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.
Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFLBush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
I called a specific portion and claim made during the speech a lie. It was a big one. Saddam being connected and working with al Qaeda. That was a monster lie. And you can try and deflect all you want. What the Clinton's or anyone else did is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is about if Bush lied. Evidence has been given thru out the discussion that Bush lied. You are unable to refute his comments or show a shred of evidence that what he said was true. That means Bush lied.ROFL you are full of it. Calling a speech a lie is not the same as the speech being a lie, fool. Are you saying every democrat was lying too? ROFLEveryone believed what the President told them during his State of the Union Address. Nobody believed that after 9/11 the President would lie to the nation and world. He took the trust and faith given to him and abused it. He linked Saddam and Iraq to al Qaeda and told us point blank without reservations that the two had a working relationship. He said that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. What is confusing about that? To now defend the lying by pointing out that people believed the lie and hence gave Bush support, hence making his lie justifiable is just beyond ridiculous. In addition to being ridiculous, it does not change the fact that Bush lied. You seem to be claiming that it is OK to lie as long as people believe the lie.Democrats... if you don't take Saddam out you are "looking the other way" as Saddam continues his "brutal terrorism" around the planet. Sanctions? "looking the other way..." The democrats agree to take him out if he does not voluntarily leave... the democrats agree to fund the coming war... Then on the eve of the fight after the decision to go has been made... the Democrats flip... Saddam is just miss-understood... we need to give them more time to change their mind give sanctions a chance... BUSH LIED there's no terrorism going on here none at all ... BUSH LIED. ROFL it's like they think with the media's help and teachers and constant bullshit statements they make in the press they can just rewrite all the facts.
Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree."that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?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.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)...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.
Show us where either Clinton or the UN or anyone else declared a relationship of aiding and protecting al Qaeda by Saddam.Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
yes, he said that, so did both Clintons, the UN, and most of the world. It may be true or it may not be, but its what they all believed at the time.
your attempt at rewriting history is a failure.
This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...
This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
WTF?? What the hell does Bush exhausting his 2 term limit have to do with any of this? Exactly how dysfunctional is your brain?Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES... Yeah cause intelligence reports have never been wrong before... cause people have never made incorrect statements before... cause people never make mistakes...Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree."that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?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.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)...
Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague
SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]
... next excuse ...
Put up time ... quote both Clintons claiming Saddam Hussein gave aid and protection to Al-Qaeda........Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
yes, he said that, so did both Clintons, the UN, and most of the world. It may be true or it may not be, but its what they all believed at the time.
your attempt at rewriting history is a failure.
Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree."that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?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.
Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague
SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]
... next excuse ...
BS the democrats were pushing for war right up to the point of war. They were baiting the pubs... then they pulled the switch.No one but Bush and his administration was pushing for war. No one but Bush had the authority to deploy troops.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Hell, even Bush knows he is responsible ...
"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005
WTF?? What the hell does Bush exhausting his 2 term limit have to do with any of this? Exactly how dysfunctional is your brain?Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree."that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?
Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague
SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]
... next excuse ...
Even if Cheney didn't see that White House memo, the Bush administration knew Cheney's claim on national television was wrong. Yet they didn't clear that up for nearly two years. Cheney may or many not have lied that day, but the administration most certainly lied on that matter.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree."that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001
Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague
SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]
... next excuse ...
Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree."that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001
Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague
SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]
... next excuse ...
They were not. There were what, about 260 Democrats in office at the time? Most of whom voted against the resolution. And you can quote maybe 10 or so saying Hussein had WMD. And almost none of them said Bush should go to war unless there was no other way to get rid of Hussein's WMD.BS the democrats were pushing for war right up to the point of war. They were baiting the pubs... then they pulled the switch.No one but Bush and his administration was pushing for war. No one but Bush had the authority to deploy troops.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Hell, even Bush knows he is responsible ...
"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005
WTF?? What the hell does Bush exhausting his 2 term limit have to do with any of this? Exactly how dysfunctional is your brain?Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
He said we disregarded Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Provided a list of examples of Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Was Gore, D, lying?
This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
See post #820You are just re-arguing the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This thread and discussion is about whether President Bush lied about one of the most important reasons. The two major factors were WMD's and collusion, a confirmed working relationship with al Qaeda. There was no collusion and working relationship between the two even though Bush said there was. It really is that simple. Bush said that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a lie and you guys can not disprove it.The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?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.
Here it is again, short version.
youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k
he said what virtually everyone believed. Both Clintons said exactly the same thing
stating something that you believe (whether true or not) is not lying. He believed it, so did both Clintons, the UN, and most of the world. There was no lie.
This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?
He said we disregarded Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Provided a list of examples of Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Was Gore, D, lying?
Yes, He was talking about the 80's when Saddam's brutal terrorism was supported and even encouraged by the US.
You can't proove a negative.Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFLBush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.
If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.
continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.
Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?
