Did Bush Really Lie?

[DarkChaos]

The following link was forwarded to me in an e-mail: http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

[Devaint-Lucifer]

ummm no that was from the first time we invaded them i.e the first bush.

they lied to get oil and money.

[DarkChaos]

Did you look at the dates on the quotes?

2002, 2003.

[witeshark]

That was extreme and spectacular and true And I think we all should drop the missing WMDs deal and know that ridding the world of that scourge Saddam was the right move Clearly WMDs were destoyed during the war as Saddam knew his regime was doomed That link was very informative!

[antiklaus]

At 7/26/04 12:13 AM, Dark_Chaos wrote: The following link was forwarded to me in an e-mail: http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

All you do is prove my point. Liberal or Conservatives... they are all full of lies.

FYI, however, none of the other folks you cite led us into a war over this information. Bush certainly did.

[Gunter45]

Iraq has always been really shady about whether or not it has WMDs. Based on prior history and a good portion of those quotes, I am inclined to believe that Saddam did have some of these weapons in his posession. And it is ridiculous to say that we did it to get money. Do you know how expensive it is to go to war? If we wanted to give anyone money under the table (i.e. Halliburton), then it could have easily been done by a shady transfer of funds much more cheaply and more inconspicously. We didn't need to start a war if that was the goal, to say that we did is ridiculous. Perhaps that is a side effect of the war, that Halliburton is doing well off of this endeavor, but it was not the goal. The same thing with oil. There are several places we could get oil from without having to start a war. I think people are looking too hard in this to find fault with the war. I don't see why people would have to make such ridiculous claims in the first place. Going to Iraq at this point in time was a poor move. I'm certain that Saddam would have fouled up if we just gave him a little more time and then it would have been completely justified, instead of being in the grey.

[DarkChaos]

At 7/26/04 12:41 AM, antiklaus wrote:

At 7/26/04 12:13 AM, Dark_Chaos wrote: The following link was forwarded to me in an e-mail: http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

All you do is prove my point. Liberal or Conservatives... they are all full of lies.

FYI, however, none of the other folks you cite led us into a war over this information. Bush certainly did.

So, they're all automatically off the hook? Nope, not buying that one.
Oh, and FYI, one of them did: remember Clinton?

[Devaint-Lucifer]

if he knew he was doomed why didn't he use his WMD???

[Gunter45]

At 7/26/04 12:45 AM, Devaint_Lucifer wrote: if he knew he was doomed why didn't he use his WMD???

Probably because he is not a complete and utter idiot. If our troops were attacked by WMDs, our policy is to attack in kind, thus sending nukes. i don't think we would have leveled the entire country, but we sure would have given them a serious blow, probably killing Saddam in the process. If you mean why didn't he attack our homeland with WMDs, it's because he doesn't have the means to do so directly. He does not have long range ballistic missile launchers, thus making a direct strike against the US impossible.

[Memorize]

why would he lie.

[Gunter45]

At 7/26/04 01:03 AM, southwest_strangla17 wrote: why would he lie.

That's not very good support. And it is a dangerous thought in general.

[Memorize]

At 7/26/04 01:08 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/26/04 01:03 AM, southwest_strangla17 wrote: why would he lie.

That's not very good support. And it is a dangerous thought in general.

i mean what would be a good reason for him to lie even tho he probly has lied about a few things.

[Spookshow]

So what should we have done? Signed ANOTHER UN resolution?

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/26/04 12:13 AM, Dark_Chaos wrote: The following link was forwarded to me in an e-mail: http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

They shockingly discovered that the Democrats were for the war just as much as the Republicans? I'm going by my common sens ehere. Until they find the HUGE stockpiles of WMD that they said he had, I will consider the Bush Adminitration liars.

And I still consider the Democrats a lot of right-wing corporate-led corrupt politicians. Like the Republicans.

And that movie ws poorly made. And it proved nothing. Only that Republicans=Democrats. Which I knew already.

[Spookshow]

So Clinton, Kerry, Nader, Edwards, Clark, Albright, etc were right wing?

*My gerbil just commited suicide*

[antiklaus]

They shockingly discovered that the Democrats were for the war just as much as the Republicans? I'm going by my common sens ehere. Until they find the HUGE stockpiles of WMD that they said he had, I will consider the Bush Adminitration liars.

And I still consider the Democrats a lot of right-wing corporate-led corrupt politicians. Like the Republicans.

And that movie ws poorly made. And it proved nothing. Only that Republicans=Democrats. Which I knew already.

