered opinion of the very U.S. Congress that authorized the military action?

Wow.

I'm sure they will be all abashed to realize that an internet hack like you disagrees with them.

not all of them... a majority of the democrats in congress at the time agree with him - and me - that the war was dumber than dirt... kinda like you.

again... if we had left Saddam in place he could have continued to do three things that would have helped us immensely:

1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
2. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting haven
3. keep acting as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony.

He DIDN'T have stockpiles of WMD's, the absolute certainty of which was a LIE on Bush's part, and he didn't have any operational connection with AQ and certainly would NEVER have given them WMD's even if he HAD them.

A majority of Democrats in the Senate disagreed with you.

But that's not really germane to the conversation.

Of COURSE, it is!!!

Bush Resurrects False Claim That
Congress Had "Same Intelligence" On Iraq

 

[Redfish]

and if team Bush had stated that they BELIEVED that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, it would NOT have been a lie. When they stated that THERE WAS NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles, even though the intelligence estimates all contained varying degrees of doubt, that WAS a lie. Plain and simple.

nice try at hair splitting, but FAIL.

because you SAY so? Are you suggesting that stating an opinion is the same thing as asserting a fact?

geez, you people need to grow up. if you say that a majority of the intel shows that saddam has WMDs and plans to use them, it is not a lie.

stating what you believe is not a lie.

how the fuck do you libtards claim to know what was in Bush's mind when he said that the intel showed that saddam had WMDs?

you fuckers are no better than your kenyan messiah lying about not increasing anyone's taxes, or closing gitmo, or cutting the deficit in half in 4 years.

your libtardian philosophy is so full of shit that your only defense is to continually lie about anyone who is smart enough not to buy into that bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

I personally felt that anyone who stated certainty about Saddam's stockpiles was full of shit. Of the leaders of the countries you have listed, however, none of them had the ability or actually DID send American men and women to die in Iraq, did they? It has nothing to do with being partisan. I served in the middle east many years ago. I know a bit more about the players on that stage than most folks do. If Bush had been a democrat, I STILL would have been incensed by his invasion of Iraq.

wrong, the UK sent troops, so did some of the others.

I did business in the mid east for many years in many countries, so I too know the players and their motives.

we agree that going in as we did was a mistake, we agree that it was a waste of american lives and money, just as was viet nam, kosovo, and afghanistan.

what pisses me off is the left wing lies that Bush did it all on his own and created lies to convince the rest of the world to go along with it because he just loved war.

wrong??? did the UK send American troops? I think not. If Britain wants to send their young men to be cannon fodder, I have no say in that decision. I am not a citizen of that country.

I agree with you as to the error of this operation, but Bush did, in fact, do this on his own. HE alone made the decision to commit troops to battle. I have never said he loved war, only that, as CinC, he bears the sole responsibility for sending our troops into the fray.

And... I am certain that he lied when he spoke of absolute certainty, and when you couple absolute certainty with the suggestion that Saddam was in cahoots with AQ during the lead up to 9/11, a scared and angry American population was swayed into believing that invading Saddam would somehow prevent AQ from causing a mushroom cloud over an AMerican city.

do you make the same assertions about the democrats who said exactly the same things bush said and had exactly the same intel to base those opinions on?

if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

 

[expatriate]

nice try at hair splitting, but FAIL.

because you SAY so? Are you suggesting that stating an opinion is the same thing as asserting a fact?

geez, you people need to grow up. if you say that a majority of the intel shows that saddam has WMDs and plans to use them, it is not a lie.

stating what you believe is not a lie.

how the fuck do you libtards claim to know what was in Bush's mind when he said that the intel showed that saddam had WMDs?

you fuckers are no better than your kenyan messiah lying about not increasing anyone's taxes, or closing gitmo, or cutting the deficit in half in 4 years.

your libtardian philosophy is so full of shit that your only defense is to continually lie about anyone who is smart enough not to buy into that bullshit.

Bush said THERE IS NO DOUBT. He didn't say, "I have no doubt...even though some folks in the intelligence business have some doubts, some of them think that Saddam may be all hat and no cattle, but I choose not to believe their assessments. I believe in my heart that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" He didn't say that. He ASSERTED as FACT that there was ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY about Saddam's WMD's, and I understand it is difficult for you to swallow, but that WAS a lie. There NEVER was absolute certainty. There NEVER was NO DOUBT. He knew of doubts when he stated there were none. THAT'S a LIE. Just deal with it.

 

[expatriate]

wrong, the UK sent troops, so did some of the others.

I did business in the mid east for many years in many countries, so I too know the players and their motives.

we agree that going in as we did was a mistake, we agree that it was a waste of american lives and money, just as was viet nam, kosovo, and afghanistan.

what pisses me off is the left wing lies that Bush did it all on his own and created lies to convince the rest of the world to go along with it because he just loved war.

wrong??? did the UK send American troops? I think not. If Britain wants to send their young men to be cannon fodder, I have no say in that decision. I am not a citizen of that country.

I agree with you as to the error of this operation, but Bush did, in fact, do this on his own. HE alone made the decision to commit troops to battle. I have never said he loved war, only that, as CinC, he bears the sole responsibility for sending our troops into the fray.

And... I am certain that he lied when he spoke of absolute certainty, and when you couple absolute certainty with the suggestion that Saddam was in cahoots with AQ during the lead up to 9/11, a scared and angry American population was swayed into believing that invading Saddam would somehow prevent AQ from causing a mushroom cloud over an AMerican city.

do you make the same assertions about the democrats who said exactly the same things bush said and had exactly the same intel to base those opinions on?

if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

Any democrat who stated with absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's was a liar, and I called them that at the time. NO democrat who voted for the use of force resolution ever got my vote until they publicly apologized for the error of that vote. And AGAIN... you all keep running from the fact that stating an opinion is not the same thing as asserting a fact. It really IS substantively different.
I think I smell smoke. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! THERE IS NO DOUBT THE THEATER IS ON FIRE. two different things. one is an opinion, the other is a lie.

