• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biggest Lies

eohrnberger said:
Point of fact.
WMDs were in fact discovered / uncovered in Iraq during the occupation, and a lot of people high in the administrations of the time believed so, said so, and had positions based on that as well.




There's a pretty detailed History of him using those weapons against his own people prior to Bush's presidency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Not to mention the Democrat admissions of his WMDs while Clinton was in office...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons " Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 19

Laurence H. Silberman: The Dangerous Lie That Bush Lied

Bush Didn't Lie About Iraq Having WMDs | The Daily Caller

Stop It Liberals: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs

Bush Didn’t Lie

If Bush lied about WMD, Kerry and 77% of the Senate lied also
August 16, 2004
By Mary Mostert
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mostert/040816
Click to expand...


So old WMD forgotten from the Iran Iraq war, and in rather tiny numbers is the mass stockpile and active WMD program that Iraq was promised to have?
 
KLATTU said:
.
No. If he was a dumb bastard, then so were hundreds of others, all who thought Iraq had WMD ( because they did) , including every Democrat who was in a postion to knmow, and other other countries like the UK and Israel.

So it turns out the ' dumb bastards' are the ones who claim Bush lied about WMD.

There weren't nay credible sources asserting
Click to expand...

It's funny nobody could find those WMD which you claim existed. I can remember Dubya even joking about it in his odd dyslexic way when he took the wrong door in some foreign visit. Nobody could find them, but you say they exist. Kinda funny, all these years later. I reckon you still believe Tillman was killed by hostile fire too. LOL in a sad way.

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, in certain situations an M-60 machine gun is a WMD. But in Iraq the implication was chemical, biological or nuclear WMD. They didn't have them. We certainly did deliver a pile of chemical weapons to them during the war they fought for us against Iran, but apparently they used them all up, as nobody could find them.

Colin Powell lied through his teeth to the world about WMD, fear-mongering for all he was worth.
 
Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman
Nixon: I am not a crook
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So old WMD forgotten from the Iran Iraq war, and in rather tiny numbers is the mass stockpile and active WMD program that Iraq was promised to have?
Click to expand...

I don't recall specific instances where 'mass stockpile and active WMD program' where part of the assertion. I may be wrong.

Once having figured out how to make them, and having actually used them on his own people a number of times, a reasonable assumption - or intelligence estimate, that this would have continued. After all, chemical WMDs are the third world's nukes.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't recall specific instances where 'mass stockpile and active WMD program' where part of the assertion. I may be wrong.

Once having figured out how to make them, and having actually used them on his own people a number of times, a reasonable assumption - or intelligence estimate, that this would have continued. After all, chemical WMDs are the third world's nukes.
Click to expand...

amning archive footage shows contradictory speeches by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. In a lengthy address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, Powell solemnly declares that Iraq is in possession of vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and is involved in an elaborate campaign to conceal weapons materials and manufacturing facilities. However, two years earlier Powell and Condoleeza Rice claim the opposite. Speaking in Cairo on February 24, 2001, seven months before 9/11, Powell categorically declares: “He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” Rice repeats this in July 2001 when she tells US television that the Iraqi military has not been rebuilt since the 1991 conflict.
Click to expand...

Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror
 
eohrnberger said:
So no denial that there were WMDs in Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that chemical weapons are pretty quick and easy to manufacture, once the know how is had. Hell, we've just learned that North Korea has VX.

Saddam had already a number of instances gassing his own people, the Kurds, so a demonstrated willingness to use them.
Click to expand...

No doubt Iraq had chemical weapons in the past. So did Syria and I am sure North Korea is known to have them as well.

In the two year run up to the US invasion Iraq did not have a functional wmd program or effective chemical weapons. Old degraded shells from the Iran Iraq war yes we're found. But if used by artillery they were more likely to kill the user then any opponent.

Definitely not what was promised. Definitely not worth the Iraqi lives lost from the war and after effects
 
KLATTU said:
Could you please quote Bush in full?

