Sorry Rove, but Bush did lie

[Hawkeye2j]

Karl Rove claims “one of the biggest mistakes” of Bush's presidency was not aggressively challenging critics who
charged that Bush “lied” about the reasons for the Iraq War, an accusation that Rove insists was false and unfair.

But the problem with Rove’s account is that not only did Bush oversee the twisting of intelligence to justify invading
Iraq but he subsequently lied – and lied repeatedly – about how Iraq had responded to UN inspection demands.

So, while it may be impossible to say for certain what Bush believed about Iraq possessing WMDs, it can’t be
argued that Bush didn’t know that Iraq declared that it had destroyed its WMD stockpiles and let U.N. inspectors in
to see for themselves in the months before the invasion.

[MintJulep]

Sockpuppet, will you please credit the moonbat site you copied this from? What you're doing is plagiarism.

[Pat]

Sockpuppet, will you please credit the moonbat site you copied this from? What you're doing is plagiarism.
I'll help the plagiarist out.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/030510.html


Edit to add,
I'm in favor of punishing plagiarists.

[Boogie man]

Karl Rove claims “one of the biggest mistakes” of Bush's presidency was not aggressively challenging critics who
charged that Bush “lied” about the reasons for the Iraq War, an accusation that Rove insists was false and unfair.

But the problem with Rove’s account is that not only did Bush oversee the twisting of intelligence to justify invading
Iraq but he subsequently lied – and lied repeatedly – about how Iraq had responded to UN inspection demands.

So, while it may be impossible to say for certain what Bush believed about Iraq possessing WMDs, it can’t be
argued that Bush didn’t know that Iraq declared that it had destroyed its WMD stockpiles and let U.N. inspectors in
to see for themselves in the months before the invasion.

Why do you and others keep trying to rewrite history? Are you that upset that America won the war and Iraq is an ally instead of an enemy? Poor baby. Do you hate your country that much?

[CommonCents]

Pathetic. Still clinging to lies after all these years.

[Frankg]

If President George W Bush was smart enough to lie to congress , the american people and the 31 other nations that supported him than he surely would've been smart enough to have WMD's planted in Iraq so that his "lie" wouldn't have been exposed.

ya think ?

[MarkMiller]

If President George W Bush was smart enough to lie to congress , the american people and the 31 other nations that supported him than he surely would've been smart enough to have WMD's planted in Iraq so that his "lie" wouldn't have been exposed.

ya think ?
You call that smart?

[Hawkeye2j]

I apologize. I did not leave the link out on purpose. I turned 51 today. I guess the memory is the first thing to go :hi:

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/030510.html

[CommonCents]

I apologize. I did not leave the link out on purpose. I turned 51 today. I guess the memory is the first thing to go :hi:

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/030510.html

Link or no link, that story is a crock of shit.

[Hawkeye2j]

Link or no link, that story is a crock of shit.

We are entitled to our opinion. However, I don't see how you can say Bush did not lie about the inspectors.

[GetAClue]

We are entitled to our opinion. However, I don't see how you can say Bush did not lie about the inspectors.
Of course you can't: you're blinded by your partisan beliefs. However, even it if did lie, do you believe that it justifies all of Obama's lies?

[Hawkeye2j]

Did Obama lie us into a war?

[GetAClue]

Did Obama lie us into a war?
So that is the only lies that matter to you? I take it then that every other lie is ok with you as long as it doesn't "lie us into a war". Gotcha :thumbsup:

[CommonCents]

We are entitled to our opinion. However, I don't see how you can say Bush did not lie about the inspectors.

He didn't lie about the inspectors.

The story states:

The historical record, however, is clear: Hussein and other Iraqi officials did say they no longer possessed WMD and they did let UN arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing.

That is all true and Bush never claimed otherwise. The story claims Bush said that the reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam kicked inspectors out, and that is false.

Notice your story doesn't provide any quotes from Bush that backs up their claim, nor do they even link to any. That's because he didn't say what they claim he said.

Like I said, this story is just plain false. If you disagree, then please post the quotes that your story failed to do.

Good luck.

