Bush didn't just lie........

[Redfish]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

The irony being that some Iraquis wanted the USA to topple Saddam and then engage in nation building as a means of transferring our wealth into their back pocket... and we obliged.

Yes, corruption is always present. We learned nothing from the 58,000 americans who died in viet nam for nothing. its quite pathetic really.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

The irony being that some Iraquis wanted the USA to topple Saddam and then engage in nation building as a means of transferring our wealth into their back pocket... and we obliged.

Yes, corruption is always present. We learned nothing from the 58,000 americans who died in viet nam for nothing. its quite pathetic really.

To be fair they did not die for nothing. Defending an ally has it's merits.

 

[Camp]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

Where was the fear on 9/11? Where was the fear when troops went into Iraq? Enemies flooded into the country to fight and kill American troops. They sure weren't in fear of President Bush and his crew.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

Where was the fear on 9/11? Where was the fear when troops went into Iraq? Enemies flooded into the country to fight and kill American troops. They sure weren't in fear of President Bush and his crew.

ding ding ding...

Fear is the mind killer. Bush... yeah he was afraid and his fear screwed us all.

 

[BlindBoo]

The dem party is like a terrorist cell

 

[bendog]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

Where was the fear on 9/11? Where was the fear when troops went into Iraq? Enemies flooded into the country to fight and kill American troops. They sure weren't in fear of President Bush and his crew.

ding ding ding...

Fear is the mind killer. Bush... yeah he was afraid and his fear screwed us all.

I don't think W was afraid. I think he genuinely believed the unique "specialness" of our representative democracy would cause the Iraqis to embrace a similar govt. He was unprepared for the reality that those mferkers hate each other even more than us. W may have been intentionally misled by neocons who wanted to make Zionist expansion easier and to split Iraq to make petroleum extraction more profitable.

 

[BlindBoo]

To those who keep defending Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret. You are allowed to say you were fooled. It doesn't mean you have to become a liberal. You can still be a conservative. You can still claim you like smaller government, you can still complain about Obama and Hillary, you can still watch fox news, you can still keep your guns. Just admit you were lied to or mislead. There is no shame in that. You were angry, you were still reeling from the 911 attacks. Bin Laden still hadn't been found, you were looking for retribution. You can still cling to all your conservative ideals and values. Nobody will call you a leftist or a democrat for admitting Bush lied. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Bush was wrong. Bush made bad decisions. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

yes, you are right. There is a differnce. If Bush & Co. said We believe Saddam has....then they would be wrong. They have stated many times using their belief.
If Bush & Co. said We know Saddam has ...then that would be a lie because they didn't know. They did this several time also. Throw in the fact that they were caught trying to fix the intelligence for an invasion and the case for lies becomes a "slam dunk". See what I just did there. I used one of Bush's catch phrases. This is fun.

The part that they said they knew... was something that Saddam himself claimed, and something that we knew for a fact based on the FACT THAT WE GAVE IT TO THEM IN THE IRAQ/IRAN WAR. See how that works? Facts we know vs intelligence estimates... pretty simple use of the english language. Try it.

You actually didn't give him the chemical weapons. You knew he was using them and you were supporting him.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran Foreign Policy
This didn't mean that the administration knew that Saddam still had them or that Saddam still possessed Biological or Nuclear weapons.

Sure they had Mustard gas and blister agents but he wasn't able to produce the more deadly chemicals until President Raygun took him off the list of nation who supported terrorist. Our allies (mostly German companies) sold him the precursor chemicals. Furthermore all but a small percent of those were accounted for during the inspections. The invasion was based on lies and deceptions.

 

[Camp]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

 

[RKMBrown]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

 

[Camp]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

 

[RKMBrown]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

 

[Camp]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

 

[RKMBrown]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

 

[Uncensored2008]

Its pretty clear, the Bush attacks are failed attempts to hide the massive failure known as Obama.

I think in this case, it's to distract from the Hillary flame out.

{
ProPublica and Gawker uncovered a secret intelligence network that was feeding unsubstantiated intelligence to Hillary’s private email server. The network included former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal who was prevented from taking a job at State in 2009 by the Obama White House. Mr. Blumenthal had circulated some “unflattering” stories about the president during the 2008 campaign.

We also know that Mrs. Clinton used two separate email addresses ([email protected] and [email protected]) while she was at the State Department. Clinton’s legal team asserted that the latter address did not exist during her tenure as our top diplomat. When the initial reports of the secret intelligence network came to light, we did not know if Hillary read or even corresponded with Blumenthal’s emails. Now, it looks as if she did read them, and even forwarded a few to a State Department staffer.}

Wait Did Hillary Tell Blumenthal To Look For Information In Libya - Matt Vespa

Massive corruption by Hillary is a daily story - I mean NEW revelations of extreme corruption, so the fucktards of the left are trotting out the old, tired canard of "BUT BOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHH."

This is why the Bolsheviks are so desperate for Jeb to be the GOP nominee, they figure that their only chance is to run against Bush.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let see, the UN didn't see the validity in the No-Fly Zones

Even if true, irrelevant. The attacks on US warplanes violated Resolution 688 no matter what the UN view of the no fly zones were.

and from your article "Saddam declared the no-fly zones invalid following Operation Desert Fox, the coalition's four-day bombing campaign."
So the only ones who think they are valid are the ones imposing them. While you may point out that Saddam violated resolution 688 by engaging or hampering coalition forces, you forgot to mention that US and britain violated resolution 688 with the No-Fly Zones in the first place.

Saddam was not in charge of the terms of the cease fire, he was the defeated general.

Try as you might, the facts remain. By firing on US Planes, Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire.

 

[Camp]

Perception is everything when it comes to spin or interpretation of events. The debate about Bush lying doesn't change much over time. Still the same arguments as when they allegedly were taking place. The only big difference seems to be that his defenders are thinning out as the years pass by. Even his brother has distanced himself. Supporters tend to protest that his lies were not lies, but rather mistakes and misjudgments. In the not so distant future even those supporters will back peddle. It is hard to cover up a lie when it is on video.

businessinsider.com/donald-rumsfield-iraq-war-lie-2014-4

alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

A dozen years after Bush told us that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda, people demand to see proof that he said it. A seemingly blatant lie told at his 2003 State of the Union Address, and people are still demanding to see the proof he said it. Here in this very thread, the unaware or dishonest continue to argue that Bush did not lie without giving an explanation for this statement in his address.

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.
Now watch how the looser rw hater dupes hijack the thread and deflect it away from Bush lying to drag us into war in Iraq.

 

[RKMBrown]

Uhm... and in this thread you will find the very evidence that he did provide aid to al Qaeda. Hell we provided aid to al Qaeda. The problem is that some morons want to redefine basic terms of English so they can prove Bush lied.. sigh... These are the same morons, typically, who defend blatant lies from their messiah in the WH.

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

 

[Camp]

What aid and protection, or only aid, did Saddam provide to al Qaeda?

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

 

[RKMBrown]

Aid in the form of checks written and bragged about on international TV for anyone that dies fighting Americans and / or our allies in Israel. Feel free to provide proof that Saddam was lying about that too.

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

 

[Camp]

What? Al Qaeda wasn't providing suicide bombers to the Shiites fighting against Israel. Bush made that statement after we knew we had been attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda. He mentioned them in his speech specifically. He said Saddam supported terrorist and went on further to specify "aid and protection" to al Qaeda. Also, you need to show a link showing some kind of evidence that Saddam made that offer to suicide bombers who targeted Americans.

Here is a report that explains that rewards were only given to Palestinians who attacked Israel military or security forces.

abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page1

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.