Chanda

Wrong. Bush's statement, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" indicates certainty.

Cheney's statement, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." indicates certainty.

None of the reliable evidence indicated certainty. Even the October '02 NIE contained caveats. Bush could not say truthfully and with certainty that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and yet he did. He lied.

__________________
When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always.---Mahatma Gandhi

Tashah

None of the available evidence dispelled uncertainty either.

Almost all NIEs contain analytical caveats. That is why these documents are considered "estimates".

It is only a lie if someone truly believes it to be a lie. Prevaricate would be a more appropriate term.

__________________

Chanda

Both Colin Powell in February 2001, and Condoleezza Rice in July 2001 stated in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein was not a threat:



Furthermore, Bush et al made the decision to go to war (apparently without evidence of any kind) in November, 2001, only 4 months after Rice stated Saddam Hussein was not a threat.

"Significantly, the decision is made independent of normal policy-making procedures—a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was not requested, members of Congress were not consulted, and the concerns of senior military officers and intelligence analysts were ignored."

USATODAY.com - Iraq course set from tight White House circle

According to John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

Bush had to lie, because if he had told the truth--Saddam Hussein is not a threat, but we know he wants to acquire WMD-- the American people would never have allowed the Iraq war.

Consider the staggering consequences of Bush's "prevarication":

Over 4,000 US military deaths
Over 30,333 US troops wounded, some severely
Iraqi civilian dead and wounded--hundreds of thousands
Five million Iraqi orphans
1000 Iraqis per day fleeing the country
Over 300,000 US troops suffering from PTSD
Cost of war: National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home

Who should be held accountable? The evidence is overwhelming that Bush lied. You can only take the premise "he didn't know he was lying" so far before it begins to sound absurd. Considering the consequences of his actions, it's time to stop making excuses for him.

Tashah

And OIF began when?

Ms. Rice is not the President.

No doubt this is where Mr. Bush wanted to go.

Although Rockefeller is a Democrat, what he is saying is basically true.

I disagree with nothing above except the "lie" sobriquet. It would be extremely difficult to prove Mr. Bush lied. The information he digested was subject to his subjective analysis. He could always claim that he misunderstood, interpreted the information incorrectly, error of judgement, etc. That is why I suggested the term "prevaricate" instead of lie.

I think you misunderstand me here. I am no supporter of Mr. Bush. Be that as it may and as I pointed out above, it would be extremely difficult to formally press a case that he lied. Has he been impeached under a Democratic Congress? No. For basically the reasons stated above. History will judge the legacy of President George W. Bush, and I do not believe history will be very generous.

Marilyn Monroe

Depends on how Iraq turns out cause that's been the biggest thorn in his side.

Seems like a lot of things are getting better in Iraq, so it's just a time thing. Iraq will have to get better because there are a lot of people over there that want it to, mainly the Iraqi's.

MO is Bush did what he thought was best at that time. We had been attacked, and I think he was honestly afraid for the country. He saw Hussein as a huge obstacle in the war on terror. He was a pain in the ass.

__________________
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

Chanda

Regardless of how Iraq turns out, it began with massive deception. History won't change that.

Bush did what he thought was best for himself. Even before his first term, Bush told his biographer, Mickey Herskowitz:

“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief,” Herskowitz remembers Bush saying. “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of [Kuwait] and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: The Decision to Invade Iraq

Hussein was an obstacle for PNAC's objective, to “remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.”

Marilyn Monroe

Deception in this case has a lot of hindsight to it.

Just his thoughts, doesn't mean any of it would happen. This was probably before 9/11, but I don't really care when it was, he was just talking.The CIC has a Congress, and going into unpopular things wouldn't make him considered good at anything.

We do need oil, it's a fact, but we do get some of it elsewhere. Hussein was Hussein. Doubt he would have played his cards the way he did if he had known the outcome. Very unfortunate.

I'm not an Iraq war supporter. I think it was a dumb idea, and we should have pulled out long ago, but Bush keeps on going. I just don't think Bush was deliberately being deceptive. He did what he thought was best, and he was wrong. Won't be the first time a President made a big error in judgment. He's paying for it in popularity. That has to be a killer.

Chanda

Hindsight for some. Many others knew at time Saddam was not a threat (Colin Powell and Condi Rice, as they both said), but those who protested the war were not covered by the corporate media.

It reveals he wanted to invade Iraq even before he was in office. As soon as he took office, he asked his cabinet members to "find a way to attack Iraq," according to Paul O'Neill.
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News

Eight months later, 9/11 provided the "Pearl Harbor event" PNAC stated would be needed as a catalyst for war. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other PNAC members were (coincidentally) already in place in the Bush administration to carry out the PNAC mission.

Luckily for Bush, 9/11 made war a popular thing. It's why he said he hit the trifecta.

He was wrong about WMD (maybe he should have let Hans Blix finish his work), but he accomplished the PNAC mission. Saddam Hussein is gone, and Bush is now demanding 58 permanent bases in Iraq:

Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases - Yahoo! News

If McCain is elected (or selected) there is little doubt he will continue the PNAC policies and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Sergeant Stinger1

Funny how many ways a LIE can be twisted.
-
bush is a LIAR, an American Hater and a Iraqi people LOVER!!
Get used to it cause its going down in the history books about
bush and his failed presidency!

__________________
I guess bush and the Repukes won cause Americans are totaly SCREWED!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMERICAN ARMED FORCES, THE BEST IN THE WORLD

P/N

Why would you return to the scene of the crime after nearly a full month? You were given every opportunity to prove these allegations of yours and you failed to do so each and every time. This post (along with most of your other posts) is nothing more than flaming and baiting. Your "opinion" doesn't amount to **** when you can't support it with facts.

__________________
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan