Bush Lied

[bolverk]

I would like to hear exactly what it is that Bush lied about, concerning Iraq. Now, I have a few guidelines you must follow, or your post will be discounted as rhetoric.

You can not use the intelligence gathered line, because like it or not, our intelligence community of America was in a shambles thanks to the previous administration. So, that boat don't float.

You can not say he tricked everyone. This is to vague. I want specifics that are not related to intelligence issues caused by the previous administration.

You can not advance an argument that can be verifiable and proved to have been supported by other leaders, including former Presidents. In other words, if a leader from the other side of the isle has said that Saddam must be removed from power, then you can not use that line of thought against Bush. This is called a consensus, and it is not the fault of one individual.

So, lets hear the lies.

[saunterelle]

Come on, you're setting yourself up. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. First, some well known lies other Presidents have told:

“I am not a crook,” Richard Nixon

My administration “did not – repeat, did not – trade weapons or anything else for hostages,” Ronald Reagan

“Read my lips: no new taxes,” George H.W. Bush

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky,” Bill Clinton.

Now, for Bush's lies on Iraq and how he misled our country to war I will refer you to Scott McClellan's new book What Happened (current #1 bestseller) and, rather than cutting and pasting all his Iraq lies you can find them all here: www.bushlies.net/iraqlies.html
I'm sure plenty of those meet your criteria. Also be sure to check out the Home/BIG LIES section for more big, blatant lies on Iraq.

[bolverk]

Jun 4, 2008 14:12:54 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Come on, you're setting yourself up. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. First, some well known lies other Presidents have told:

“I am not a crook,” Richard Nixon

My administration “did not – repeat, did not – trade weapons or anything else for hostages,” Ronald Reagan

“Read my lips: no new taxes,” George H.W. Bush

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman – Ms. Lewinsky,” Bill Clinton.

Now, for Bush's lies on Iraq and how he misled our country to war I will refer you to Scott McClellan's new book What Happened (current #1 bestseller) and, rather than cutting and pasting all his Iraq lies you can find them all here: www.bushlies.net/iraqlies.html
I'm sure plenty of those meet your criteria. Also be sure to check out the Home/BIG LIES section for more big, blatant lies on Iraq.

I did not see any big lies yet, just a reference to a book by a disingenuous individual. If he really felt the way he claims, why did he wait to put it in a book for his own monetary gain, rather then address it as was his responsibility to himself and the people.

[bolverk]

Also, the link you provided is a rehash of the same tired nonsense that has been spread around. Not one iota of it points to a specific lie. Might I remind you, President Clinton gave all the same reasons to remove Saddam, while Clinton was still in office. So, you have advanced an argument against Bush in which a formal leader of this nation used the same argument as Bush. That makes it invalid, since if Bush lied, so did Clinton. That means, it is Clinton's lies that led us down this path, since Bush would have just continued with the same policy advanced by the previous administration. Saddam was a threat and needed to removed to stabilize the middle east, as Clinton himself stated.

The only difference between the two, Bush acted, Clinton did not.

[bolverk]

Oh, and by the way, George H.W. Bush, if you read the history, had to sign the tax increase advanced by the Democratically controlled congress. He had no choice at that point in his administration, as a veto would have been overridden. And, it is the Constitutional responsibility of congress, not the president, to originate all bills concerning money in the House of Representatives. Now wiggle out of that.

Article I. The Legislative Branch:

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

[saunterelle]

That's your way of wiggling out of this one? To call Scott McClellan "disingenuous" and disregard 50 or so documented lies that came out of Bush's mouth WITH supporting evidence? Come on!

"Not one iota of it points to a specific lie. "

What do you mean? Each one is extremely specific. They document the time and place Bush said them and cite all of their sources for the fact of the matter.

For example:
The Lie: "During his Veteran’s Day 2005 address, Bush charged that “ . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. ""

The Truth: "The Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: “Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were ependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.” (Washington Post, 11/13/05) See democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-1-129

This was confirmed by a Congressional Research Service report which found that the “President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.”"


"The only difference between the two, Bush acted, Clinton did not."

Or is it that Bush acted but Clinton was intelligent enough not to act. Here are the warnings coming from Cheney's own lips in April 1994. Had Bush heeded his message we wouldn't be in this mess: youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

[bolverk]

So, basically, you are saying that the Democrats relied on the President, a man they hate with a passion, as evidenced by their acidic vitriol during his entire administration? What kind of representation is that? Don't they have the ability to do their own research?

