Bush lied??

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Have you all read the article?

No offense, but it is bloody long. Perhaps you could highlight what point you are trying to make. Incidentally,

the author is a known member of the PNAC, so he's not just some journalist making a commentary.

The point is he didn't lie about the reasons for the war in Iraq.

The point is, he actually did.

Now, I'm not putting this documentation back together tonight - I had it posted here more than once before. Bottom line of the case was that the Al-Qaida - Saddam link that has been presented by the administration was built on testimony of an Al-Qaida operative that had been refuted by the DIA months before. The administration used that discredited testimony all the same to beef up their case right before having Congress authorize the use of force as a last resort. That connection and the claim that we have established it was a blantant lie. The evidence of that is out there and it is not being refuted. You just refuse to take notice.

[*Robert* 2]

Bush lied?!!!

Oh say it ain't so!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Whether or not there were in fact WMD's in the months leading up to the war, and whether or not Bush and many others believed that there were WMD's are two different questions.

Then why did and do we change the rationale for going to war ever week or so? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld re-starting their efforts to portray the Iraq war as the war on terror? If it was indeed to rid Saddam of WMD's, then why not stay on that message? I'll tell you why: Beause it's never been about any WMD's...

[*Robert* 2]

There were WMDs?!!!

NOT!!!

[Fuzzness 2]

ferget it. it's pointless

[KarenCee 3]

One can rationalize anything they want to...and actually believe it. This is what Bush has done. IMHO.

[*Robert* 2]

One can rationalize anything they want to...and actually believe it. This is what Bush has done. IMHO.

what's truly amazing, is that he could even rationalize his way out of a paper sack, let alone this fictitious war against terrorism in iraq!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One can rationalize anything they want to...and actually believe it. This is what Bush has done. IMHO.

what's truly amazing, is that he could even rationalize his way out of a paper sack, let alone this fictitious war against terrorism in iraq!!!

Hey, you're not taking this seriously. You're supposed to be afraid. Especially now that the mid-terms are coming up. Gotta call Karl, he's gotta sharpen the message some...

[*Robert* 2]

One can rationalize anything they want to...and actually believe it. This is what Bush has done. IMHO.

what's truly amazing, is that he could even rationalize his way out of a paper sack, let alone this fictitious war against terrorism in iraq!!!

Hey, you're not taking this seriously. You're supposed to be afraid. Especially now that the mid-terms are coming up. Gotta call Karl, he's gotta sharpen the message some...

based on some of the candidates for gov here in fl... we should be afraid!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One can rationalize anything they want to...and actually believe it. This is what Bush has done. IMHO.

what's truly amazing, is that he could even rationalize his way out of a paper sack, let alone this fictitious war against terrorism in iraq!!!

Hey, you're not taking this seriously. You're supposed to be afraid. Especially now that the mid-terms are coming up. Gotta call Karl, he's gotta sharpen the message some...

based on some of the candidates for gov here in fl... we should be afraid!!!

I am.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then why did and do we change the rationale for going to war ever week or so? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld re-starting their efforts to portray the Iraq war as the war on terror? If it was indeed to rid Saddam of WMD's, then why not stay on that message? I'll tell you why: Beause it's never been about any WMD's...

I remember that. Then rather bizarrely they went on to make Kerry out to be a "flip-flopper". This is about as big an example of flip-floppery as you can get!

Edited September 2, 2006 by erekose

[*Robert* 2]

Then why did and do we change the rationale for going to war ever week or so? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld re-starting their efforts to portray the Iraq war as the war on terror? If it was indeed to rid Saddam of WMD's, then why not stay on that message? I'll tell you why: Beause it's never been about any WMD's...

I remember that. Then rather bizarrely they went on to make Kerry out to be a "flip-flopper". This is about as big an example of flip-floppery as you can get!

this is the kind of flip-flopping that a fish does when you first throw him on deck... just shameful to see...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then why did and do we change the rationale for going to war ever week or so? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld re-starting their efforts to portray the Iraq war as the war on terror? If it was indeed to rid Saddam of WMD's, then why not stay on that message? I'll tell you why: Beause it's never been about any WMD's...

I remember that. Then rather bizarrely they went on to make Kerry out to be a "flip-flopper". This is about as big an example of flip-floppery as you can get!

this is the kind of flip-flopping that a fish does when you first throw him on deck... just shameful to see...

Yes it is. But I can't really blame Bush, who is after all (going simply by the interviews he has done over the last 6 years) is a moron and a total incompetant unqualified for the office that he holds. So he's guilty by negligence rather than direct intent. Chalk up the intent to Darth Cheney.

[*Robert* 2]

Then why did and do we change the rationale for going to war ever week or so? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld re-starting their efforts to portray the Iraq war as the war on terror? If it was indeed to rid Saddam of WMD's, then why not stay on that message? I'll tell you why: Beause it's never been about any WMD's...

I remember that. Then rather bizarrely they went on to make Kerry out to be a "flip-flopper". This is about as big an example of flip-floppery as you can get!

this is the kind of flip-flopping that a fish does when you first throw him on deck... just shameful to see...

Yes it is. But I can't really blame Bush, who is after all (going simply by the interviews he has done over the last 6 years) is a moron and a total incompetant unqualified for the office that he holds. So he's guilty by negligence rather than direct intent. Chalk up the intent to Darth Cheney.

Oh gawd.... what a nightmare... we need the force, and we need it NOW!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Then why did and do we change the rationale for going to war ever week or so? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld re-starting their efforts to portray the Iraq war as the war on terror? If it was indeed to rid Saddam of WMD's, then why not stay on that message? I'll tell you why: Beause it's never been about any WMD's...

I remember that. Then rather bizarrely they went on to make Kerry out to be a "flip-flopper". This is about as big an example of flip-floppery as you can get!

Bush is a man of resolve...and he doesn't let the facts get in the way once he makes up his mind. That's good 'ol American born, cowboy style "get me a rope!" justice.