Thank God Bush is gone soon

[Krendeli]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/...ormation_study

Hopefully we don't elect another Republican liar.

[sst]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/...ormation_study

Hopefully we don't elect another Republican liar.

If by soon you mean a year... I would not call a year soon...

[Clove]

Yeah. I'd be more comfortable with a Democrat liar.

[RichardCranium]

Yeah, maybe this time we can elect a Democratic liar. Or an Independent liar. Or a Green Party liar. Or a Libetarian liar.

[Skeeter]

I'd settle for someone who is actually elected this time.

[Latrinsorm]

If you actually look at the study, nowhere do they present evidence (let alone definitive evidence) that President Bush or his administration purposefully lied at any time. Feel free to continue calling him one though, it doesn't make you look like a zealot with an axe to grind at all.

[Clove]

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

--

"Honey, where are the car keys?"

"On the diningroom table"

"No they aren't YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!!!"

"Sorry mom, I moved them when I was cleaning"

"He's still a FUCKING LIAR!!!"

[Clove]

Yeah, maybe this time we can elect a Democratic liar. Or an Independent liar. Or a Green Party liar. Or a Libetarian liar.

You're just mean.

[sst]

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Id like you to reread that clove. I do not disagree with the study in that sense, the administration did in fact have erroneous information, and it did in fact spread that information. The question is, was it known to be erroneous at the time? Congress, nor the senate felt that information was erroneous, even though they have the same access to said information that the office of the president has.

Where i disagree is the use of the word lie. Is it a lie if you believe the information to be ture?

[Lucas]

Bush went to war due to geopolitics. It had nothing to do with WMDs. Our potential power capability is about 600 times greater then Iraq, calling them a threat even if they possessed nuclear weapons and the delivery system needed to use them would be laughable.