Also, Clinton's administration was all for removing Saddam. Read your history my friend, and stop denying the very words that Clinton himself spoke.

Also, our intelligence gathering capabilities were not at full strength either. It was not our agencies from which this intelligence arrived. And, Clinton himself put full faith in those reports and supported the decision to invade at the time. He was privy to the same information as Bush, like it or not.

Lastly, don't give me the run around about democrats relying on Bush for intelligence. Those people all have their own sources, and believed that Saddam was a threat, as was claimed by the Clinton Administration as far back as 1998. If they lack the intelligence to do their own homework on the subject, then it was they who failed you, not Bush. And that is a fact of life, they did not do their job if they believed only Bush.

But hey, you would rather every Iraqi man, woman and child suffered under the yoke of slavery, then risk a single American life to liberate them and bring them along into Democracy. That is why your progressive friends demanded in the first Gulf War we not go into Baghdad, as was recommended by General Norman Schwarzkopf. Had we finished the job then, rather then listening to people like you, we would not have had to go back a second time, and Iraq would have been free a decade sooner.

[saunterelle]

Your arguments are weak and you're grasping for straws here.

Knock it off with saying that "Clinton's administration was all for removing Saddam." He was smart enough not to get us into that mess for whatever reason. Bush was the imbecile that went with his gut and was wrong.

"Lastly, don't give me the run around about democrats relying on Bush for intelligence. Those people all have their own sources, and believed that Saddam was a threat, as was claimed by the Clinton Administration as far back as 1998. If they lack the intelligence to do their own homework on the subject, then it was they who failed you, not Bush. And that is a fact of life, they did not do their job if they believed only Bush."

I'm not giving you the run around. The facts speak for themselves. The evidence is well documented. It's right there in black and white. You can look up the rest of Bush's lies too, and you'll find that most of them are totally valid.

"But hey, you would rather every Iraqi man, woman and child suffered under the yoke of slavery, then risk a single American life to liberate them and bring them along into Democracy. "

Watch the video of Cheney. In 1994 he himself says that it is not worth the loss of so many American lives to go into Iraq and create a quagmire. And there are much more pressing areas of the world if our goal is humanitarian aid. Iraqis were not "under the yoke of slavery" like people in the Congo and Darfur are today. This was never presented as our reason to go to war.

[The New Guy]

sounds like santurelle would fully support war on darfur.

clinton, did in fact voice the need for "regime change" in iraq. the only difference between him and GWB is that GWB had the balls to do it.

and here's the short list of those who believed hussein was a threat during the clinton administration and also those who were "duped" by GWB after clinton's reign.

www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[subdjoe]

New Guy, they were ALL misled by GWB, even then Pres. Clinton, and Pelosi were misled by him back in '98. Just ask them. It is all bushes fault

[ferrous]

Yes, yes, yes Bush lied.

His biggest lie, one for which most of us are guilty of is refered to as "Lies of Ommission."

Just exactly what he knew and didn't tell us could be considered a lie.

I also believe that President Bush, like most of the higher ranking politicians, believed that Saddam did in fact have WMD's and his decision to go into Iraq was a correct one.

My problem with President Bush is not for going into Iraq but for screwing up the end-game once Saddam was removed.

Only now, with Gen. Pertraeus in charge and adequate levels of troops are we now in a position to win this war.

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftops?

Oooops, what did I say? We have a chance to now win this war?

No, wait, we can't have the worst President in history actually doing something right and justifying the reasons for going into Iraq.

President Bush must be vilified and discredited for the Democrats to retain power. If it got out that he did in fact win this war, what would it do for all of their hateful rhetoric towards him and this war?

What would it do for them in the minds of Americans?

[mrroqout]

Ooh ooh Cheney said this in 94' how long are you gonna hold onto that lil' morsel?

Ahh another day where Saunterelle, holds Dick Cheney in the highest regards. This is NOT the first time Saunterelle has been called out for playing both sides, or wanting to have AND eat the cake.

You are sooooooo transparent it's silly. So you would DEFINITELY like to have it both ways? Worst administration bla bla bla lying crooks bla bla bla..oh but Cheney said this that validates me...oh this report is good....


Make up your mind.......oh wait here comes a breeze..