[Moby]

I apologize. I did not leave the link out on purpose. I turned 51 today. I guess the memory is the first thing to go :hi:

http://consortiumnews.com/2010/030510.html
Happy Birthday.

[Hawkeye2j]

Thanks for the birthday wish Sir Moby
As for Common Cents statement that Bush never claimed otherwise:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/

[Boogie man]

Thanks for the birthday wish Sir Moby
As for Common Cents statement that Bush never claimed otherwise:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/

If you keep reading those moonbat sites you're gonna get warts on your brain.

If Bush lied, then a bunch of dems are pretty stupid for voting for the invasion. The dems are obviously so damn stupid that all anyone has to do is make something up to get their vote.

[Hawkeye2j]

Good logic, Bush lies, but it is the Democrats fault for believing the Commander in Chief. Real twisted logic. But it is all you have.

[CommonCents]

Thanks for the birthday wish Sir Moby
As for Common Cents statement that Bush never claimed otherwise:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085840/

You are correct, he did say that. In fact, he said it another time too.

The only thing I can figure is, he misspoke. It just doesn't make sense for him to knowingly lie about the justification for war after the fact, especially when everyone remembers that the inspectors had to leave Iraq because we were invading.

When people knowingly lie, it's to deceive the people they're speaking to for some sort of gain or benefit. That statement couldn't possibly deceive reporters, since it was world wide news when Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors back, and world wide news just a few months earlier when the UN inspectors had to leave because of the impending invasion. Plus, I can't for the life of me thing of any possible gain by saying such a thing.

He did say it all right, but there's no way in the world you could ever convince me he was intentionally lying there. It just makes no sense what so ever.

[Hawkeye2j]

Oh, he misspoke :lmao2:

[CommonCents]

Oh, he misspoke :lmao2:

Hey, if you believe he intentionally lied, then explain to me what he had to gain by doing so? Since he never stated that as a reason to invade before the war started in March, why do you think he would lie about it just 4 months later in July?

If you can make sense of it, please share that rational with me.

[Boogie man]

Good logic, Bush lies, but it is the Democrats fault for believing the Commander in Chief. Real twisted logic. But it is all you have.

I think it's perfectly good logic. I am not agreeing that Bush lied. I'm saying that if he did then your guys are pretty damn stupid. Those are the ones you should be blaming. If my elected officials are so samn stupid that a dumb cowboy from Texas can fool a bunch of Democrats in the US Senate and house, then how utterly idiotically stupid are the democrats who voted for the invasion?

[Hawkeye2j]

dumb cowboy from Texas

I thought he was President of the United States

[Boogie man]

dumb cowboy from Texas

I thought he was President of the United States

Democrats have called Bush everything except a white man. Nazi, warmonger, cowboy, stupid, dumb, drug addict, alcoholic, etc. So which is it? Are the dems stupid for believing the dumb cowboy from Texas or not?

[Hawkeye2j]

Every President gets called every name in the book. It doesn't change the fact that he was President of the United States and could be trusted to put the nation first in National Security.

[Boogie man]

Every President gets called every name in the book. It doesn't change the fact that he was President of the United States and could be trusted to put the nation first in National Security.

Right. But he lied and tricked the democrats into voting for an invasion of Iraq, according to you. I think that makes Bush smarter than the democrats in congress who voted for the war.

[Hawkeye2j]

It doesn't make him smarter. It makes him criminal.

[Boogie man]

It doesn't make him smarter. It makes him criminal.

If I trick you into voting for something and you're a US congressman then I'm smarter than you are.

If Bush is a criminal then why don't you and your pals charge him and throw him in jail?

[bairdi]

Hey, if you believe he intentionally lied, then explain to me what he had to gain by doing so? Since he never stated that as a reason to invade before the war started in March, why do you think he would lie about it just 4 months later in July?

If you can make sense of it, please share that rational with me.
All you have to do is to go back and read through the Project for the New American Century to find out exactly the reason for invading Iraq.

Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[Boogie man]

You're not telling the whole story. You omit the fact that many dems voted for the invasion. You're gonna beat this dead horse until it's mush.