A "Tale of Two "LIES"???

[jon_berzerk]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

 

[auditor0007]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

are you saying they are too barbaric and uncivilized to be led by anyone

other then a vicious evil tyrant

 

[auditor0007]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

are you saying they are too barbaric and uncivilized to be led by anyone

other then a vicious evil tyrant

To a certain extent, yes. These people have been killing each other for 2000 years. For the past 1000 years, they have basically followed the same religion and still kill each other. It's not just religion driving this hatred they have.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

are you saying they are too barbaric and uncivilized to be led by anyone

other then a vicious evil tyrant

To a certain extent, yes. These people have been killing each other for 2000 years. For the past 1000 years, they have basically followed the same religion and still kill each other. It's not just religion driving this hatred they have.

i not not prescribe for one moment that other folks are incapable of understanding democracy freedom and liberty

or that they would freely choose to live under a murderous tyrant

 

[NYcarbineer]

speaking of Blix

i can remember the guy in the news all the time

in one set of news footage he took the cap off a shell tip

and sniffed it

i remember thinking oh brother what have we gotten into

--LOL

i wish i could find the footage

Did you know this about Hans Blix?

In January 2002, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the major architects of the war in Iraq, in an unusual move, asked the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate the performance of Swedish diplomat and former UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix while he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. Wolfowitz was hoping the CIA would find evidence he could use to discredit Blix for failing to find an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq during IAEA inspections there. Wolfowitz asked the CIA to investigate Blix a month before UN weapons inspectors were gearing up to return to Iraq for the first time since 1998. At the time, Wolfowitz and other hawks in the Bush administration feared that renewed inspections in Iraq would undermine their overall goal to launch a military campaign against Iraq.

CRG

doesnt make any sense

since wmd was not the only reason to rid saddam

Yeah that's what you people have been saying for years, once it became clear there were no WMDs, lol.

 

[healthmyths]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

 

[healthmyths]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

We've 170,000 in Europe/Asia after 70 years.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush lied about ....

Mushroom clouds
How close Iraq was to nuclear weapons
Yellow Cake
Aluminum tubes
Mobile Germ Warfare labs
Iraqi drones capable of attacking the US

 

[rightwinger]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

Troops were left for US strategic purposes, not as an occupying force

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

You want troops in Europe, troops in Korea, troops in Japan, troops in Iraq, troops in Afghanistan, troops in Libya, troops in Nigeria after we fight Boko Haram, troops in Iran after we fight the Iranians,

What is wrong with you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I said ten years ago that we wrongly went into Iraq because of either

1. the Bush administration's dishonesty, or,

2. the Bush administration's incompetence.

I guess the Bush apologists have decided to insist that it's number 2.

 

[Mac1958]

I can't say with certainty that Bush himself lied. I have no doubt, though, that he willingly acted on highly questionable, cherry-picked evidence and made a military/geopolitical mistake of historic proportions. Is willful ignorance lying?

Since there will be no prosecutions, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end. I just hope we can play a part in cleaning up the mess we made.

.

 

[healthmyths]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

You want troops in Europe, troops in Korea, troops in Japan, troops in Iraq, troops in Afghanistan, troops in Libya, troops in Nigeria after we fight Boko Haram, troops in Iran after we fight the Iranians,

What is wrong with you?

YUP!
Can't argue with success i.e. have had peace in Europe/Asia except Vietnam where because of the MSM bias that loved the enemy we had to leave.
I just don't understand you.
Why do we have police? What's the purpose of "law enforcement" if there are no law enforcers?
Holds true as that was the reason for 170,000 in Europe/Asia 70 years later.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

You want troops in Europe, troops in Korea, troops in Japan, troops in Iraq, troops in Afghanistan, troops in Libya, troops in Nigeria after we fight Boko Haram, troops in Iran after we fight the Iranians,

What is wrong with you?

