Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.Bush was against going into Iraq? Is that the new version of history that you're trying to sell?
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.Bush was against going into Iraq? Is that the new version of history that you're trying to sell?
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.Bush was against going into Iraq? Is that the new version of history that you're trying to sell?
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.Bush was against going into Iraq? Is that the new version of history that you're trying to sell?
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
Bush had to have lied because there were no WMDs, and he said, definitively, that there were.
How is that not a lie?
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.
Once again your full of shit. They found loads of WMD's in Iraq though they knew most of it had been sent to Syria.
WMDs Were Found in Iraq CIA Bought 400 Rockets Filled With Sarin Gas -
Iraq Had WMDs After All Power Line
Of course you will say its a pack of lies but seems there are loads of liars out there.
Oh yeah and why is anyone still interest in talking about Bush shit ingot?? He's been out of office for years.
Oh and this last one if from the lefts favorite New York Slimes.
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News
That's why they are trying to rewrite history.Not necessarily. She can say, "Ooops, my bad", and everything's okay, but he has to answer for something he wasn't even involved in? That's politics at its worst, and reflects a severe cognitive disconnect among those who would have us think they are impartial recorders of events and are blessed with the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates.Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.i fail to see the logic in your statement, how did "Woodward, unintentionally, proves it even further." ??
By saying Bush was skeptical.
Apparently... Bush the idiot colossus duped all the liberal genius'... including queen genius Hillary.
Gotta love it.
He didn't dupe Barack Obama, your president for the last 6 years.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
Jeb's answer should be, "My brother made the decisions he made based on the information he had at the time. He got authorization from Congress (including my opponent) and from the UN before initiating hostilities. If faced with a similar situation, I will make the best decisions I can based on the information I have available. I would hope that EVERY candidate for president would say the same".
Naturally, the media will not accept any answer. Getting an answer is not the point. It never is.
Oh lord...Why is Jeb Bush's mis-handling of the question (saying he didn't understand the question) the media's fault?
And no, people will always hold the vote against her. They did in 2008 for crying out loud. Jeb is not being held responsible....he is in a tricky spot though of having to distance himself from the decision his brother made.
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.
Once again your full of shit. They found loads of WMD's in Iraq though they knew most of it had been sent to Syria.
WMDs Were Found in Iraq CIA Bought 400 Rockets Filled With Sarin Gas -
Iraq Had WMDs After All Power Line
Of course you will say its a pack of lies but seems there are loads of liars out there.
Oh yeah and why is anyone still interest in talking about Bush shit ingot?? He's been out of office for years.
Oh and this last one if from the lefts favorite New York Slimes.
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News
The ole they were shipped to Syria line again.
If only Assad now had all these supposed Iraqi WMDs that were shipped there, eh?
As for your last link -- did you even bother to read it?
“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.Bush was against going into Iraq? Is that the new version of history that you're trying to sell?
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
Bush had to have lied because there were no WMDs, and he said, definitively, that there were.
How is that not a lie?
Looks like Woodward is trying to sell it.
Just like he sold watergate. If you believe one do you believe the other?
I believe what BobWoodward said; "He didn't find a lie there" to be specific. What I don't believe (and neither does anyone else) was that liberals were pushing Bush to go into Iraq as Wilddipshit says in the OP.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
Bush had to have lied because there were no WMDs, and he said, definitively, that there were.
How is that not a lie?
What is your definition of WMD? Do components count? You can say Bush, like Clinton and Kerry, were wrong about the type of WMD or status of WMD, stage of WMD, age of WMD, but to say there were no WMDs is a fallacy on your part.
That's why they are trying to rewrite history.Not necessarily. She can say, "Ooops, my bad", and everything's okay, but he has to answer for something he wasn't even involved in? That's politics at its worst, and reflects a severe cognitive disconnect among those who would have us think they are impartial recorders of events and are blessed with the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates.Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.By saying Bush was skeptical.