That's what I love about these party-oriented jabs. They act like its a shock that the other side is guilty of the things you accuse them of, and act like this fact absolves them of guilt.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but either a right or left winger is capable of making a wrong.

I still consider the biggest responisbility (currently) to be tied to the current administration. Mostly because they consistently used bad intel, even intel that flew in the face of what the CIA and FBI were telling them, to justify the war.

The 911 report is complete revisionist history. They claim the falut on our intel, yet the warnings from our intel were there in the form of memos directed to Cheny and Bush DIRECTLY. Those people chose to ignore the warnings.... and they are the ones who chose bad intel over reports that contradicted them...

and ultimately, they are the ones who should be held accountable.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/26/04 08:26 AM, Spookshow wrote: So Clinton, Kerry, Nader, Edwards, Clark, Albright, etc were right wing?

Nader isn't. The rest are.

[Spookshow]

What about when Clinton did nothing to Reno for the innocent death of a mother and baby?

[secondmessiah]

Some important facts:
A: To be misinformed is not to lie. President Bush would have been lying at the time if he said there were no WMDs in Iraq, all the evidence at the time showed that Saddam was in possession of/attempting to obtain WMDs.
B: WMDs are very easy to hide. A few vials of a bacterium, in the sand, never to be found again.
C: As for Saddam using these weapons, it was never his intention to use them directly against the US, he would have handed them over to terrorists or used them to threated Isreal or Kuwait. He also knew that it would be useless to use them on the US military and chose to try and destroy our standing in a court battle.

[beaucoup-yeux]

seeking to have WMDs is different from having them
Me seeking to have sex with someone doesnt mean I had sex with them.

I kinda think that saddam mightve had a vial of something that he stashed away as the US invaded, but yes Bush did lie.

He said that they had means of harming us, and they of course could not hurt americans unless we come into their country and attack them. Oh wait...

[RedSkunk]

At 8/1/04 09:04 PM, secondmessiah wrote: B: WMDs are very easy to hide. A few vials of a bacterium, in the sand, never to be found again.

Fuck, I have a few vials of bacterium buried in my backyard. The war wasn't sold on a "few vials". It was sold on "imminent threat" and "massive stockpiles".

[bosoxrock011]

Bush is definitely the worst president ever. HE has lied lots of times. He lied about the No Child Left Behind Act. He lied about jobs. He lied about health care. Our economy is ruined because of him. And it can't get much worse. So if you're gonna vote for bush on November 2nd. Think again. Who's gonna have to pay his debt? the children. John Kerry will definitely beat him in November.

[jaymc403]

WHY BUSH IS THE BEST

Honostly I think Kerry is 152% full of crap and cant stick to his answer, he always changes his opinion about things when it benifiets him. He always yells in his speaches about Bush to roul up the decocratic crowds and fill there mind with anger. He also yells about things he going to do and you can see right through him and tell he lieing and hes full of crap, and his fake promises keep changing. Aleast bush sticks to his words in his speaches and takes action like: tax cuts, capture of sadam, death of saddams evil sons, Osama Binladin right hand man in the trade center bombing, he might not of found weapons of mass distruction but that doest mean terrorist didnt use them, we have evidence from the mass graves France tried covering up. This war isnt about weapons of mass distruction its about terrorism. Its getting taking cared by Bush and Kerry wouldnt have the balls to keep going on he would probably reason with terrorist like a pussy and get us bomb like hell, you never reason with terrorist killer that was born to hate everything our country stands for and its people. He'll probably beg other countries like france or russia for help like an. We could never france they only want kerry to win so he could release Sheroks good friend Sadam. I bet Kerry would cover up the sleeper cells and global terrorism, he would cover it up like the kennedy family covered up the game they were running with the mafia and Monroes death. Kerry would cover things up with fake laughter and telling people what they want to hear until all the people in the united states are dead. Atleast Bush is giving us facts about whats going on, he's not going to give too much info becouse terrist are also watching he takes action and takes in members linked to terrorism, by the way Al Quida is gone we destroyed them we just need alsada he's the one decapitating people. Dont even compare this war to Vietnam becouse that war was for nothing and people were drafted kicking and screaming out of there houses, this war is more like WW2 becouse were fighting for a purpose to save this country and it allies, the people in this war want to fight, its in there blood and they are born heros no ones forcing them to go and they know what there getting into thats why they signed up. Its like being a cop or a fire fighter, they take risk like dieing or wounded everyday to protect the people of this country.

[antiklaus]

At 8/2/04 05:36 AM, jaymc403 wrote: WHY BUSH IS THE BEST

Honostly I think Kerry is 152% full of crap

if you have someone exceeding 100%, then 'think'-ing was not high on your agenda.

