who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq

[BasicGreatGuy]

That's you that hasn't a clue. You didn't even read anything. Scientists complained about Bush for his entire 8 years. Bush even wanted to push "magical creation".

What does former President Bush's belief in creation have to do with the issue of war? Nothing. More deflection.

I made the statement:

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame. America voted Bush into office. He was under qualified for the job. It was way over his head. The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Anti education. Anti science. This was the "perfect storm". Can it really be someones "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?

Then it was someone else who laughably suggested Bush was "pro science".

So what could be the connection? If you are so stupid that you believe in "mystical creation", then it's extremely possible that you could be misled into attacking another country without provocation and without understanding the consequences.

Besides, what we did to Iraq wasn't "war". We leveled a country. It takes two sides for a war.

War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

There was no war "between" us.

The highlighted part makes sense if you believe logical fallacies are valid and substantive foundations of reasoned thinking.

As to 'underqualified,' former President Bush met the constitutional requirements to be President. It doesn't matter how much previous experience a person may have in various fields. Once a person gets to the White House, they are a Presidential virgin.

If you believe former President Bush was "underqualified," President Obama fits that bill as well.

What is the purpose of debating whether or not former President Bush lied, unless you are seeking to have him brought up on charges of impeachment. I haven't seen you make that case in this thread. So, what is your point? Like it or not, we are there. President Obama is carrying on with the same kind of mantra.

 

[rdean]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.

Here is an example of the lunatic fringe that I was talking about. Yes, some people still believe that this war made sense. What does one say to someone who is so deluded. There are many nations who may be a threat in the future. This is why we must return our forces to our borders and start enforcing our immigration policy and actually defend our country for a change.

So true.

How can you argue with people who suggest that "imagination" is basis enough for warfare?
We think a country with no manufacturing and industry, a country that is internally divided
will someday attack us to, to, to what? Take us over?

 

[rdean]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

Actually, I believe that Bush really thought he was going to bring "democracy" to the Middle East. He was convinced that he was the "chosen one" and that newly freed Iraqis were going to welcome him with open arms and cheering crowds. He wouldn't be dodging shoes, but rather dodging flowers and a bit or two of hard candy.

Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that way. I firmly believe that Bush feels everything is the fault of the Iraqis who are ungrateful at being "liberated".

 

[goldcatt]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

Actually, I believe that Bush really thought he was going to bring "democracy" to the Middle East. He was convinced that he was the "chosen one" and that newly freed Iraqis were going to welcome him with open arms and cheering crowds. He wouldn't be dodging shoes, but rather dodging flowers and a bit or two of hard candy.

Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that way. I firmly believe that Bush feels everything is the fault of the Iraqis who are ungrateful at being "liberated".

I think in this post you're actually on to something. But naivete and deliberately lying are two very different things.

 

[rdean]

What does former President Bush's belief in creation have to do with the issue of war? Nothing. More deflection.

I made the statement:

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame. America voted Bush into office. He was under qualified for the job. It was way over his head. The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Anti education. Anti science. This was the "perfect storm". Can it really be someones "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?

Then it was someone else who laughably suggested Bush was "pro science".

So what could be the connection? If you are so stupid that you believe in "mystical creation", then it's extremely possible that you could be misled into attacking another country without provocation and without understanding the consequences.

Besides, what we did to Iraq wasn't "war". We leveled a country. It takes two sides for a war.

War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

There was no war "between" us.

The highlighted part makes sense if you believe logical fallacies are valid and substantive foundations of reasoned thinking.

As to 'underqualified,' former President Bush met the constitutional requirements to be President. It doesn't matter how much previous experience a person may have in various fields. Once a person gets to the White House, they are a Presidential virgin.

If you believe former President Bush was "underqualified," President Obama fits that bill as well.

What is the purpose of debating whether or not former President Bush lied, unless you are seeking to have him brought up on charges of impeachment. I haven't seen you make that case in this thread. So, what is your point? Like it or not, we are there. President Obama is carrying on with the same kind of mantra.

Presidential virgin? I have no problem with that.

If you believe former President Bush was "underqualified," President Obama fits that bill as well.

Not necessarily. Bush proved his incompetence over and over again. What did he touch that he didn't turn to crap? He was like Midas, only the color wasn't gold, it was brown.

Obama started on food stamps and though dedication and hard work ended up President.

Bush was the privileged son of a president who never worked seriously for anything. An alcoholic who partied, was arrested for drunk driving, whose whereabouts were unknown when he was in the military, who was on the board of directors of three bankrupted companies. Whose father had to bail him out time and time again.

Where are they similar? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[Dr Grump]

To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...

 

[rdean]

Bush, Cheney, et al were operating from a dark mindset from the get go, even before 9-11. Driven by adventurist political philosophy, the bingo gang were looking for a reason to extend American military influence into the Middle East in such a way to guarantee our energy sources there and to terrify our enemies. "Democracy" and "freedom" were follow on arguments because WMDs were not found.

This has been the worst American foreign policy disaster in our history. BHO is slowly healing it. The progress on Iran and the probablility eventually of meaningful sanctions are the proof in the pudding.

Actually, I believe that Bush really thought he was going to bring "democracy" to the Middle East. He was convinced that he was the "chosen one" and that newly freed Iraqis were going to welcome him with open arms and cheering crowds. He wouldn't be dodging shoes, but rather dodging flowers and a bit or two of hard candy.

Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that way. I firmly believe that Bush feels everything is the fault of the Iraqis who are ungrateful at being "liberated".

I think in this post you're actually on to something. But naivete and deliberately lying are two very different things.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Which is why I believe Cheney was lying and Bush was naive. I sincerely believe Bush saw Cheney as a father figure. I also believe that that relationship fizzled when Bush refused to pardon Scooter Libby. Actually, the lack of a pardon was the proof the relationship had fizzled.

 

[Si modo]

To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...

Who lied?

 

[DiveCon]

To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...

Who lied?

well, everyone, of course

 

[goldcatt]

Actually, I believe that Bush really thought he was going to bring "democracy" to the Middle East. He was convinced that he was the "chosen one" and that newly freed Iraqis were going to welcome him with open arms and cheering crowds. He wouldn't be dodging shoes, but rather dodging flowers and a bit or two of hard candy.

Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that way. I firmly believe that Bush feels everything is the fault of the Iraqis who are ungrateful at being "liberated".

I think in this post you're actually on to something. But naivete and deliberately lying are two very different things.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Which is why I believe Cheney was lying and Bush was naive. I sincerely believe Bush saw Cheney as a father figure. I also believe that that relationship fizzled when Bush refused to pardon Scooter Libby. Actually, the lack of a pardon was the proof the relationship had fizzled.

The relationship did fizzle. But Cheney wasn't the whole problem.
I'm no fan of Bush, but I don't think he himself had evil intentions. When it all shakes out I'll bet we will see many of the same problems that existed in the Carter Administration, minus the revolt by his own party in Congress. An ineffectual President way out of his league, surrounded by a group of jackals with their own agendas who outplayed him over and over again. By the time he started to wise up, it was too late. He displayed piss poor judgment in many areas, but that doesn't make him a liar.
Cheney was certainly a jackal, but not the only one by far.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Trying to debate with rabid partisans is an exercise in futility. I gave it my best shot. Passes the garlic to Si and Dive.

 

[rdean]

To answer the original question - yep, the world was lied to. Absolutely...

Who lied?

Cheney lied to Bush. Remember when Cheney was saying that there existed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda and then later Bush said no ties existed. I believe that Bush was misled by Cheney.

Worse, many at the CIA said they were pressured by Cheney to supply suspect info. It was Cheney that passed that on to Bush. To me, Bush was incompetent, but not anti American. I honestly don't know what Cheney was, except crazy.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/artI2A.pdf

 

[rdean]

Trying to debate with rabid partisans is an exercise in futility. I gave it my best shot. Passes the garlic to Si and Dive.

I understand your frustration. It's obvious that you are both a "Master Debater" as well as a "Cunning Linguist".

 

[manu1959]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

severe consequences ensued due to violation of 18 un resolutions ......

not that i agree with the invasion but that was why the us went in.....

also wasn't the intel on wmds and the 911 link put forth by clarke and tennant both clinton men.....that us assest were attacked i believe 6 times....

 

[xotoxi]

who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq

What are you talking about?

We weren't lied to about entering Iraq!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneoHcE]YouTube - Bush: After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

severe consequences ensued due to violation of 18 un resolutions ......

not that i agree with the invasion but that was why the us went in.....

also wasn't the intel on wmds and the 911 link put forth by clarke and tennant both clinton men.....that us assest were attacked i believe 6 times....

shhh, he doesnt want to hear that much truth

 

[manu1959]

who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq

What are you talking about?

We weren't lied to about entering Iraq!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneoHcE]YouTube - Bush: After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad[/ame]

who told the lies to him.....

 

[xotoxi]

who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq

What are you talking about?

We weren't lied to about entering Iraq!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC5dfneoHcE"]YouTube - Bush: After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad[/ame]

who told the lies to him.....

Prolly is was Christ.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

severe consequences ensued due to violation of 18 un resolutions ......

not that i agree with the invasion but that was why the us went in.....

also wasn't the intel on wmds and the 911 link put forth by clarke and tennant both clinton men.....that us assest were attacked i believe 6 times....

The UN did not authorize the US to invade because of the resolutions. If you go that route, you will subject our commanders to war crimes charges. Why do you think many of the Bush administration wonks don't travel to Europe anymore.

 

[rubberhead]

There were no claims of Iraq and 9/11. Further there were no claims that Iraq was an imminent threat. We invaded because, and this has been proven, Iraq was a threat in the future. France, Russia and China were working to lift sanctions and Saddam Hussein was poised to resume Chemical and Biological mass production as well as nuclear research for the bomb.

Here is an example of the lunatic fringe that I was talking about. Yes, some people still believe that this war made sense. What does one say to someone who is so deluded. There are many nations who may be a threat in the future. This is why we must return our forces to our borders and start enforcing our immigration policy and actually defend our country for a change.

I'm wondering if you've even read any of the analyses of the IC, domestic and international, leading up to the invasion.

Are you trying to tell me that we need to invade a third world country that is not and will not be capable of attacking us with the next two generations? I mean, if we're worried that they're going to send someone to our shores with a chemical or biological weapon, then our efforts should be concentrated on our own territory and intelligence, not overextending our military for the good of the Empire.