Why did Bush lie about Saddam being connected to 9/11?

[Wry Catcher]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Makes you wonder why Booooosh did not plant wmds in Iraq with the same black ops team that rigged WTC 7.

Remember folks, all of these liberals are truthers.

They still are. So why wouldn't Boooosh have planned to plant wmds there if he knew for a fact they were not there?

I fucking hate liberals.

Get therapy. You sure need it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

 

[Theowl32]

It's not that hard.

Nowhere did that address what I am challenging, that the thread title is a lie. It didn't say anything about 9/11.

And if W is a liar, so are the Democrats. The big lie in Iraq is the Democrats saying you were lied to. You did this hand and hand with your twins, the Republicans. I'm not interested in your petty, partisan bickering fighting the Republicans for the steering wheel while you both drive down the same road. I'd like to have a foreign policy that makes more sense. Being in the middle east at all doesn't make sense. Blowing the cover off energy exploration at home makes perfect sense.

Oh, I have no problem with the Democrats being liars. They are.

But Bush was lying. Bush new the intelligence was a crock of bedsheets.

Oh, by partisan bickering, er.... how many times should I say I don't, never have and won't vote Democrat or Republican?

Yes, I'd like a foreign policy that makes sense. This still doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration got the CIA to make up a load of lies, and then they willing used these lies to "prove" that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda and WMDs. They knew all they needed to do was get to the point of invading then anyone could find out these were lies and "so what?"

I see, so you think both sides are liars, it's just that you only want Republicans to be accountable for that.

Neither side lied about the intelligence. W pursued a bad strategy that isn't in US interest, then Democrats lied that they were lied to and threw their country under the bus.

The liberal MO. They take on both sides of every subject and they shift like sands Egypt to fit whatever argument they are making.
They are truthers but cheer and brag that obama killed bin laden who they claimed was not responsible for 911.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[kaz]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't get the connection between how we handled the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and how the same buildings were attacked a few years later by the same people?

OMG, you people are a riot. How clueless can you be?

 

[The Rabbi]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't get the connection between how we handled the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and how the same buildings were attacked a few years later by the same people?

OMG, you people are a riot. How clueless can you be?

At this point it's willful stupidity.

 

[birddog]

George W. Bush is ranked No. 34 out of 44 presidents. Holy shit, that's pretty bad. Obama is ranked No. 14 out of 44. Holy shit, that's pretty good.

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

liberal wikipedia, doesn't count.[/QUOTE

It's very true that liberal Wikipedia does not count. Dubya was a good President, but far from perfect. Dubya was far superior to The Kenyan Scumbucket! Obama was the worst President in our history, and Bush should rank in the top ten!

 

[Tuatara]

The thing is there were no contacts between Sadam and al Qaeda. Having someone in the Iraqi army who is arrested and dischaged and flees the country is not someone who is represented by Saddam or the country. It's like saying Timothy McVeigh had ties to Clinton. Also Saddam was not training or harbouring Al Qaeda either.

Irrelevant.
Saddam was a 20yr sponsor of terrorism.

And the point is. The US have been sponsors of terrorism for longer and to a much stronger degree.

d.

Yesm we have exported terrorism. I personally beheaded a bunch of people just the other day.
You are an obvious dumbass. The Iraq War has beem over for years. If you dont understand why it started by now you never will.

I know why it started, I just wanted to see your take on it. Thanks for the kind words. As Apu Nahasapeemapetilon would say, come again.

OK so you lied.
No you probably have no idea why it started. You probably think Bush was out to prove something. Or Bush thought Saddam had sent those airplanes into the WTC. Or it was all about oil.
Tell us what you "know".

Where did I lie. You were the one to first claim to understand why the war started. I see your chickening out on your claim now. Move along and let the adults debate.

 

[JimH52]

Lot's of reasons. He wanted revenge on the man who plotted to kill his daddy. He felt Saddam was an easy target to take down. But the number one reason....IMHO was

DICK Cheney convinced the recovering alcoholic that the invasion was necessary, while in actuality it was only necessary for Cheney to become unbelievably rich and to stuff the pockets of all his Halliburton friends and associates. Oh and OIL.

 

[Theowl32]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

After, therefore, because of it, is hardly ever true and a fallacy.

