Has Bush Lied?

What is your take on the whole WMD thing.

My take is this: Iraq was in a highly unfortunate and undesirable position. We needed to take someone down to show the crazy man with the nukes that we don't mess around. Iraq had: a history of chemical attacks; on Iran and it's own minorities, a tin pot dictator no on really liked nor would miss anyways, a military we could over power with swift brutality, and an abundance of a resource we would like to see more readily available. So they were obliterated. Are there WMDs in Iraq right now? I have no clue. Have there been WMDs that have been USED on people by Iraq? YES.
So, we smote them.

Fra.Morelia said:

My take is this: Iraq was in a highly unfortunate and undesirable position. We needed to take someone down to show the crazy man with the nukes that we don't mess around. Iraq had: a history of chemical attacks; on Iran and it's own minorities, a tin pot dictator no on really liked nor would miss anyways, a military we could over power with swift brutality, and an abundance of a resource we would like to see more readily available. So they were obliterated. Are there WMDs in Iraq right now? I have no clue. Have there been WMDs that have been USED on people by Iraq? YES.
So, we smote them.

Click to expand...

Well the whole reason we supposively went over there was b/c of WMDs that Bush promised they had. And to this date we have no recovery of them.

I mean even North Korea says they have them and if we come near them they will use them. Wouldn't they be more of a threat?

My point is regardless of Sadam Hueisain(sp) and Al Queda, did Bush make a lie about knowing they have WMDs so he could get the support to go to war?

I get so disappointed by those who say that Bush lied. He may not have told the truth but he may have told the truth according to the information he was given.Bush did not do the research onthis issue. He has/had people who were responsible to get intelligence and discern the truth of the intelligence.If they erred and gave that data to the President then it was they who were worng.Even so Iraq, has provennot only the ability to use WMD but they have shown their intent by using them on the smallest ethinic group in their own land.

There are recent reports by the present WMD search team that Saddam did in fact move WMDs to various countries including Lebanon, The Netherlands, Syria and a few others.

Based on that information I would say that for the security of the entire world the action taken against Iraq by the Bush administration was late.My own personal thoughts are that the one who dropped the ball was William Jefferson Clinton and not George W. Bush.

Europe is much closer to Iraq than the US. Nobody liked Saddam Hussein, but nobody imagined him as a threat to world peace or security.

Bush is the head of his government. The CIA and others lied, but it is still his responsibility.

When searching the Internet for WMD + Netherlands, most hits feared that NATO forces were hiding nukes of their own on bases in the Netherlands. If you have any proof that the Netherlands (or any other country) received WMDs from Iraq, please name your sources.

bush has definitly lied.

so has every other president in USA history. News flash everyone. EVERYONE Human Being lies.

the reason we don't go after North Korea like we did Iraq is that we know they have nukes. Or at least the capability of purposefully spreading nuclear materials...
The Taepodong missle is capable of hitting Hiwaii and Alaska... and they may have a new ICBM Taepodong 2 capable of hitting main-land USA.

Iraq, militarilly speaking was weak, it was an easy target, much like Afganistan. We seem to like enemies that have no chance against us as far as weapons tecnology and military standing goes.

North Korea has an almost non-existant ecconomy, Famine is rampent. This makes them if not actual enemies, then certenly willing to sell WMD's to the highest bidder. In light of this possiblity then thier erratic actions may be more to highlight thier potential goods to possible buyers than anything elce.

Last I heard they were having major problems with the guidance systems for their rockets (the hardest part of any missile) Ironically this makes them perfect weapons of terror as you can not tell where the missile will strike once launched.

The problem with the question of Bush's lies is that unlike most people, Bush has in his hands the fates of millions of people. He sent people into a war that, had they not had the WMD scare, they probably would not have agreed to. Thus the lives, not only of our troops but of all the Iraqies (both innocent and not) are on his hands.

Bush it seems has come to terms with the lack of proof that Iraq had WMD's, what is interesting is that Cheney has not, and still insists that Iraq not only had WMD's but direct ties to Al Qadea. ( a fact disproven by the inquery into 9-11)

wa:do

I would hardly say we like weak enemies. It was useful that they were weak. The Vietnamese were hardly weak. Nor were the Koreans nor were the Germans. The people who threaten us happen to have the misfortune of not understanding that they never stood a chance. Mess with the bull and you get the horns.It is called a display of power and is an important military tactic. Did bush lie? i Bet a dollar he stretched the truth. We know they have had them. We KNOW that by the tens of thousands of gassed dead. Regardless of morals and simpering, there are horrible people out there who do horrible things. Bush's job is not to give us a warm fuzzy. It is to insure that as few of us die as is possible. A war against N.korea would have meant tens fof thousands of American dead. That is simply unnacceptable when it can be tens of thousands of another countries. Especcially when we know that that countries leadership needed to be taken down anyways.I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger. It is called a hard truth for a reason, soft people will never accept it. Some people just have to die. So some people have to kill them.

