To Boldly Lie Where No Man Has Lied Before

[Flanders]

​

At another time, and in another place, Americans never thought less of a president because he lied to an enemy. Eons ago, in a faraway galaxy, this lie was told by Darth Vader:

Khrushchev on Gary Powers Spy Incident 1960 5 9 - YouTube​

Presidential deceptions — and their consequences (video)
By Glenn Kessler March 27, 2014

Presidential deceptions and their consequences video - The Washington Post​

Nevertheless, Democrats and their media took off like skyrockets aimed at President Eisenhower’s justification. Liberals screamed that presidents should never lie. Indeed, Democrats would have impeached Ike had he lied to the American people.

NOTE: Nixon was not a crook.

​

Whatever Nixon did he did for the country. Conversely, the Clintons are crooks who lie about everything in order to betray the country so they can enrich themselves along the way.

To be fair, Taqiyya the Liar may or may not be a crook. Michelle certainly is.

In 2005, when Obama began serving in the U.S. Senate (and his daughters turned 4 and 7), he and his wife were earning a combined annual income of $479,062. Barack Obama was paid a salary of $162,100 by the U.S. taxpayers, and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Obama on Why Michelle Was a Working Mom (at $316K Per Year): ‘We Didn't Have the Luxury for Her Not to Work’
April 9, 2012 - 3:57 PM
By Terence P. Jeffrey

Obama on Why Michelle Was a Working Mom at 316K Per Year We Didn t Have the Luxury for Her Not to Work CNS News​

My guess is that Taqiyya the Liar has good reason to steer clear of larceny. Basically, he can say “I’m not a crook.” Making honesty a saving grace is a shrewd move. Defending larceny and treason is a tough go. On the other hand, President Nixon was not a crook or a traitor.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton never said she was not a crook, and she is very careful to never say she is not a UN-loving traitor. Both charges are too easy to prove.

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton’s UN mic could just as easily depict the Federation of Planets:

Finally, I tried to detail how, in my lifetime, a legitimate purpose for diplomatic lies segued from President Eisenhower’s duty, honor, country, to Bill Clinton’s loyalty to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community), to Taqiyya the Liar’s shameless hatred of this country, ending in the worst of everything driving Hillary Clinton’s lies:

Gowdy: Clinton wiped email server clean, deleted all emails
MATTHEW DALY
Mar 27th 2015 11:47PM

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=634930

XXXXX​

Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends
Foundation agreed not to seek donations from other governments, but cash kept flowing from individuals with connections to them
By James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus
March 19, 2015 10:30 p.m. ET

Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends - WSJ​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

 

[Flanders]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

To Derideo_Te: I would have included whatever I wanted to say. If you have something to say please detail whatever you are referring to.

 

[Roadrunner]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

To Derideo_Te: I would have included whatever I wanted to say. If you have something to say please detail whatever you are referring to.

What a nice way to tell him to kiss your ass.

 

[Hossfly]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

To Derideo_Te: I would have included whatever I wanted to say. If you have something to say please detail whatever you are referring to.

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

Bush didn't lie. Somewhere, Saddam's WMDs exist.

 

[Roadrunner]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

To Derideo_Te: I would have included whatever I wanted to say. If you have something to say please detail whatever you are referring to.

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

Bush didn't lie. Somewhere, Saddam's WMDs exist.

Boston Bomb Boy's firecracker powder pressure cookers=WMD

Saddam's arsenal=Not WMD

Kafka couldn't make up shit like this.

 

[peach174]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

 

[Roadrunner]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

To Derideo_Te: I would have included whatever I wanted to say. If you have something to say please detail whatever you are referring to.

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

Bush didn't lie. Somewhere, Saddam's WMDs exist.

They went to Syria, where Assad swapped them out for new, modern Russian WMD's in the deal that stopped us from, as Kerry said, "bombing them within 24 hours'.

Remember that bullshit?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

 

[peach174]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

 

[peach174]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

 

[peach174]

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

 

[Derideo_Te]

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

 

[peach174]

SO?
They were there and could still be used.

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

 

[Derideo_Te]

According to your own DoD link quoted above they could NOT be used.

Which part of that did you have a problem comprehending?

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

 

[peach174]

Not used for their originally intended purpose but still could be used.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

What part of they were there all along do you have comprehending?
How was intelligence able to know that they had been corroded?
Do you think they were mind readers?
Bush said they were there period, nothing about their condition.
The point is that they were there, when the left keep lying saying that they were none.