 

[Redfish]

because you SAY so? Are you suggesting that stating an opinion is the same thing as asserting a fact?

geez, you people need to grow up. if you say that a majority of the intel shows that saddam has WMDs and plans to use them, it is not a lie.

stating what you believe is not a lie.

how the fuck do you libtards claim to know what was in Bush's mind when he said that the intel showed that saddam had WMDs?

you fuckers are no better than your kenyan messiah lying about not increasing anyone's taxes, or closing gitmo, or cutting the deficit in half in 4 years.

your libtardian philosophy is so full of shit that your only defense is to continually lie about anyone who is smart enough not to buy into that bullshit.

Bush said THERE IS NO DOUBT. He didn't say, "I have no doubt...even though some folks in the intelligence business have some doubts, some of them think that Saddam may be all hat and no cattle, but I choose not to believe their assessments. I believe in my heart that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" He didn't say that. He ASSERTED as FACT that there was ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY about Saddam's WMD's, and I understand it is difficult for you to swallow, but that WAS a lie. There NEVER was absolute certainty. There NEVER was NO DOUBT. He knew of doubts when he stated there were none. THAT'S a LIE. Just deal with it.

again, you are quibling about the words, the FACT is that he, and many others, believed the intel that said there was a certainty that saddam had WMDs.

Do you think Clinton was lying when he said the exact same thing based on exactly the same intel? how about Kerry? were they lying too? yes or no.

 

[Redfish]

wrong??? did the UK send American troops? I think not. If Britain wants to send their young men to be cannon fodder, I have no say in that decision. I am not a citizen of that country.

I agree with you as to the error of this operation, but Bush did, in fact, do this on his own. HE alone made the decision to commit troops to battle. I have never said he loved war, only that, as CinC, he bears the sole responsibility for sending our troops into the fray.

And... I am certain that he lied when he spoke of absolute certainty, and when you couple absolute certainty with the suggestion that Saddam was in cahoots with AQ during the lead up to 9/11, a scared and angry American population was swayed into believing that invading Saddam would somehow prevent AQ from causing a mushroom cloud over an AMerican city.

do you make the same assertions about the democrats who said exactly the same things bush said and had exactly the same intel to base those opinions on?

if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

Any democrat who stated with absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's was a liar, and I called them that at the time. NO democrat who voted for the use of force resolution ever got my vote until they publicly apologized for the error of that vote. And AGAIN... you all keep running from the fact that stating an opinion is not the same thing as asserting a fact. It really IS substantively different.
I think I smell smoke. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! THERE IS NO DOUBT THE THEATER IS ON FIRE. two different things. one is an opinion, the other is a lie.

OK, they all lied because they all had an ulterior motive because they all love war---------thats what you are saying. Is that what you really believe?

 

[expatriate]

geez, you people need to grow up. if you say that a majority of the intel shows that saddam has WMDs and plans to use them, it is not a lie.

stating what you believe is not a lie.

how the fuck do you libtards claim to know what was in Bush's mind when he said that the intel showed that saddam had WMDs?

you fuckers are no better than your kenyan messiah lying about not increasing anyone's taxes, or closing gitmo, or cutting the deficit in half in 4 years.

your libtardian philosophy is so full of shit that your only defense is to continually lie about anyone who is smart enough not to buy into that bullshit.

Bush said THERE IS NO DOUBT. He didn't say, "I have no doubt...even though some folks in the intelligence business have some doubts, some of them think that Saddam may be all hat and no cattle, but I choose not to believe their assessments. I believe in my heart that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" He didn't say that. He ASSERTED as FACT that there was ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY about Saddam's WMD's, and I understand it is difficult for you to swallow, but that WAS a lie. There NEVER was absolute certainty. There NEVER was NO DOUBT. He knew of doubts when he stated there were none. THAT'S a LIE. Just deal with it.

again, you are quibling about the words, the FACT is that he, and many others, believed the intel that said there was a certainty that saddam had WMDs.

Do you think Clinton was lying when he said the exact same thing based on exactly the same intel? how about Kerry? were they lying too? yes or no.

SO... to avoid just admitting that Bush looked us in the eye and LIED to us about the absolute certainty of Saddam's WMD's, you call it "quibbling about the words". How droll.

Neither of the two democrats you listed ever said there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

Bush, however, did. That was a lie, because he KNEW of doubts when he said there were none.

 

[expatriate]

do you make the same assertions about the democrats who said exactly the same things bush said and had exactly the same intel to base those opinions on?

if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

Any democrat who stated with absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's was a liar, and I called them that at the time. NO democrat who voted for the use of force resolution ever got my vote until they publicly apologized for the error of that vote. And AGAIN... you all keep running from the fact that stating an opinion is not the same thing as asserting a fact. It really IS substantively different.
I think I smell smoke. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! THERE IS NO DOUBT THE THEATER IS ON FIRE. two different things. one is an opinion, the other is a lie.

OK, they all lied because they all had an ulterior motive because they all love war---------thats what you are saying. Is that what you really believe?

don't put words in MY mouth... I certainly have not done that to you.

Bush overstated the case. He needed to seal the deal with the American people so he oversold it, and in the process, he lied to us. That's just a fact. THere always were doubts. To tell Americans that there were NONE, especially when he KNEW there were, was a lie.