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

[kaz]

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.

Funny how you seem to think you know what's in my head. You don't, by the way.

Um...it's what you posted, moron. If you blame both sides, blame both sides, not just one which is all you're doing now except when I said, then you said oh yeah, them too.

Neither side lied about intelligence, yet the US Congress came out and said that the CIA was deliberately making up "evidence"

Actually, Democrats did. You make it sound like that was bi-partisan. It wasn't. Your argument is we know Democrats were lied to because they said they were. LOL, and you're calling me a sucker? Also, no idea who you were quoting when you quoted evidence.

and passing it to Bush so he could do exactly what he wanted to do. That's way too much of a convenience for me to accept that Bush or those around him, didn't ask for it.

The Bush administration KNEW that the intelligence they were getting was not correct. If that isn't a lie then you're a sucker for liars.

Right, Democrats ran the Senate and were in the White House until six months before 9/11. Then said they had no idea what was going on, Bush fooled them. They didn't know, And you're calling me a sucker for liars? That's just classic. Oh, and you're not a Democrat. LOL. And you blame them both while you say Democrats were innocent and Republicans lied to them.

You're a tool. A socket wrench. Democrats tell you what to think, and you think it.

Well done for insulting, it must have taken a lot of your intelligence to get there.

It takes almost none of my intelligence to surpass you. And that's not bragging, it doesn't take much.

You're a partisan liberal hack. What cracks me up is you people keep calling me a Republican in discussions I go back and forth arguing with you about your Democratic party positions and Rabbi about his Republican party positions. Can't make that up, you're clueless.

 

[kaz]

I don't belong to a political party and have a long history of supporting Republicans in local elections

And I'm Dianna Ross.

 

[kaz]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

Camp likes news that doesn't make him think because they've already done that for him.

 

[kaz]

True, you the average Citizen haven't benefited at all. You never do in these Interventions/Wars. But many have gotten very rich off the Iraq War. And they continue to. The Elites now control Iraq's Banking System and are plundering its natural resources. And that was the plan all along. They're attempting to do the same thing in Syria and Ukraine right now. They recently accomplished that in Libya and Egypt. So you are right, you didn't benefit at all from the Iraq War. But others did.

I agree, but that's true of all government spending. I know you're against that as well. I'm just saying it's not specific to the military.

If we would focus on energy at home, there would be no need to keep sending troops to the Middle East.

 

[kaz]

Who plundered Iraq? No idea what you're talking about. We barely benefited if at all from their oil.

When you use the term 'we" are you talking about the average american citizen or these companies:

TRICARE
Blackwater
KBR
L3 Communications
Fluor
DynCorps
Washington Group International
International American Products


Follow the money

Why did BC/BS support Obamacare?

So you recognize it with Military, then don't realize it with the rest of government. Yeah, we spend a lot on military, but we spend a lot more on social programs that are just as corrupt. You're mending the roof of the garage while water pours in to the kitchen.

I support capitalism,not corporatism. They are entirely different things.

 

[Camp]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

No big deal, but that isn't my post you are quoting.

 

[Ibentoken]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Their entire existence is a lie.

Don't you just hate when people tread on you and your dumb ass opinions just because you can't think of intelligent things to say?

Oh, you poor pitiful creature.

 

[Ibentoken]

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

Nothing in my post is "unreal" or untrue. There is something that always happens when there are threads about Bush and his administration lying to hustle us into the war in Iraq. The posters claiming that the lying occurred post endless reliable links and video's to prove their case and the Bush defenders make endless comments like the one you just made. Meaningless drivel is the tool of the Bush defenders. Like little children calling other little children names. They do this while ignoring and unable to answer simple questions.

Poor Clinton did not have the intelligence of BOOOOOOOSH, so that was why he signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs, why he passed up on killing bin laden, and emboldened the terrorists after the Somalia debacle.

You think you are so fucking intelligent?

You spew utter fucking bullshit.

Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 you idiot. Do you think that the intelligence data from 1998 had some kind of relevance in 2002 or 2003? Well, you are an idiot, so maybe you think 4 or 5 year old intelligence can be turned into actionable intelligence. The rest of you garbage is garbage you had to have picked up from your favorite low information idiots talk radio show or nitwits blog site.

Harvard grad?

 

[Lakhota]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

That's so funny.

Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid

 

[Ibentoken]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

That's so funny.

Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid

Harvard grad?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't belong to a political party

Excuse me, if you remove Obama's cock from your mouth, it will be far easier to understand what you are trying to say...

and have a long history of supporting Republicans in local elections.

I can only comment about what you present on this forum. Here, you are a radical left Obamabot. Here you are a hyperpartisan democrat.

And I have never used any of the sites you accuse me of using. Not a single one. So, that makes you a liar on top of being a low information idiot. You can not find one post from any thread where I have used anyone of the sites you accuse me of using.