In hindsight, Vietnam and Korea weren't weak. But the US thought they were, and so stepped in, believing that enough bombs would solve everything. Regarding Germany, Hitler was already almost defeated when the Allied troops drove in the last nail.

um.... Iraq does not have nukes, nor weapons of mass destruction.

bush's first mission was to get rid of nukes. but then he decided once he couldn't find the nukes, to find saddam. ABSOLUTLY UNRELATED TO 9/11 and OSAMA and the other terrorist organizations.

this *war* is not really about terror. its about how to erradicate power from those who challege the power of the west.

there are other troubles in the world. theres the civil war in Sri lanka. theres *communism* in china. and nk too. gawd. why iraq of all places? there are no weapons!


plus, i think its retarded that iraq cannot have weapons, but the US can. sure, thier intentions may not be correct, but who said bombing nagasaki and hiroshima was good? because of that those nukes have cause permanent damage to Mother Earth (Bhoomi Devi).

i think every country should give up nuclear weapons.

Namaste, Gerani,

I agree with you. I only want to point out that the "communism" of China is an entirely new version of that "faith". By now, three countries have acknowledged that China is a market economy.

For this site, it is interesting that there is a major effort going on where the Chinese government pays for a reprinting of the whole Buddhist Tripitaka text canon from old woodblocks on hand-made paper. Altogether, the blocks weigh some 480 tons. ‎The pages, if lined up, could stretch as long as 100 kilometres‎. And a new Catholic church is being built in Beijing.

Regarding nukes, it is a pity that president Reagan just silently left a conference when the Soviet president Gorbachev pleaded for total and world-wide nuclear disarmament.

Bah, Iraq has possessed WMDs in the past. FACT. They have used them on:Iran and the Kurds. Fact. If you've never seen someone die by VX, I will tell you this: it is the most horrible death imagininable. I would rather burn first. So, does he have them now? Well, I am not sure. We have found his PLANES buried in the sand, so why not WMDs there too? Will we find them, I dunno. Does he challenge our power? Not really. As I said, it is called a display of POWER, used to deter the crazy man with the nukes. It is a tactic, and tactics kill.
By killing a few in Iraq we save hndreds of thousands of American lives. When decisions are made, sorry to tell you, an American life is worth 10 foriegn lives.
My main concern is not whether or not they had WMDs. This is now a pointless argument, save to stroke ones own philisophical ego. Bush will suffer no indictment, lie or not. He did the right thing. The right thing isn't ever the easy thing. What concerns me is this; the Iraqis did not fight for their own freedom. Thus I do not know if it will mean enough for them to hold on to it. Time and battle will tell.

THE IRONY.

i think we should impeach bush. bush has lied. i mean ppl wanted to impeach Clinton just because of an affair that was *his* business. Hes not killing anyone. But Bush... he has tricked the people into going war costing 895 soldiers to die!

hmm... peoples minds are so deranged... they would support a leader who kills for wrong reasons rather than supporting a president who is human.

Clinton comitted perjury, he didn't just have an affair. He was convicted for perjury not for having an affair. Furthermore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been awake on his watch. He had mulitple chances to kill Osama then, but he didn't (and we had reasons to do it too, i.e. U.S.S. Cole, African embassies bombings). Corporate corruption is Clinton's fault too, because he let those guys do that stuff throughout the 90's. He even had a number of those CEO's over to the White House for lunch. Bush has got a bad deal, mainly because the president before him couldn't do his job. Now, as far as Iraq. I figured Bush would go Saddam as soon as he got into office. There is bad blood there, no denying it. However, if not for WMD, was the war not worth it in the amount of lives it saved from Saddams tyranny?

first, osama and saddam are different people, and they are not even part of the same terrorist organization!

(P.S. Osama will be found dead this year 2004, i predict that)

his sex life is none of anyones business. the people who elected him in power must realize that they elect humans. not infallible gods.

bush on the other hand did LIE to the people about his intent in going into iraq. perhaps there was no definite reason...

