Did Bush Lie?

[Lance]

MikeWM:

We already know the intelligence was a disaster (and I continue to wonder why more people don’t seem to care all that much about this).

Between those dates and the start of the invasion, Hans Blix reported on the mission he had been sent to do. Unfortunately he was ignored.

Mike

From 1981 to 1997, Blix headed the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA monitors compliance with the nuclear non- proliferation treaty. Blix took the job at UNMOVIC, created specifically to disarm Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons, in January 2000.

While at the IAEA, Blix oversaw inspections of nuclear power plants in North Korea and South Africa, as well as Iraq. But during his watch in the 80s, the agency did not detect Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program until the Gulf War ended in 1991.

Now there is someone who is the absolute final word on whether Sadam had WMD’s or not.

 

[mary_bobo]

mlchance:

Yeah, but their Democrats opposed to the Bush administration, and, therefore, are excused of all things, including being stridently in favor of making it easier for women to kill their children.

Let’s sum up the pro-Bush lied argument:

Bush lied! Soldiers died!
Halliburton!
No blood for oil!

Other example can be found here.

– Mark L. Chance.

Please tell me what Halliburton has to do with whether President Bush lied or not?

 

[Lance]

mary bobo:

Please tell me what Halliburton has to do with whether President Bush lied or not?

I think Mark was simply pointing out that the Dem’s resort to this when confronted with the facts that Bush did not lie.

 

[MikeWM]

Lance:

Now there is someone who is the absolute final word on whether Sadam had WMD’s or not.

If he is as useless as you make out, why bother appointing him to try and find out in the first place then?!

Mike

 

[Lance]

MikeWM:

If he is as useless as you make out, why bother appointing him to try and find out in the first place then?!

Mike

Blix was a compromise candidate before the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. and Britain had pushed for Rolf Ekeus, who was considered tougher, but France, Russia and China opposed him.

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

Well, he takes a hammering, but I’ve not seen it get personal, in-his-face, the way it did with Blair in the run-up to the election in May.

And, when ‘he responded to it last week’, why do you think he didn’t include ‘we’ve found WMD! When everyone says we haven’t, they’re wrong!’ as part of his response?

Mike

Mike,
You would not believe how downright rude a lot of what is said about him is. Why should he bother bringing up the WMD thing now? It is on the back burner and the press is not really pushing it anymore.

 

[MikeWM]

Lance:

Blix was a compromise candidate before the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. and Britain had pushed for Rolf Ekeus, who was considered tougher, but France, Russia and China opposed him.

Nevertheless, he said he hadn’t found any WMD and asked for a bit more time. Some people just assumed he was wrong, or it didn’t matter, and invaded anyway. It seems he was right, after all.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

You would not believe how downright rude a lot of what is said about him is.

Oh, I would. I don’t agree with attacking people, just policies. Nevertheless others make it more personal.

Why should he bother bringing up the WMD thing now? It is on the back burner and the press is not really pushing it anymore.

Well, maybe Bush wants to forget about it. It still doesn’t explain why Blair didn’t say something, when confronted directly on a number of different occasions by some very angry and rude people on this precise issue.

Mike

 

[Lance]

MikeWM:

Nevertheless, he said he hadn’t found any WMD and asked for a bit more time. Some people just assumed he was wrong, or it didn’t matter, and invaded anyway. It seems he was right, after all.

Mike

My point was that as head of IAEA he did not know anything about their nuclear weapons program until the Gulf War ended in 1991. He would have never had enough time. Sadam had years to prove he did not have WMD’s and refused to do so. We know Sadam had used WMD’s in the past, why should we not think he would do so again?

 

[MikeWM]

Lance:

He would have never had enough time.

Hmm, dunno about that. He said he wanted months (‘not years, not weeks’). He knew the eyes of the world were on him, and he was coming to conclusions that were against the intelligence - or at least the intelligence that was alluded to.

Mike

 

[Digger71]

MrS:

He may be laughed at for messing up some big words… but at least he knows what “is” means.

