94 Nations believed Iraq had WMD & 84 Iraqi scientist...were they all wrong?
Nations that said Iraq had WMD's Israel, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Spain, Canada, U.S.A. France, England, Russia, Iran, Ireland, Kuwait and on and on went on record and said Iraq had WMD. In the U.S. House of Rep: 178 Democratic members said they believed that Iraq had WMD In the U.S. Senate 31 Democratic members including Clinton-D N.Y. believed Iraq had WMD Also, 84 separate Iraqi scientist said they worked on WMD, touched them, saw them. Are all of these examples of Nations & People ALL liars?
I saw a bumper sticker that said "No one died when Clinton lied" -- what does this mean to you?
It means Bush lied us into a war, and loads of servicemen died. Clinton lied about having an affair, and other than offending some peoples' delicate sensibilities, it didn't really hurt anyone.
Why do people say that George Bush lied about WMD when they don't say Obama lied that "you can keep your plan/doctor"?
If you’re saying that people don’t complain about “If you like it you can keep it”, you clearly don’t remember 2013 and 2014. In the 2014 midterms, that line was played endlessly…and the Democrats did pay quite a price for it with voters. Shoot, the mocking over this line was so widespread that even openly-liberal outlets like Slate and the Huffington Post did long articles discussing it, plus plenty of coverage from mainstream places places like USA Today, Politifact, and so on.That said, you probably won’t hear it nearly as much going forwards, because it’s now a dead issue. Obama is going to mostly disappear from public life, his designated successor (Hillary) lost the election, and there’s a Republican President who’s promised to fix Obamacare combined with a Republican Congress which has promised for six years to repeal and replace healthcare. Going forwards, Obama’s lie is going to be deemed irrelevant, because Republicans’ unified control means they now own healthcare - Obama may have lied, but now it’s your job to fix it because you have the power to do so.
Democratic Party (U.S.): If you are a liberal and believe "Bush lied, people died" and the corollary that lying is wrong, then why would you vote for Hillary?
The corollary of "Bush lied, people died" is not that lying is wrong.Lying is wrong. There are degrees of wrong. The Benghazi hearings have revealed that in spite of requests by the diplomatic staff for increased security, such requests were often seemingly ignored by a variety of different layers of government, thus resulting in inadequate security for the ambassador. That is wrong, but it is not a lie.In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the administration did appear to lay blame on the video at the foot of the YouTube video, rather than as a coordinated attack on our diplomatic staff. I am willing to concede that there is the possibility that it was a lie on their part, although the issue is not as cut and dry as one might imagine. Nevertheless, this lie did not result in the loss of human life: the attack was over at this point, and the lie did not further cause any loss of life. I'm not pleased about the lie, or even the appearance of a lie.Nevertheless, the political theater around Benghazi has not served the purpose of trying to improve the safety of Americans serving in dangerous parts of the world, nor our interests as a country. In the aftermath of the attacks, Secretary Clinton convened an accountability review board (ARB) as required by law to evaluate the attacks with an eye to determining who was responsible, and how such a tragedy might have been avoided, and how similar situations could be prevented in the future.Page on state.govThe ARB gave 29 sensible suggestions about how to prevent similar tragedies in the future. Secretary Clinton accepted them all, and indeed implemented all the ones that were under her power to implement directly.Clinton: Congress Must Finish the Job on Benghazi Reports Recommendations to Improve Diplomatic SecurityIt's hard to see the purpose of any of the subsequent investigations of Secretary Clinton as anything but a political witch hunt. Her email security had nothing to do with the tragedy at Benghazi, and the attempt to link the two is transparently partisan.I'll likely vote for Secretary Clinton for a simple reason: the policies and goals that she's likely to pursue as President more closely match my own. She'll likely disappoint me fairly often (politicians do with great regularity) but voting for the greater of two evils is not a sensible strategy.
Clinton lied about sex. Bush lied about war. Which is worse?
As you know, war is noble and glorious, while sex is the work of Satan, so of course Clinton's lies are far worse. Actually, I was very angry at President Clinton. For a president, the act of lying under oath in a federal court proceeding is like spitting on the Constitution. That being said, any comparison with President Bush's actions is ludicrous. There is arguably no more far-reaching decision a government can make than the choice to go to war, and for the president to sell his war with baldfaced lies is unconscionable.
Why Did Bill Clinton Bomb Iraq in 98 for?
yes...good question...as stated today on the history channel...hmmm seems Dem's forgot to elicit their legal eagles to thwart the history channel
Why did President Bush really go into Iraq?
There was an event that has not been talked about that had as much or more to do with the invasion than all the others. My theory: At the end of desert storm, after the signing of the cease fire, a mistake was made that allowed Saddam to fly helicopters for practical purposes. Medical supplies and essentials needed to be delivered in a timely manner. Saddam used them to slaughter the Kurds escaping to the north. The reports, including graphic video were horrendous to watch. Women and children being cut to pieces by gunships. There was live footage of an Iraqi woman begging Pres. Bush "Please help us". The Kurds had courageously fought against the republican guard and fully expected U.S. protection at wars end. Rightfully so. The help never came. I believe this effected George W. Bush in a profound way. After all it was his father's decision to abandon these refugees and leave them at the mercy of the Butcher of Baghdad. I believe G.W.Bush carried those images with him and does to this day. How could he not? When the savages killed thousands on 9-11, the wheels were set in motion. I believe he vowed to God and to himself that those things would never be repeated on his watch. And I am one American who says God bless you President Bush for that! I think this explains his single-mindedness during this war. He would never speak of this out of respect for his father,a great war hero who felt he made a wise decision under the circumstances. This is my theory and I believe it to be true.
Can it be said that George W. Bush didn't lie about WMD's in Iraq because Bob Woodward says Bush was himself skeptical about the claim?
Astonishing question. But just to set the record straight (again). I was the UK's WMD and Iraq specialist for the UK mission to the UN from 1998-2002. I was steeped in the intelligence on WMD. I read a thick folder of intelligence reports every day. I was the diplomat primarily responsible for setting up the UN weapons inspection body, UNMOVIC. I took part in every UK-US bilateral meeting on Iraq during this period, and was part of the small team of officials who reviewed so called JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) summaries of all available intelligence about Iraq's WMD before they were submitted to the UK cabinet. I have now testified to the two official inquiries in the UK into the war, the so-called Butler and Chilcot Inquiries. I resigned from the British diplomatic service after giving evidence (then secret) to the Butler Inquiry. If you want the details, please read my testimonies. You can find them on my website here:Iraq: the story of my testimony But if you don't want the detail let me state it in a sentence. The UK and US believed that Iraq may have had some residual stocks of WMD (in particular BW or CW, but not nuclear) but at no point from 1998-2002, during the years I worked on the issue, did we believe that there was anything like sufficient to constitute a threat to Iraq's neighbors, let alone to the UK or US. The claim, repeated ad nauseam to this day, that Bush and Blair were "misled" by intelligence that there was a threat is not true.
Liberals like to claim that George W. Bush is a war criminal for the war in Iraq. Wouldn't that make...?
Love to read the verbal twist and turns the liberals here take in order to justify their blatant hypocrisies. Let's face it, they said those things because bush was a republican. Democrats have or would do the same things, even worse, and the liberals would keep silent or supported it.