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Giving them to terrorists is not Saddam using them to attack the USA, is it?

Bush was lying when he claimed that Saddam had the capability to use WMD's against the USA. They were useless as they were and at most they would cause very little damage in restricted areas.

That doesn't fit the definition of WMD's.

Bush was quoting what intelligence told him just like the Dems did then also.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Who Said What When CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.
Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003


But we will just forget that Dems also believed the intelligence reports also.
So did they lie too?

So now you are trying to defend Bush by blaming others.

Too bad that it was the Bush administration that was skewing the "intelligence" to support their illegal warmongering.

Oh, and those quotes from Dems, they were given the falsified intelligence by the Bush administration.

You got a link that supports that the administration was skewing the intelligence report?

Take your pick and there are plenty more where those came from;

How Fake Intelligence on Iraqi WMD Contributed to Triggering the Invasion The Insiduous Role of Israel Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Senate Report Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Bush and Iraq Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME

Lie by Lie A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq Mother Jones

The Italian Letter How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq Peter Eisner Knut Royce 9781594865732 Amazon.com Books

The blame game was on both sides. That is what politicians do.
It is also why the Dems decided not to go with the impeachment. Politics.
Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's telling her caucus members "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," Dennis Kucinich D-Ohio introduced a formal resolution to the House of Representatives in an attempt to impeach President George W. Bush from the White House. House Democrats unanimously voted to send it to a committee; a maneuver that essentially killed Kucinich's efforts.
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I believe the Judge.
Bush Did Not Lie - Forbes

In its official report, the Silberman-Robb Commission evaluated only American intelligence on Iraq, not what the administration did with it. But Judge Silberman saw more than enough to draw his own conclusions. During a recent interview with me, he spoke freely about his views for the first time. “As a federal judge I am very careful to stay out of politics,” Silberman says. “But [now that several years have passed] I am inclined to think that … [for] historical purposes I can give an opinion.”

Did the Bush administration distort or misconstrue intelligence to show that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. The intelligence agencies did that by themselves.

The intelligence agencies, Silberman says, “clearly indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They made that clear to both President Clinton and President Bush. They made that clear in the national intelligence estimate of 2002.” How did the intelligence agencies get such a basic, vital question so thoroughly wrong? “A lot of fundamental and almost amateurish mistakes.”

Consider, for instance, the intelligence that Saddam had resumed his program to produce biological weapons.

“That claim came to American intelligence from several different entry points,” Silberman says. “[But] it turned out that it all came from a single source, one person who had made the claim to German intelligence. Nobody in American intelligence realized that what looked like three or four bits of corroborating evidence was really all the same phony thing.”

The intelligence community, in other words, proved incapable of a task that takes place dozens of times a day in every newsroom in America: double sourcing.

Bush lied? Hardly. The intelligence agencies screwed up.

Silberman, however, refuses simply to shift blame for the war from the administration to the intelligence agencies. Instead he rejects the idea that the invasion of Iraq represented a war of choice in the first place.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

If the intelligence agencies had submitted just such a report–an accurate, considered assessment–what would have happened?

“The country,” says Silberman, “would probably have gone to war anyway.”

“When Germany seized the Rhineland in 1936, France and Britain failed to respond. I’m sure leaders in France and Britain thought, ‘Well, if we went to war now, we would be waging a war of choice.’ But was it really a war of choice? Of course not. By 1939 there was no choice.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, the timing may have been a matter of choice,” Silberman says. “But historians will probably conclude that the war itself was inevitable.”

The Bush administration no doubt made its mistakes, and the intelligence agencies undeniably committed one bungle after another. But after years of attempting to blame each other for the conflict, Americans should recognize that the war in Iraq was never ours to choose. A barbarian forced it upon us.


In other words Al-Qaeda and all other terrorists had to be dealt with no matter what. We got their numbers low and they were weakened from the Iraq war.
If Obama had kept with the program of keeping their numbers low we would not be in this situation now.

Forbes opinion is biased.

The facts prove otherwise.

 

[Roadrunner]

Why did you leave out Bush jr's lies to the American people about WMD?

They were found.
Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says
US did find Iraq WMD New York Post

From your own link;

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.​

Any harbour in a storm, right, you lyin' duped mofo!