Obama's lie verses GWB's non-lie

Freewill

Platinum Member
Oct 26, 2011
31,158
5,072
1,130
The liberals like to keep defending Obama's lies about Benghazi with the lie that GWB lied about weapons of mass destruction. But GWB didn't lie, although he may have been wrong. On the other hand there is no doubt that Obama and Rice made claims that were not true.

The following should set the record straight concerning the lie about GWB.

George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is a charge that has been repeated ad nauseum by opponents of the war, but the claim that Bush "lied" about stockpiles of WMDs doesn't hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.
Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements.

It's just not possible -- and that's before we even consider the numerous other pieces of exculpating evidence like: all the non-American intelligence agencies that also believed Saddam had WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet famously saying it was a "'slam-dunk' that Hussein possessed the banned weapons", the once secret Downing Street Memo which certainly proves that our allies in Britain believed Saddam had WMDs...

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

...and of course, that we did find warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents and artillery shells filled with mustard gas & sarin (even though they were small in number and weren't recently made).

When you add it all up, it appears that George Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it.
John Hawkins: Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq
 
Ironically this is the same Freewill poster who has ranted hysterically against President Obama using drones to kill actual Al Qaeda terrorists.
 
Signs pointed to the existence of WMDs. Not long ago, some were used and they could likely have been the ones Saddam was hiding. The inspectors had found remnants of chemical labs during their visits. Of course, their visits were announced well in advance and being Saddam was so trustworthy, how could anyone possibly think that he would use the time to remove evidence? If you can't trust an evil dictator, then it's a sad world.

We'll never know what he had because we gave him ample time to clean up areas before the arrival of U.N. inspectors. Even CNN aired a taped conversation where Iraqi officials were talking about getting the trucks loaded and gone before the U.N. inspectors arrived. I'm sure they were just removing garbage and nothing incriminating.

Imagine if police doing drug busts gave suspects a heads up before arriving. I'm sure there would be never be evidence or convictions.
 
Last edited:
The ones making the claims don't care about facts, otherwise they would have followed this and known they were lied to when told Bush lied.
 
Signs pointed to the existence of WMDs. Not long ago, some were used and they could likely have been the ones Saddam was hiding. The inspectors had found remnants of chemical labs during their visits. Of course, their visits were announced well in advance and being Saddam was so trustworthy, how could anyone possibly think that he would use the time to remove evidence? If you can't trust an evil dictator, then it's a sad world.

We'll never know what he had because we gave him ample time to clean up areas before the arrival of U.N. inspectors. Even CNN aired a taped conversation where Iraqi officials were talking about getting the trucks loaded and gone before the U.N. inspectors arrived. I'm sure they were just removing garbage and nothing incriminating.

Imagine if police doing drug busts gave suspects a heads up before arriving. I'm sure there would be never be evidence or convictions.

Are you aware enough to realize that if Saddam actually had WMD's to the degree that the adminstration lied people into believing that he would have had to have had THOUSANDS of people working in those programs?

Where are those people?

Hint, there weren't any. There aren't any. No people, no programs.
 
Blah blah blah...of course he had some WMDs- the chemical weapons Raygun helped him with. The lie was anything about nuclear weapons- a joke...
 
Last edited:
One of the Bush Admin. major mistakes was not hitting back hard at the "Bush lied, people died" charge.
 
Signs pointed to the existence of WMDs. Not long ago, some were used and they could likely have been the ones Saddam was hiding. The inspectors had found remnants of chemical labs during their visits. Of course, their visits were announced well in advance and being Saddam was so trustworthy, how could anyone possibly think that he would use the time to remove evidence? If you can't trust an evil dictator, then it's a sad world.

We'll never know what he had because we gave him ample time to clean up areas before the arrival of U.N. inspectors. Even CNN aired a taped conversation where Iraqi officials were talking about getting the trucks loaded and gone before the U.N. inspectors arrived. I'm sure they were just removing garbage and nothing incriminating.