I believe him when he says "I did not have sex with Saddam"http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1/1_4_30.gif

Remind me, as I forget, how many civilians, soldiers and others died as a result of Clintons lie?

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Digger71:

Remind me, as I forget, how many civilians, soldiers and others died as a result of Clintons lie?

As hard as it may be to believe, I was a bigger critic of Clinton than I am of Mr. Bush, however, we must remember that Mr. Bush is president in the here and now. Mr. Clinton is the past. We can only learn from his mistakes, which were many, as we should learn from Mr. Bush’s, whose mistakes IMO are even more numerous, if not more heinous.

 

[Lance]

Digger71:

Remind me, as I forget, how many civilians, soldiers and others died as a result of Clintons lie?

Over 3000 at the WTC. He lied to us about keeping us secure while he was raping the CIA and othe intelligence agencies.

 

[2shelbys]

Digger71:

Remind me, as I forget, how many civilians, soldiers and others died as a result of Clintons lie?

I will remind you that it is clear to those who have really looked into this that Bush did not lie (unless everyone else including Clinton told the same lies first). I will also remind you that no one was granted freedom by Clinton and millions have gained freedom under Bush.

 

[2shelbys]

Lance:

Over 3000 at the WTC. He lied to us about keeping us secure while he was raping the CIA and othe intelligence agencies.

That is one of the most true things I have ever heard on the forums. Good post. Of course it was Clinton who cut our intelligence budget in half in the years prior to 9/11 and it was the Democrats who visciously fought the attempts of Bush and the Republicans to restore those budgets.

 

[Lance]

Elaine's Cross:

As hard as it may be to believe, I was a bigger critic of Clinton than I am of Mr. Bush, however, we must remember that Mr. Bush is president in the here and now. Mr. Clinton is the past. We can only learn from his mistakes, which were many, as we should learn from Mr. Bush’s, whose mistakes IMO are even more numerous, if not more heinous.

I do find it hard to believe, a quick search of your last 500 post and I found not one critical of Clinton.

 

[Lance]

~~~~I will also remind you that no one was granted freedom by Clinton and millions have gained freedom under Bush.

You forgot about Bill’s last minute pardons of felons.

 

[2shelbys]

Lance:

You forgot about Bill’s last minute pardons of felons.

Oops, you are right about that!

 

[Jay74]

Intelligence was bad, and needed and still needs improved. Frankly, I think that was known even before 9/11. Frankly, I’m very outraged over poor intelligence.

So why would a President act when he may have believed (and I believed he did believe) that intelligence agencies needed improved? Because not only did our intelligence indicate that Saddam having WMDs was a “slam dunk” as Tenet put it, this belief was also supported by over a dozen other countries’ intelligence agencies.

I don’t think Bush exaggerated intelligence. Contrary to popular perception, he isn’t a stupid man. I doubt he would have done that knowing full well he would be found out before the 2004 election. He did express a sense of urgency that he believed was genuine. That’s my conclusion based on his circumstance. I could be wrong, just as anyone else.

We know this to be true:

1. Intelligence needs improved,
2. The decision to remove Saddam is long past and we need to see it through, and if war was the wrong move then that only heightens our obligation to make it right.
3. The biggest mass murderer on the planet is in jail where he belongs, and he needs a fair trial to set an example for the world.
4. We cannot use Iraq as an excuse not to deal with the worse threat of Iran, nor can we ignore the mistakes made with Iraq when dealing with Iran.

We should quit entertaining the absurd notion that a first term president lied us into war, despite all the consensus behind his rationale for the war in the first place, right before an election. We need to fix this “mess” we are in, and do better in the future.

 

[grotto]

I found the following book to be very believable and it was written prior to 911. Check it out and see if you do also.

Title: Saddam’s Bombmaker (The Daring Escape of the Man Who
Built Iraq’s Secret Weapon)

Author: Jeff Stein, Khidhir Hamza

Amazon.com is offering it in paperback now at a low price. If you are interested in coming to your own conclusions about the danger Saddam Hussein presented - read it.

Hoping to hear some views on this.
AND NO!!! BUSH DID NOT LIE!!!