The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

And you're still snarling.

 

ry.

No, no one needs to admit that anyone other that George W Bush, Dick Cheney and his henchmen were responsible for the unnecessary, unprovoked and ultimately disasterous unilateral invastion of the wrong country.

Neither Clinton nor any other Democrats were campaigning for war. You can't produce a shred of evidence to support that claim. Stating that a lot of people accepted the conventional wisdom that Sadaam probably still had some of his WMD's , does not imply or mean that any of these people wanted to start a war. This is an ad hoc fallacy, and a pretty weak one at that.

Several Bush dead enders are pushing this fallacy on this thread., Not one of them can produce evidence to support it.

 

why do you answer questions with questionsMOD EDIT - Rule 3? MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Why don't you ask Obama that same question he increased the KIA of Americans by 74% in Afghanistan. Better still hold a séance and ask LBJ about the 58,000 GI's killed in Vietnam. Presidents that send people into battle all have that on their conscience, so do those that have been in battle more so. Oh, I forgot Progressives don't ask the same questions about their own, only from those they are smearing.

 

IIRC, about 4,550 American soldiers died from all causes in Iraq while something over 2,000 civilian employees of the Pentagon or military contractors were killed as well.

 

There is no absolute certainty about Obama's birth cert, no absolute certainty that he isn't a Muslim.
There is no absolute certainty that you are the child of the two people who told you that they are your parents. There is no absolute certainty even if Bush SAW bombs which he thought contained nuclear contents.

There is no absolute certainty that you won't be struck by lightning the next time you leave your house, but we must go by what makes sense. If the intelligence said there is a 90%, you have to consider it true like you have to consider it true that lightning won't strike you even though it isn't an absolute certainty.

Methinks you're trying too hard to convict Bush.

 

Media Ignores Increased Deaths, Casualties in Afghanistan Under Obama



by Tony Lee
11 Sep 2012

On the somber 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, nearly 2,000 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan since the war started in response to the attacks in 2001. The Defense Department has tallied 1,987 deaths. The Associated Press has counted 1,980. Other organizations put the number above 2,000. In addition, according to the Defense Department, 17,519 service members have been wounded in Afghanistan.

What is more striking, though, is more U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded during President Barack Obama’s first term in office than former President George W. Bush’s two terms. And the anti-war mainstream media that regularly counted the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, for the most part, has been silent on the number of deaths and casualties that have resulted under Obama.

Under former President George W. Bush, 575 American soldiers died and fewer than 3,000 were wounded in Afghanistan. This means under Obama, at least 1,405 soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 additional soldiers have been wounded, which means 70% of the deaths and nearly 80% of the injuries in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama’s watch.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...in-deaths-wounded-in-afghanistan-under-obama/

Obama sent these soldiers to their deaths.

 

That gets us back to the WHY of it all. Why did Bush go to such great and obvious lengths to lie us into a calamitous war? I'm certain there are state and individual secrets that will never see the light of day. And they all have to do with a tiny little country on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean.

 

Oh please, blame Israel conspiracy mongers.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the U.S. and U.S. interests. Clinton had been bombing him for 8 years off and on with no effect on the Hussein regime.

Containment is a policy of pure weakness. You adopt it when you are afraid of a real war.

Is it any wonder that President Bush wanted to eliminate the Hussein Baathist govt. once and for all?

 

I have. I have never seen a national intelligence estimate. But I have seen quite a bit of the kinds of materials that form the raw material.

 

LMAO. The only interests served by TWO US invasions of Iraq were ISRAEL'S. Reagan and Rumsfeld proved that the invasions were not in American interests by propping Saddam up.

 

Three dozen crewman aboard the U.S.S. Stark might well disagree.

And the geopolitical realities of the mid 1980s were different than those of 2003

Finally, the U.S. supporting a nation or a regime for a few years in no way obligates the U.S. to continue that support once they lose their usefulness.

 

Take it easy pal. My post points out that Bush is a monster, murderer and war criminal. But many frightened spineless democrats support Bush along with his Patriot Act.

None of that changes the fact that bush was solely responsible for ordering the illegal murderous attack.

 

Oh really? And how was Iraq a threat to the US and US interests?

Iraq did not attack the US, a US ally or a US interest...nor was it about to...nor was it in league with Al Qaeda nor was it noncompliant with UN WMD inspections.

So where is this imminent threat in the form of a mushroom cloud? Remember that lie?

 

You forgot about the U.S.S. Stark............

 

That's not the point. The point is they never cared about the oil in the first place. It wasn't part of the equation. 'Cause if it was, they would have gone after it.

 

No, they aren't. The preponderance of the evidence suggests exactly the opposite, that Bush and his entire administration lied their butts off, not once, not twice, but repeatedly and even under oath. There was absolutely a conspiracy and a covert illegal agenda.