 

[birddog]

It's true the liberal Wikipedia does not count. Dubya was a good President, but not perfect. He was far superior to The Kenyan. Obama was the worst President in our history, and Bush should rank in the top ten.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lot's of reasons. He wanted revenge on the man who plotted to kill his daddy. He felt Saddam was an easy target to take down. But the number one reason....IMHO was

DICK Cheney convinced the recovering alcoholic that the invasion was necessary, while in actuality it was only necessary for Cheney to become unbelievably rich and to stuff the pockets of all his Halliburton friends and associates. Oh and OIL.

Yes! That post needs to go in the thread Stupid things Democrats Say. All the talking points.

 

[Tuatara]

Lot's of reasons. He wanted revenge on the man who plotted to kill his daddy. He felt Saddam was an easy target to take down. But the number one reason....IMHO was

DICK Cheney convinced the recovering alcoholic that the invasion was necessary, while in actuality it was only necessary for Cheney to become unbelievably rich and to stuff the pockets of all his Halliburton friends and associates. Oh and OIL.

Anyone guess who said this "Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."


If you said Dick Cheney, you are 100% right.

 

[Theowl32]

Lot's of reasons. He wanted revenge on the man who plotted to kill his daddy. He felt Saddam was an easy target to take down. But the number one reason....IMHO was

DICK Cheney convinced the recovering alcoholic that the invasion was necessary, while in actuality it was only necessary for Cheney to become unbelievably rich and to stuff the pockets of all his Halliburton friends and associates. Oh and OIL.

Yes! That post needs to go in the thread Stupid things Democrats Say. All the talking points.

LOL.

Halliburton.

The cliches.

Notice how they never bring up how Clinton awarded Halliburton no bid contracts in the 90s? As if any of them knew or cared about that.

Factcheck has disproved all of their lame claims of Haliburton.

Such losers.

 

[Camp]

Lot's of reasons. He wanted revenge on the man who plotted to kill his daddy. He felt Saddam was an easy target to take down. But the number one reason....IMHO was

DICK Cheney convinced the recovering alcoholic that the invasion was necessary, while in actuality it was only necessary for Cheney to become unbelievably rich and to stuff the pockets of all his Halliburton friends and associates. Oh and OIL.

Yes! That post needs to go in the thread Stupid things Democrats Say. All the talking points.

LOL.

Halliburton.

The cliches.

Notice how they never bring up how Clinton awarded Halliburton no bid contracts in the 90s? As if any of them knew or cared about that.

Factcheck has disproved all of their lame claims of Haliburton.

Such losers.

Well, as long as you are cool with Factcheck......

factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/they-lied-they-died.pdf

 

[Wry Catcher]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't get the connection between how we handled the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and how the same buildings were attacked a few years later by the same people?

OMG, you people are a riot. How clueless can you be?

You're not very bright. That's sad. You are extremely partisan. That's bad. You support Wabbit, that's insane.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Still not as important as deciding what we do now.

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't get the connection between how we handled the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and how the same buildings were attacked a few years later by the same people?

OMG, you people are a riot. How clueless can you be?

At this point it's willful stupidity.

I agree, Kaz is quite limited and mostly clueless. I doubt his stupidity is willful, much like yours, it is likely congenital (unless he was dropped on his head a number of times - were you, Wabbit?)

 

[The Rabbi]

The Importance is knowing history and understanding past screw ups - the War with Vietnam should be the best lesson; it is the one Bush, et al, ought to have learned after Sept 11, 2001 and sadly didn't.

What if we had treated the Sept. 11 attack for what it was, a criminal act. The world would have continued to support us, there would be less dead and wounded, our economy would not have suffered and Bush would not go down in history as a failure. The radical Muslim element might be weaker and wouldn't have the recruiting tools they do today.

What we do now is critical, yet there is no strategy which will guarantee a positive result. We have plenty of 'experts' but not one is prescient, so I guess we will continue to argue, "Hurrah for our side" and stumble blindly into the night.

Ironic post is ironic.
You've forgotten that Clinton did exactly what you suggested after the first WTC bombing. The result was 9/11.

^^^ Post hoc ergo propter hoc

You don't get the connection between how we handled the first time the World Trade Center was bombed and how the same buildings were attacked a few years later by the same people?

OMG, you people are a riot. How clueless can you be?

At this point it's willful stupidity.

I agree, Kaz is quite limited and mostly clueless. I doubt his stupidity is willful, much like yours, it is likely congenital (unless he was dropped on his head a number of times - were you, Wabbit?)

Ad himinem fallacy.
Rabbi Rules!

It's actually not even an ad hom. Just a collection of nonsense. Like the rest of your posts.

 

[Lakhota]

Why did it take Bush so long to fess up?

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn't Say Before War: Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11