YUP!
Can't argue with success i.e. have had peace in Europe/Asia except Vietnam where because of the MSM bias that loved the enemy we had to leave.
I just don't understand you.
Why do we have police? What's the purpose of "law enforcement" if there are no law enforcers?
Holds true as that was the reason for 170,000 in Europe/Asia 70 years later.

the left cant really make up their minds

these days if they do or if they dont want police enforcement

 

[rightwinger]

I can't say with certainty that Bush himself lied. I have no doubt, though, that he willingly acted on highly questionable, cherry-picked evidence and made a military/geopolitical mistake of historic proportions. Is willful ignorance lying?

Since there will be no prosecutions, I guess it really doesn't matter in the end. I just hope we can play a part in cleaning up the mess we made.

.

Like Jerry Forf. Obama did not want to drag the country through a long criminal investigation. Unlike republicans milking Benghazi

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

We've 170,000 troops after 70 years in Europe/Asia.
NO conquering military ever left right after winning.

Troops were left for US strategic purposes, not as an occupying force

--LOL

the allied forces occupied took control all nazi territory until 1955

 

[Roadrunner]

Bush was skeptical?

He didn't sound skeptical in March of 2003 when he made his speech selling the war:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Full text Bush s speech US news The Guardian

Saddam certainly had WMD's more powerful than the ones the Boston Bomb Boy made.

 

[Roadrunner]

Let's start with a FACT ... a Truth..... the definition of a "LIE".
As a NOUN: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
As a VERB: to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
Lie Define Lie at Dictionary.com

With those two points of reference, Is there anyone anywhere that can prove that George W. Bush
made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive?
Is there anyone who can prove that George W. Bush "utter an untruth knowingly"???

I ask this question because the vast majority of Bush Bashers have called him a liar specifically about Iraq and WMDs.
YET!!!!!
Sunday's talk shows had Bob Woodward who said very clearly and this is the man from the liberal MSM elite!

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors,
but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace,
"there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Now in comparison to this supposedly "TRUTH".....

Benghazi and 4 deaths were caused by a video. That is the "TRUTH" Obama et.al. stated one
week after the event...... i.e. 6 weeks before the election.

ABC’s “This Week”:
MS. RICE:
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

The "TRUTH" as stated by Ms. Rice on CBS’s “Face the Nation”
MS. RICE: .... what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
MS. RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

NBC’s “Meet the Press”
DAVID GREGORY: ..... that was spontaneous, was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

MS. RICE: ".... But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

I ask the honest person to tell me based on the definition of a "LIE"....
i.e. KNOWINGLY making a false statement is a "LIE".

In the case of GWB.... did HE KNOW Saddam had NO WMDs but LIED to the nation?

In the case of Benghazi did Obama et.al. KNOW 6 weeks before the election that Benghazi was a planned
attack but deliberately blamed the video...i.e. LIED so as to protect Obama's war on terror image?

Another point to consider........
What personal financial, political GAIN would GWB have by Liberating Iraq?
What personal financial, political GAIN would Obama have by lying about Benghazi?

And finally which President bragged using "tactics" and "tricks" i.e. LYING about himself..."
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed."

Here is the problem with leaving troops behind. We would need to do it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and next Iran possibly? Where after that? Are we going to need to leave 50,000 troops in every country that cannot govern itself? Keep in mind that these countries really do not want us there to begin with. We would be an occupying force, which very likely would lead to even bigger long term problems. I do understand the argument and it is not without merit, but it's not as simple as it sounds either. There is just as much merit to the opposite side of the coin.

it was a mistake leaving Iraq when we did

as predicted it left a huge vacuum

It was also a massive mistake removing Saddam Hussein from power. That country will never be able to govern itself freely, so what you are saying is that we would need to have troops there forever.

Was it a mistake to remove Kadafi, or Mubarak, and to try to remove Assad?

Or, can only "Boosh" make mistakes?

 

[Mac1958]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam created an entirely new paradigm in that region.

This includes opening to the door for Iran to expand its influence (both overtly and covertly) and the advent of new terror groups.

Before our invasion of that sovereign country there was at least a measure of geopolitical balance. Now there is anarchy.

.