The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

They sold a good portion of it to China instead of giving the US exclusive rights to it, which is what the war was about.

 

No, this is the same old tired collection of out of context quotes that Bush dead enders have been hawking for 12 years now.
'
If you bothered to actually read them, or learn about the context in which they existed, you will quickly learn that not one of the people in these quotes was calling for an unprovoked unilateral US invasion of Iraq.

Not one.

But you can try.

You won't be able to.

There was no movement in the US by Democrats to start a war in Iraq in 1998 or 1999 as you are falsely trying to use these quotes to claim.

A war in Iraq was not an issue in the 2000 Presidential election.

Sorry, but repeating a shopworn collection of quotes that some right winger assembled 12 years ago in an attempt to peddle a false claim actually plays worse now that that the facts are all on the table.

And the claim you are making is not supported either by facts or by this collection of quotes.

- - - Updated - - -

The US lost the Iraq war, so it didn't achieve its objectives.

 

I am sure many people who saying what Bush and his ilk told them to say, but all high ranking members of the administration knew that the information given by al'Jaban was bad.

 

You have just confirmed my statement that it wasn't Bush that lied...Even Margot agreed.

 

The only objective was to control Iraq's oil.

 

then you agree that Bush lied us into a war we didn't need to fight. Thank you.

 

Really? Bush worked with Congress to achieve his aims, whereas Obama has his pen and his phone for proclaiming his Executive Orders. Bush may have been accused of violating the U.S. Constitution, Obama has shedded it completely.

 

Please cite your source....

 

One of the principal objectives was to control Iraq's oil. In the age before fracking, when there were growing concerns that Saudi Arabian fields had peaked, in the face of growing global demand, Iraq's oil resources were an obvious startegic prize.

The PNAC aslo hawked the idea of permanent US military presence in Iraq (none dare all it what it was, an occupation or colonization).

And none of the conservative politicians who pushed this agenda ever levelled with the American people about the level of committment required, or what the real goal was.

 

OK... But you said:

My question was about Bush and his family, after conquering Iraq, having expectations of profiting from Iraqi oil, as you seem to be insinuating here. By contrast, I would expect that Kuwait would have reciprocated by at least reimbursing the monetary cost of their liberation from Iraq, though I don't know if they actually did.

 

So they all lied together and the dems are no different than GW. GW was a fool for following the dems lead since it was the dems who started clucking about WMD's to begin with. Dems lied first.

- - - Updated - - -

Since the dem quotes predate GW's arrival, tell it to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Quit offering alibis for your lying dems.

 

There's too much factual history before and after Bush was elected president to show that a majority of Democrats and president Clinton made claims of Saddam's WMD and beat the drums of war. Even Kerry said that he voted for war before he was against it.

 

Some rightists insist that Bush's fraudulently-pretexted nation building fiasco in Iraq was not predicated upon his lying about Saddam's non-existent stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, what the Dub acknowledged was his "main reason" for initiating his bloody, protracted, regionally-destabilizing, and obscenely-expensive catastrophe.

There is no proof one way or the other, but I have always given him the benefit of the doubt.

​

I accept that he was unwittingly duped into it by the neocons that were manipulating him. It was they who were on record as agitating for the aggression long before they had accessed the power to pull it off, not the hapless Bush.

 

interesting thing.... only ONE person gave the order to send troops into harm's way - where we suffered 40K casualties in a war that didn't need to be fought. And you still carry his water. How brown IS your nose by now?

 

and someone simply stating that they believed Saddam had WMD's was not a lie.

The LIE occurred when Team Bush claimed there was absolute certainty concerning those stockpiles when no such certainty existed - AND THEY KNEW IT WHEN THEY SAID IT!

 

does that somehow change "there is no doubt" from a lie into something else?

yes or no

 

Interesting thing, dems voted to authorize the war. And thee were 4489 Americans killed in Iraq, not 40k. No need to mislead like your dems pols do. 'Carry' that for a while librul.

 

never been in the military, have you?

If you had been, you would certainly know the definition of "casualty"

Now why don't you admit you don't know what YOU'RE talking about?

and... while the republicans in congress overwhelmingly supported their lying CinC, a majority of elected democrats in congress voted against the use of force....

and AGAIN... only one man made the final decision to send our troops into harm's way on the basis of a lie.....

 

and it would seem that this thread has suffered yet another casualty.... as some folks just can't STAND to be proven to be morons!

ADIOS!

 

But they provide consent and advice to the Commander in Chief who orders our military into action.

 

And that same "lie" was used as justification for the current Commander in Chief to deploy military forces in that region.

 

You're not going to get anyone to buy your patently false meme.

No one was "beating the drums for war" in Iraq, other than the Project for a New Ameican Century, who would all find jobs in the Bush Administration.
i
You stubbornly keep repeating this claim, and asserting that the old collection of quotes support it, but you can't supply real evidence of anyone calling for unilateral war in Iraq before 2002.

You aren't even really trying. You just hope you'll get the last word as long as you keep repeating yourself.

That's a pretty pathetic way to sell an argument.

 

So? Republicans were nearly unanimous in support of the use of force resolution. A majority of democrats in congress voted against it.

And in the final analysis. it was the decider in chief - who had lied about the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's and who had allowed his next in command to lie about a pre-9/11 connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda - who ordered our troops into harm's way on the basis of a lie... and that order ended up costing us $2T and 40K casualties. And his posse of brown nosing sycophants continues to attempt to mitigate his ultimate responsibility for it.

- - - Updated - - -

which lie are you referring to? the lie that there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's or the lie that stated that Saddam and Osama were in cahoots prior to 9/11???

 

Bush was "The Decider" after Congressional Republicans (aided and abetted by fair number of Democrats) had overwhelmingly ceded the decision whether to attack Iraq to him exclusively.

That's "where the buck stops", and it's amusing to see how so many who enthused over the fiasco when it was contrived are so generous in their desperate attempts to share the blame for it in retrospect.

​

.

"Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL." 9/11/01​

.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north - somewhat."​

 

I know your dems started this mess. How's that?