Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

[paulitician]

That could be accurate, but he did lie about 9/11 to invade Iraq. There were no Terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Hussein did not tolerate Terrorists. And Iraq certainly wasn't a threat to the U.S.

In fact, Iraq was actually a stable somewhat prosperous nation before the invasion. Now it's a horrific Jihadist wonderland. And so are Libya and Syria. We've caused bloody chaos in those nations as well. But hey, the Globalist Elites gotta get richer, right?

 

[Claudette]

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.

I think he blew up an aspirin factory too. That'll show 'em.

LMAO Good one there Sog man.

 

[bendog]

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.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War
****************************************************************************************************

well now isn't this interesting, lieberal/demorat Bobby Woodward says President Bush did NOT lie about Iraq war. in fact was against it, but a liberfool congress wanted it because they were scared shitless.

Awesome. W didn't lie, he just didn't give a shite. Well that make it ALL OK THEN!

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Typical revisionist.

snopes.com Clinton Administration and Terrorists

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

So now you're accusing Bush of lying when in 2005 he said there were no WMD's?

goddam.

 

[TooTall]

Bush was against going into Iraq? Is that the new version of history that you're trying to sell?

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

 

[there4eyeM]

Leading Americans into committing war crimes is lying. Trusted leaders are trusted to do the right thing. Not doing so is, in effect, a lie.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

Nobody lied.... it's just a delusion embraced by far left whackaloons. They'll be mumbling about Bush all the way to their graves.

 

[bendog]

No, W simply decided the evidence of Blix and el-Baradi probably made previous assessments incorrect, but he wanted to invade anyway, so he did.

 

[TooTall]

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.”

That means everything the Democrats said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was also wrong. But your biased source couldn't say that.

 

[bendog]

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.”

That means everything the Democrats said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was also wrong. But your biased source couldn't say that.

Give up. Bushii fcked the pooch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Notice how in every one of these type threads the RWnuts who supported the war immediately start trying to blame it on the Democrats?

 

[TooTall]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

Where did the Democrats I quoted get their intel?

 

[TooTall]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

Where did the Democrats I quoted get their intel?

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.

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.”

That means everything the Democrats said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was also wrong. But your biased source couldn't say that.

Give up. Bushii fcked the pooch.

Bush had the support of Congress and the UN. Admit they all fcked the pooch or eat shit and die.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

The Bush administration was lying because the agencies never gave them the intel they claimed they had.

Where did the Democrats I quoted get their intel?

And no matter how many times Bush says there were no WMDs found....others here will swear they were found.

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.”

That means everything the Democrats said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was also wrong. But your biased source couldn't say that.

Give up. Bushii fcked the pooch.

Bush had the support of Congress and the UN. Admit they all fcked the pooch or eat shit and die.

Since 21 times as many Democrats as Republicans voted against the war,

what's your point?

 

[there4eyeM]

The U.N. supported the Bush invasion of Iraq?

 

[blackhawk]

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.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Bob Woodward Bush Didn t Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War
****************************************************************************************************

well now isn't this interesting, lieberal/demorat Bobby Woodward says President Bush did NOT lie about Iraq war. in fact was against it, but a liberfool congress wanted it because they were scared shitless.

Some of us have known this for a long time others among us will never accept this under any circumstance.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

They believed what they wanted to believe and touted only the evidence, no matter how flimsy, to back up their belief. They fixed the facts around the policy of invasion. For example:

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

 

[bendog]

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?

Bush merely believed the information provided by US and allied intel agencies, just as the Democrats did. Were they all lying?

They believed what they wanted to believe and touted only the evidence, no matter how flimsy, to back up their belief. They fixed the facts around the policy of invasion. For example:

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?_r=0

But, the fact is that W admits by the time he went ahead and ordered invasion, he no longer had faith in the belief that Saddam had womd. Yet, his authorization to invade was based on Saddam having womd, or at least us not being able to determine it one way or another. W's actions are actually worse than lying. LOL