He didn't dupe Barack Obama, your president for the last 6 years.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
Jeb's answer should be, "My brother made the decisions he made based on the information he had at the time. He got authorization from Congress (including my opponent) and from the UN before initiating hostilities. If faced with a similar situation, I will make the best decisions I can based on the information I have available. I would hope that EVERY candidate for president would say the same".
Naturally, the media will not accept any answer. Getting an answer is not the point. It never is.
Oh lord...Why is Jeb Bush's mis-handling of the question (saying he didn't understand the question) the media's fault?
And no, people will always hold the vote against her. They did in 2008 for crying out loud. Jeb is not being held responsible....he is in a tricky spot though of having to distance himself from the decision his brother made.
Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.Should Bush have ignored these Democrats statements? They sound a little 'pushy' to me.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
No matter how many times these Democrat quotes are posted, Liberals are still intent on saying Bush lied. Democrats saw the same intelligence Bush did. Woodward is correct.......Bush did not lie.
And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.
Once again your full of shit. They found loads of WMD's in Iraq though they knew most of it had been sent to Syria.
WMDs Were Found in Iraq CIA Bought 400 Rockets Filled With Sarin Gas -
Iraq Had WMDs After All Power Line
Of course you will say its a pack of lies but seems there are loads of liars out there.
Oh yeah and why is anyone still interest in talking about Bush shit ingot?? He's been out of office for years.
Oh and this last one if from the lefts favorite New York Slimes.
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News
The ole they were shipped to Syria line again.
If only Assad now had all these supposed Iraqi WMDs that were shipped there, eh?
As for your last link -- did you even bother to read it?
“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
Yep. I read it. Did you or did you just cherry pick the parts you wanted to read??
ISIS In Iraq Find Saddam Hussein s WMD Stockpiles Of Chemical Weapons George W Bush Was Right
That's why they are trying to rewrite history.Not necessarily. She can say, "Ooops, my bad", and everything's okay, but he has to answer for something he wasn't even involved in? That's politics at its worst, and reflects a severe cognitive disconnect among those who would have us think they are impartial recorders of events and are blessed with the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates.Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
Jeb's answer should be, "My brother made the decisions he made based on the information he had at the time. He got authorization from Congress (including my opponent) and from the UN before initiating hostilities. If faced with a similar situation, I will make the best decisions I can based on the information I have available. I would hope that EVERY candidate for president would say the same".
Naturally, the media will not accept any answer. Getting an answer is not the point. It never is.
Oh lord...Why is Jeb Bush's mis-handling of the question (saying he didn't understand the question) the media's fault?
And no, people will always hold the vote against her. They did in 2008 for crying out loud. Jeb is not being held responsible....he is in a tricky spot though of having to distance himself from the decision his brother made.
Well, according to the first liar, the weapons were shipped out of Iraq into Syria. Then shit-brains Claudette comes up with a a source (it was actually from a website called "Red Statements"--that tells you all you need to know) about the CIA buying sarin gas from Iraq.
The right wing nut jobs just get more silly with each passing post.
Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.i fail to see the logic in your statement, how did "Woodward, unintentionally, proves it even further." ??
By saying Bush was skeptical.
Apparently... Bush the idiot colossus duped all the liberal genius'... including queen genius Hillary.
Gotta love it.
He didn't dupe Barack Obama, your president for the last 6 years.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
^^^ a classic idiot liberal double standard, shocking. /sarcasm
Well, we'll see what the voters think. Of course, you won't like their decision either.
You are profoundly ignorant of the facts.Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.By saying Bush was skeptical.
He didn't dupe Barack Obama, your president for the last 6 years.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
^^^ a classic idiot liberal double standard, shocking. /sarcasm
Well, we'll see what the voters think. Of course, you won't like their decision either.
You Hillary fans are deliciously ignorant, who destroyed the old hag in 2008? Yes the Democrats destroyed her in an epic unleashing of gender bias and a double standards favoring Obama, so over the top that even SNL mocked it.