What you post is typically absurdly partisan, if not from the hate sites, it sure could be.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If a chain doesn't have LINKS - how can it be CONNECTED?

LINK
1. one of the rings or separate pieces of which a chain is composed.

Synonyms
2. connection, connective, copula.

Link Define Link at Dictionary.com

So, can you NaziCon retards stop your nonsense about the thread title? The thread title is accurate.

If Bush lied so did both clintons and the UN. They all had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

The Clinton's and the UN did not have the same intelligence as the Bush administration. Intelligence data that put the administrations claims under question was withheld from Congress and only discovered after the invasion. The VP's top aid was convicted for part of that fiasco and successful effort to hide intelligence data. In addition Bush presented the selected and cherry picked intelligence data as "actionable intelligence" when it in fact it didn't come close to reaching that standard. Actionable intelligence is the term that must be achieved before taking action. Is the intelligence reliable enough to take action that will risk lives to accomplish a predetermined goal?

Liberals are truly fucking unreal.

I do understand your concerns; the callous conservatives, like you, are locked in the box of conservative dogma and are all challenged by reality. First, admit you have a problem; next, challenge your beliefs. Finally, embrace liberal and progressive ideals - it will make you well and human.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, it looks like the NaziCons have been beaten down. It's about time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

No big deal, but that isn't my post you are quoting.

Back quoting does strange things around here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, it looks like the NaziCons have been beaten down. It's about time.

"Beaten down" in what way, Shitting Bull?

You mean that you've been utterly humiliated as a liar and a hack, yet again? That happens everyday.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I assume you prefer "reliable" sources such as Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh.

Fox News is reliable. Beck and Limbaugh offer opinion. Data is better gleaned from news sources. If you read the links I post, they generally point to the Washington Post and Forbes, not sure why those two come up so often, probably better positioning for spiders.

Fox News is reliable! Watchers are guaranteed a biased opinion.

 

[Theowl32]

Remember when I fucking crushed every pathetic liberal that uses the Halliburton cliche they always break out?

With this post:

In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)

The Center for Public Integrity another public interest group also investigated the purported scandal of the Halliburton "no-bid" contracts. They wrote:


In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations. When the Army needs a service performed, it issues a "task order," which lays out specific work requirements under the contract…From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). KBR (obtained) the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001…n November 2002 the Army Corps of Engineers tasked KBR to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq…[O]n March 24, 2003, the Army Corps announced publicly that KBR had been awarded a contract to restore oil-infrastructure in Iraq, potentially worth $7 billion. The contract KBR received…would eventually include 10 distinct task orders. KBR did not come close to reaching the contract ceiling, billing just over $2.5 billion…The contract was awarded without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances.

Neither the Center for Public Integrity nor Factcheck.org determined anything sinister about Halliburton’s no-bid" contracts for the Iraq war. Two nonpartisan, nonaligned, public interest organizations have investigated the Halliburton allegations and found them to be specious allegations made for purely political purposes.

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"

If Democrats want to investigate a scandal involving Iraq they should devote their efforts to the UN "Oil-for-Food" program instead of Halliburton. However, they will not because Saddam Hussein is not a candidate in this presidential election.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fox News is reliable! Watchers are guaranteed a biased opinion.

If they watch an opinion show.

That's the problem with you of the Khmer Rouge, you don't grasp the difference between news reporting and opinion.

I don't turn to a comedian for news, like most dumbfuckcrats do. That's not "news," that is opinion. I don't turn to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for news either.

I get most of my news from Google feeds. Most of that seems to come from the WP and Forbes.

 

[GreenBean]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

for the 100 trillionth time

He didn't lie

he was wrong

but all you leftist morons can't learn this very veryveryveryveryvery simple fact

Duh, he did lie.

Lakhota - you speak a lot of "çesdi"

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Democrat Madeline Albright,

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Slick Willy Clinton

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi

 

[Lakhota]

I consider this to be Bush's biggest lie about Iraq and Saddam.

Rightwingers like to distract from the event that Bush tried to link Saddam to - 9/11. Even the dumbest of rightwingers should now be convinced that Saddam HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. However, if any of them still think so - please provide credible proof.

I heard and saw Bush live on TV when he first tried to make this link. If there are any doubters - just Google "bush links saddam to 9/11"...

for the 100 trillionth time

He didn't lie

he was wrong

but all you leftist morons can't learn this very veryveryveryveryvery simple fact

Duh, he did lie.

Lakhota - you speak a lot of "çesdi"

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Democrat Madeline Albright,

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Slick Willy Clinton

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi

Yeah, and they got all that stupid shit form former CIA Director George Tenet. Bush even awarded him the Medal of Freedom.