:and cant stick to his answer, he always changes his opinion about things when it benifiets him.

This sound like Bush talking about Taxes (the economy is strong, lower taxes on the rich.... the economy is weak, lower taxes on the rich...
or Osama going from our #1 threat and priority on 9/13/2003 to not caring about Osama a year to the day leater.

He always yells in his speaches about Bush to roul up the decocratic crowds and fill there mind with anger.

unless I am mistaken, Bush was screamin like a demon in the last speech I heard where he was mentioning Kerry. The Republicans were all frothed up with hatred about Kerry.

What's funny, is that both of these candidates are propped by the same money. They claim to despise one another, yet they in almost every single issue, speak as one.

He also yells about things he going to do and you can see right through him and tell he lieing and hes full of crap,

Precognitive are you? At least with Bush, we have his last 4 years to see he's screwed over the little guy.

and his fake promises keep changing.

No child left behind??? Bush dropped that one pretty damned fast.

Aleast bush sticks to his words in his speaches

Oh come one, he can't even make up his mind on the #1 terrorist in the nation. Is he a threat or a priority? Not according to Bush, despite his speech on 9/13/01....

and takes action like: tax cuts, capture of sadam, death of saddams evil sons, Osama Binladin right hand man in the trade center bombing,

excepting for tax cuts, none of those things are attributable to Bush. The military did those things. And honestly, the 'right hand man in the trade center bombing' was the FBI. They provided the explosives and let it happen..
This war isnt about weapons of mass distruction its about terrorism.
Really? That's not the reason Bush went when he sent my friends over there. And how can a we war against a noun?

Kerry would probably reason with terrorist

Haven FORBID anyone conisder using REASON....

by the way Al Quida is gone we destroyed them .

Not that I'm arguing, but Orangle alert in NYC is about 'AlQuida' according to YOUR candidate's terror expert...

[The-Enforcer]

At 8/2/04 06:19 AM, antiklaus wrote:

Haven FORBID anyone conisder using REASON....

Reasoning doesn't work with these people. The only reasoning they understand is a bullet between the eyes.

[antiklaus]

FYI, however, none of the other folks you cite led us into a war over this information. Bush certainly did.

So, they're all automatically off the hook? Nope, not buying that one.

Not saying anyone should be let off the hook. Just that you should prioritize the deeds. If three people are illegally brandishing firearms, you go after the one who is actually shooting innocents before you go after the ones who shoot mailboxes.

Oh, and FYI, one of them did: remember Clinton?

If you want to call that a war... but even if you did, see above argument. Go after the bigger crime first.

200 million and 3 years spent investigating Clinton's penis, and only 2 million and 3 weeks investigating 911...? thats fucked up priority.

[The-Enforcer]

At 8/2/04 02:33 PM, antiklaus wrote:
200 million and 3 years spent investigating Clinton's penis

The investigation was for perjury not penises.

[antiklaus]

At 8/2/04 01:53 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 8/2/04 06:19 AM, antiklaus wrote:

Haven FORBID anyone conisder using REASON....

Reasoning doesn't work with these people. The only reasoning they understand is a bullet between the eyes.

The very fact that you can go to the local 711 without worrying about an Athrax infection, or a suicide bomber tells me that they aren't as evil as you portray them to be.

FYI, you sound a lot like the folks who said, "The only good injun is a dead injun"

and those people don't get a lot of respect from me. I have Crow and Blackfoot blood in my veins, and I'm as proud of it as I am of my Irish and German blood.

You start labeling folks by ideology or skin and you have already shown a narrow mindedness as dangerous as the 'evil' that you propose to rid the world of.

[The-Enforcer]

At 8/2/04 02:37 PM, antiklaus wrote:

:: You start labeling folks by ideology or skin and you have already shown a narrow mindedness as dangerous as the 'evil' that you propose to rid the world of.

Antiklaus here you go again.

#1 I never said anything about native-americans, their current status of "living" or "deceased", or whether that was a "good" or "bad" thing. I am also part native american.

#2 I never said anything regarding race. If you took the time to read my post rather than go on some tirade about how proud of your ancestry you are then perhaps you'd realize I was speaking about reasoning with terrorists and the impossibility thereof.

Take a deep breath and relax. No one is race-baiting here (except maybe you).

[subpar]

If there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then whoever said there were was wrong, whether they were democrap or republicrap. I doubt Saddam would have given weapons to terrorists anyway.

By the way, my magic 8-ball predicts that Bush won't win this election.