Pffft. Hollywood stuff, staged for your dramatic viewing pleasure and the sensation-based ratings of the "media".

Come on, you can figure that one out can't you?

Bush was evil scum, he took this nation to war under false pretenses just like Lyndon Johnson did.

You haven't figure out that Bush was a liberal, he was the epitome of a RINO, and the worst kind of RINO too. Remember, all those Neo-Cons came out of the Scoop Jackson campaign. Even Scooter Libby, him too.

 

Are you kidding? That's like talking about the Teflon Don! What difference does it make if Bush "himself" lied or not? Call it whatever you want, misdirection, misrepresentation, prevarication, the subtle painting of an alternate reality..... I choose to call it simple and call it lying.

Nah man, Shrub went to extraordinary lengths to insulate himself legally. More than half of that scumbag Gonzales' time was spent covering Bush's butt for war crimes. (Do you know what Gonzales is doing now? He owns a bunch of private prisons down in Texas. Yep, that little weasel is making money off a corrupt justice system).

Shrub was just a bit player, just like Obama is. It takes more than one individual to perpetrate such a massive propaganda fraud on the American people.

 

Bush wins Congress backing over war on Iraq | Daily Mail Online
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142230
Bush wins Congress backing over war on Iraq. ... community and the United Nations ... sibling Ruby go casual as they leave Los Angeles airport in ...
Democratic-led Senate voted 77-23 for a war powers resolution
Republican-led House earlier on Thursday passed it 296-133.

You were saying? I thought you were seeking the truth NOT Progressive Talking Points.

 

You got that wrong too. It was "Slick Willie" that got away with his lies. Democrats never allowed Bush to get away with a thing.

 

So?

I fail to see how the "Democrats were fooled too" argument has any bearing on the fundamental issue: the lies came out of the Neo-Cons. Nowhere else. It wasn't the Dems lying their asses off to get us into a war, because the Congress only got to see what Bush wanted them to see. (Bush is, after all, the guy who decides what's classified and what's not).

This whole "Dems did it too" thing is pretty lame, that sounds like a cheap excuse from a manager whose job is on the line in a failing corporation that's about to go belly up. "No, look, our bug rate is no higher than the industry average! The Dems did it too!"

Listen man, I'm as rightie as they come but I'm not willing to repeat the media drivel that the emperor is somehow wearing clothes when everyone can see clear as day that he's prancing around butt-nekkid in the middle of the street. There is only one reason to try to defend Bush at this point, and that's blatant and intractable partisanship. Republican party talking points. 'Cause the Republican Party hasn't wised up yet. They still consider Bush "one of theirs". But the truth is, he's not one of theirs. He's barely even a Republican, him and his Neo-Con ilk are the next best thing to Progressive Democrats. Who else is going to bring you a brand new entitlement? A conservative? I don't think so. Maybe in bizarro-world but not in this reality.

Nah man, Republicans need to get rid of the albatross that is George W Bush. He's already cost the party a semi-decent presidential candidate (namely, his brother, who can't win mostly because his last name is Bush), and no one in the party want to invite him to come speak anymore (especially not at fund raising events), and anyone who mentions his name in a partisan political contest gets an earful.

The only reason there's even a "president Obama" is because Bush was such a nincompoop.

Really - truly - it's pointless trying to defend the bastid. The only real question is whether to bring him up on charges or whether to let him live out the rest of his miserable life on his ranch. Personally I think we should make an example out of him, but remember it was Nancy Pelosi who took impeachment off the table, so probably that won't happen.

 

Take your own advice buddy. I gave you the quotes, deal with it. And until you can produce a law degree and evidence the attacks were 'illegal', get over it. And look out for black helicopters.

 

Facts I have shown counter all you have said. Making the claim that Democrats were fooled is the biggest lie on the planet. Bush may have not been right at all time but your savior Obama is proving to be wrong most of the time. All you have produced is rhetoric and Progressive Left talking points without backup of factual truth. Come back when you can prove what you say.

See:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-03/now-we-know-bush-did-not-lie-about-wmd-in-Iraq

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/16/opinion/oe-kirchick16

 

No, I'm just a reasonable person looking for a reasonable explanation why Bush ordered the illegal invasion. You failed. I keep looking.

 

You appear to be sick in the head. Let me provide you with evidence of the illegality of Bush's invasion. I have two law degrees. You picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; (Self defense)

and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (WMD Inspections)

Where was the Iraqi attack, the attack of an ally, or the attack of an interest...or the imminent act thereof? What about the WMD inspections for which Blix was begging for more time?

Failure of you to provide evidence supporting the above elements shows a violation of the Iraq Resolution and International Law embodied in the UN Charter, i.e., International Law.

Have at it.