Democrats threw Hillary under the bus and many of the same Dem anti-Hillary brigade are again slinging mud at her over a year out from the election. I can't wait for your heads to explode when they do it again.
You are profoundly ignorant of the facts.Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
^^^ a classic idiot liberal double standard, shocking. /sarcasm
Well, we'll see what the voters think. Of course, you won't like their decision either.
You Hillary fans are deliciously ignorant, who destroyed the old hag in 2008? Yes the Democrats destroyed her in an epic unleashing of gender bias and a double standards favoring Obama, so over the top that even SNL mocked it.
In 2008, Hillary had way overspent on her previous Senate campaign and was caught flatfooted by the challenge from Obama. When she got on her game, she was able to stop the bleeding thus a brokered convention.
Democrats threw Hillary under the bus and many of the same Dem anti-Hillary brigade are again slinging mud at her over a year out from the election. I can't wait for your heads to explode when they do it again.
Bookmarked for future use.
Now....before 9/11 the clinton administration cared more about selling the government of the United States to the highest bidder....mainly China back then....and didn't care about muslim terrorists.
Now....before 9/11 the clinton administration cared more about selling the government of the United States to the highest bidder....mainly China back then....and didn't care about muslim terrorists.
In reality the Clinton Administration did more to fight international terrorism than any president before him. It was actually a coalition between the ACLU and the Republicans in Congress that watered down the omnibus terrorism bill of 1995 to the poiint it was useless.
Now....before 9/11 the clinton administration cared more about selling the government of the United States to the highest bidder....mainly China back then....and didn't care about muslim terrorists.
In reality the Clinton Administration did more to fight international terrorism than any president before him. It was actually a coalition between the ACLU and the Republicans in Congress that watered down the omnibus terrorism bill of 1995 to the poiint it was useless.
WOW are you off the mark.
As I recall the USS Cole, the embassy in Africa and the Kobar towers went completely unanswered under Bill's watch.
Oh wait. I fogot. He did lob a few missles that way and killed a camel or two. Never mind.
He shouldn't have to deal with it at all. It wasn't his decision and he had nothing to do with it.Not necessarily. She can say, "Ooops, my bad", and everything's okay, but he has to answer for something he wasn't even involved in? That's politics at its worst, and reflects a severe cognitive disconnect among those who would have us think they are impartial recorders of events and are blessed with the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates.Yet the heir presumptive, who had exposure to her husband's intel before Bush took office (don't even try to make me believe she didn't), voted to allow the use of force in Iraq. I don't understand why liberals think attacking Jeb Bush with the Iraq war is a good idea when he had nothing to do with it and all their efforts merely remind everyone that Hillary actually voted to allow it.i fail to see the logic in your statement, how did "Woodward, unintentionally, proves it even further." ??
By saying Bush was skeptical.
Apparently... Bush the idiot colossus duped all the liberal genius'... including queen genius Hillary.
Gotta love it.
He didn't dupe Barack Obama, your president for the last 6 years.
That is her baggage and she will probably have someone carry those bags into the White House.
The reason the Democrats are happy to bring it up right now (not later) was that it's easy to disavow and apologize for the vote 12 years ago. It's not so easy to disavow your brother's signature clusterfuck.
Jeb's answer should be, "My brother made the decisions he made based on the information he had at the time. He got authorization from Congress (including my opponent) and from the UN before initiating hostilities. If faced with a similar situation, I will make the best decisions I can based on the information I have available. I would hope that EVERY candidate for president would say the same".
Naturally, the media will not accept any answer. Getting an answer is not the point. It never is.
Oh lord...Why is Jeb Bush's mis-handling of the question (saying he didn't understand the question) the media's fault?
And no, people will always hold the vote against her. They did in 2008 for crying out loud. Jeb is not being held responsible....he is in a tricky spot though of having to distance himself from the decision his brother made.