I wonder whether Bush out and out lied about WMDs --- or whether he was merely irresponsible in jumping to the conclusion that there were WMDs. Either way, it doesn't speak well for him as a leader. But the second case seems more plausible to me. In effect, I think Bush believed what he wanted to believe.

Gerani,

LCMS made a ton of excellent points and you expertly skipped around them. What do you have to say in response to his post?

LCMS Sprecher said:

Clinton comitted perjury, he didn't just have an affair. He was convicted for perjury not for having an affair. Furthermore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been awake on his watch. He had mulitple chances to kill Osama then, but he didn't (and we had reasons to do it too, i.e. U.S.S. Cole, African embassies bombings). Corporate corruption is Clinton's fault too, because he let those guys do that stuff throughout the 90's. He even had a number of those CEO's over to the White House for lunch. Bush has got a bad deal, mainly because the president before him couldn't do his job. Now, as far as Iraq. I figured Bush would go Saddam as soon as he got into office. There is bad blood there, no denying it. However, if not for WMD, was the war not worth it in the amount of lives it saved from Saddams tyranny?

Click to expand...

okay, so he lied. he had the chance and power and he did. many men get corrupted by it. no surprise.

the government gets threats every week. bush got a threat that 9/11 was going to happen. he waved it off like every other. than boom!! *waves his arms wildly* people died. DIED.

okay, so clintion didnt stop him. because of clintion (as you say) 9/11 would not have happend rite? i doubt it. osama has many followers, many of them would have bound to bomb something or another sooner or later. it was only a matter of time and how well the US can intercept and manage.

so lcms preacher says that bush has gotten the bad left overs that clinton should have managed.

bush wanted to manage it all right. i sent forces into IRAQ. to find weapons of mass destruction. they did not find those weapons. okay, so why didnt he send them back to the US were thier loving families wanted them??? no. you see, bush has pride. pride he does not want to loose. people look up to him to find revenge against 9-11. thus he decided to go find saddam. saddam is unrelated to al-quida. they found no evidence that they had connects before 9-11.

instead of finding osama, bush is looking for saddam.


resulting in the loss of 890 soldiers. they DIED. thats the size of my catholic hoghschool with teachers. thats A LOT OF PEOPLE. and they died unnecessarily.

im not against the soldiers. you must realize im against thier occupation in a forein land that is NOT THIERS. NK actually has nukes. but iraq DOESNT.

and they havent found osama. but they will. they will this year. and they will find his corpse. now that is usefull.


bush has not done any thing constructive. i wish i knew details, but i know hes building some roads which are killing wildlife. he does not focus on OUR PROMLEMS ON HOME. he thinks about iraq and saddam and MARS. wow, whatever happened to America?

Gerani,

okay, so he lied. he had the chance and power and he did. many men get corrupted by it. no surprise.

Click to expand...

Woah! Lying is lying, and Clinton is guilty of it! The one thing that I hate the most about Clinton supporters is how critical they are of everyone else, and then how nonchalant they are about him! You are so obviously baised here it's ridiculous!

okay, so clintion didnt stop him. because of clintion (as you say) 9/11 would not have happend rite? i doubt it.

Click to expand...

No one cares whether you 'doubt it' or not. Of course you would doubt it because it has to do with Clinton. Study up and get the facts for a change.

osama has many followers, many of them would have bound to bomb something or another sooner or later. it was only a matter of time and how well the US can intercept and manage.

Click to expand...

First of all, bin Laden and his followers are no match for the US military. Secondly, it was not a 'matter of time' before they bombed something. They had been bombing like crazy all through Clinton's term (that's what we're talking about when we say 'clean up what Clinton let get out of control').

bush wanted to manage it all right. i sent forces into IRAQ. to find weapons of mass destruction. they did not find those weapons. okay, so why didnt he send them back to the US were thier loving families wanted them???

Click to expand...

Because the Iraqi people needed to be liberated, not to mention the fact that Saddam posed a very real threat to our nation and other nations as well.

instead of finding osama, bush is looking for saddam.

Click to expand...

Newsflash, we have Saddam. While we were looking for Saddam, we were also looking for bin Laden.

and they havent found osama. but they will. they will this year. and they will find his corpse. now that is usefull.

Click to expand...

How do you propose to know this?

i wish i knew details,

Click to expand...

So do I. It would allow for a much more informative conversation that is not so riddled with one-sided opinions.