Imagine if police doing drug busts gave suspects a heads up before arriving. I'm sure there would be never be evidence or convictions.

Are you aware enough to realize that if Saddam actually had WMD's to the degree that the adminstration lied people into believing that he would have had to have had THOUSANDS of people working in those programs?

Where are those people?

Hint, there weren't any. There aren't any. No people, no programs.

The Administration did not lie. The Administration and cleared Congressmen and Senators, including Democrats, read and analyzed the same intelligence reports available to make the decision. Democrats had every opportunity not to back Administration. The majority chose to back him. Only when it became politically expedient did the accusations of lies came out.

For the record, I said then and I say now, the cause of Benghazi was not the result of a Coptic Christian camped out in LA making videos that mock Islam.
 
One of the Bush Admin. major mistakes was not hitting back hard at the "Bush lied, people died" charge.

I totally agree. Sad thing is most of the media would have been of no help to him at that point. Some of it actually helped to spread the lie. He was in a damned if you do, and damned if you don't position.
 
Did Bush lie?

He had limited support for his Iraq invasion plans. But he had a blank check to fight terrorism. So what could he do?

Start cooking rumors that Saddam had WMDs and would give them to TERRORISTS
The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud. We must stop them NOW. Time is of the essence

His lies killed 5000 Americans
 
Ironically this is the same Freewill poster who has ranted hysterically against President Obama using drones to kill actual Al Qaeda terrorists.

What a lying liberal you are. I rant against the indiscriminate killing of innocents people brown, American or otherwise. I rant against the execution through drone of American citizens without due process. I rant against the killing of a very innocent 16 year old American and his cousins. Then to have the Obama administration tell us that the young boy should have had a better father.

What any of the drone program and my opinion that I think what Obama was and is doing is ruining our image in the world has nothing to do with Obama lying about Benghazi.
 
Signs pointed to the existence of WMDs. Not long ago, some were used and they could likely have been the ones Saddam was hiding. The inspectors had found remnants of chemical labs during their visits. Of course, their visits were announced well in advance and being Saddam was so trustworthy, how could anyone possibly think that he would use the time to remove evidence? If you can't trust an evil dictator, then it's a sad world.

We'll never know what he had because we gave him ample time to clean up areas before the arrival of U.N. inspectors. Even CNN aired a taped conversation where Iraqi officials were talking about getting the trucks loaded and gone before the U.N. inspectors arrived. I'm sure they were just removing garbage and nothing incriminating.

Imagine if police doing drug busts gave suspects a heads up before arriving. I'm sure there would be never be evidence or convictions.

Are you aware enough to realize that if Saddam actually had WMD's to the degree that the adminstration lied people into believing that he would have had to have had THOUSANDS of people working in those programs?

Where are those people?

Hint, there weren't any. There aren't any. No people, no programs.

You just make crap up and then pretend it is reality. You are quite the head case.
 
Blah blah blah...of course he had some WMDs- the chemical weapons Raygun helped him with. The lie was anything about nuclear weapons- a joke...

You mean like this lie?

left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
 
Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.

You have any evidence of that from an unbiased source?

The CIA Director (a Clinton appointee) was literally exclaiming that "evidence for WMDs was a SLAM DUNK".

I the CIA Director is making that claim who are you supposed to believe?

And President Bush never claimed Iraq was connected to 9-11 or was an imminent threat.
 
One of the Bush Admin. major mistakes was not hitting back hard at the "Bush lied, people died" charge.

Unlike our crier in chief, Bush put himself above all the liberal lies. Bush is a gentleman.
 
Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Stop trying to argue otherwise. They knew that there wasn't anything that posed an "imminent threat" to America and that Iraq was not involved with 9/11.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=curveball+lied&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

If you are attempting to post two of the bigger lies that liberals tell then you certainly have accomplished that goal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top