It's common knowledge that the CIA told Bush Iraq had WMD>
It's also common knowledge WMD were found in Iraq.
I suspect You're the one lying as most liberals do when talking about Bush and WMD.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things is common knowledge.... Let's see the cites. If its so common, that should be pretty easy to find from a main stream source.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's... that was just the line of bull levied on the American people, which our uneducated voters bought hook, line and sinker.

The National Intelligence Estimate was heavily edited to favor/reflect Cheney's preconceived view.

Here's the full version of the CIA's 2002 intelligence assessment on WMD in Iraq - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
No doubt Iraq had chemical weapons in the past. So did Syria and I am sure North Korea is known to have them as well.

In the two year run up to the US invasion Iraq did not have a functional wmd program or effective chemical weapons. Old degraded shells from the Iran Iraq war yes we're found. But if used by artillery they were more likely to kill the user then any opponent.

Definitely not what was promised. Definitely not worth the Iraqi lives lost from the war and after effects
Click to expand...

"Definitely not what was promised. Definitely not worth the Iraqi lives lost from the war and after effects"

Hard to argue with that. 20/20 hindsight. Looking at the record, there were many who were arrayed, both domestically and internationally, in support of the military action, including a large contingent of intel services, again, both foreign and domestic.

Had it turned out the other way around, had Iraq an active and secret WMD program, that was the risk that was weighed. Given that the majority of various administrations documents of the time are still classified and confidential, its hard to have an accurate and complete picture of the information on which these nation's leads made their decision.
 
Are we distinguishing between lies and broken promises?
 
Nilly said:
Are we distinguishing between lies and broken promises?
Click to expand...

No, some posters are pretending that politicians do not lie and that power does not corrupt. Ignorance is bliss, especially 15 years after the fact.
 
Nilly said:
Are we distinguishing between lies and broken promises?
Click to expand...

No, people need to sharpen their understanding of lies. A lie is a deliberate false statement OR a statement made with blatant disregard for the truth. Just because something turns out to be not true, does not make the statement a lie UNLESS the person making the statement continues to make it after he knows or should have known the truth. A bad prediction is not a lie.

lie 2 (lī)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or mistakenly accepted as true: learned his parents had been swindlers and felt his whole childhood had been a lie.

Trump trying to tell us he won the popular vote or had more people at his inauguration than Obama is a lie as it fit this definition. He knew the truth.

The Obama "you can keep your plan" is only a lie if he knew otherwise. Otherwise, it was a bad prediction. The fact is, however, there was nothing about the ACA that would have made his statement untrue EXCEPT that doctors would have to opt into group that took the insurance that was offered under the ACA. His point was that the ACA was offering private insurance and not designating or otherwise managing doctors. This was not dissimilar to a private business that changes insurance carriers. In such event there is no guarantee that you would keep you doctor either.
 
upsideguy said:
Ne

The National Intelligence Estimate was heavily edited to favor/reflect Cheney's preconceived view.

Here's the full version of the CIA's 2002 intelligence assessment on WMD in Iraq - Business Insider
Click to expand...

In December, the RAND Corporation issued a report that stated the CIA assessment "contained several qualifiers that were dropped ... As the draft NIE went up the intelligence chain of command, the conclusions were treated increasingly definitively."

Form your own link.
Yea ,that's kind of how intelligence works. The low level people gather the data and the more experienced , higher level people analyze that and make the deciosons. Intel is ,by definition, a bit iffy at time. It's never 100 % but the key judgements were pretty definitive :" Iraq had WMD" . PERIOD.


Only a partisan fool or liar would read that link and conclude that Iraq didn't have them.
 
upsideguy said:
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's... that was just the line of bull levied on the American people, which our uneducated voters bought hook, line and sinker.
der[/url]
Click to expand...

Another lie. Of course it something to with WMD ,along with many other things as outlined in the Iraq war resolution.And it wasn't just our uneducated 72 % of voters( Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq | Gallup) that bought it. It was our Congress and Senate too, including Clinton Kerry and Biden.

I'd be a little more careful throwing around that uneducated label after your laughable, tinfoil-hatted anyalsis of theat NIE.Just sayin. :)
 
KLATTU said:
Another lie. Of course it something to with WMD ,along with many other things as outlined in the Iraq war resolution.And it wasn't just our uneducated 72 % of voters( Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq | Gallup) that bought it. It was our Congress and Senate too, including Clinton Kerry and Biden.

I'd be a little more careful throwing around that uneducated label after your laughable, tinfoil-hatted anyalsis of theat NIE.Just sayin. :)
Click to expand...

Though I am not terribly interested in re-litigating the Iraq, especially here.... let me re-frame your post here.

First, there was a rush to war with Iraq in 2003. The administration's selling of the war was well documented, including attempting to tie Iraq to 911 AND attempting to tie Iraq to nuclear ambitions. The attempt to tie Iraq to 911 included multiple speeches with 911 and Iraq used in the same sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/prewar-assessment-on-iraq-saw-chance-of-strong-divisions.html?_r=0

The idea of going to war of WMD never made any sense. First place, the term WMD is vague. A bomb is a WMD. The line at the time was Saddam had chemical weapons and he would use them on his people. Many countries have chemical weapons. Saddam did, in fact, use chemical weapons on his people 15 years prior. Getting outraged about it in 2003 was faux outrage. It worked largely because Bush had a ton of political capital post-911. America wanted blood. Iraq seemed like the bad guy. But, many of us saw this whole thing as a sham.

The real reason for going to war with Iraq was not about WMD (or 911) any more than war with Vietnam was about the Tonkin crisis. It was ruse that could be sold to justify a military action because the real could not be sold. Am I talking oil? No, but it was a factor as our interest in the middle east is about oil and peace. But, the real reason for Iraq was some type of misguided neo-con view that middle east peace could be achieved through the democratization of the arab world.

It was thought that one successful democracy would give rise to multiple successful democracies and that it would happen rapidly in a "tsunami of democratization". The thought was Iraq, as an educated and potentially wealthy country headed by a two bit dictator, was ripe to start the tsunami. That is much harder to sell the people; but the Bush Administration was not going to let a good crisis go to waste, so they spent their considerable political capital on a unilateral invasion of Iraq under the cover of 911 and the appeal of controlling WMD.

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief20.pdf
Democracy and Demagoguery in the Middle East | Cato Institute
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Tchance-of-strong-divisions.html?_r=0[/URL]

The idea of going to war of WMD never made any sense. Cato Institute[/URL]
Click to expand...

You've already lied about this once, There was a whole lot more to going to war with Iraq other than WM.

But that was all publicly and explcitly promulgated in the Iraq war resolution.
Among the many reasons , Iraq was not living up to the terms of he cease-fire form the first Iraq war. Not living up to the terms of a cease fire is a well established causas belli.

Democratizing Iraq was most definitley another reason but that was old news.
hereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

the Iraq Liberation act of 1988. Ring a bell?
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

hmm no why in the world would Clinton think it was necessary to remove saddam Hussein from power?

Let's let him tell us.
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....

President Clinton ~ 1998[7]

So there we have it -Iraq has WMD.

So by your ( cockamamie ) theory, After 1998 , the CIA found evidence that they HAD destroyed all their WMD , but kept it all secret at the behest of Cheney. Is that what you want us to believe ?
Remember the whole premise of this thread was that Bush lied about Iraq'a WMD.
 
KLATTU said:
You've already lied about this once, There was a whole lot more to going to war with Iraq other than WM.

But that was all publicly and explcitly promulgated in the Iraq war resolution.
Among the many reasons , Iraq was not living up to the terms of he cease-fire form the first Iraq war. Not living up to the terms of a cease fire is a well established causas belli.

Democratizing Iraq was most definitley another reason but that was old news.
hereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

the Iraq Liberation act of 1988. Ring a bell?
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

hmm no why in the world would Clinton think it was necessary to remove saddam Hussein from power?

Let's let him tell us.
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....

President Clinton ~ 1998[7]

So there we have it -Iraq has WMD.

So by your ( cockamamie ) theory, After 1998 , the CIA found evidence that they HAD destroyed all their WMD , but kept it all secret at the behest of Cheney. Is that what you want us to believe ?
Remember the whole premise of this thread was that Bush lied about Iraq'a WMD.
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein admitted he lied his ****ing ass off because he was more afraid of Iran finding out he had no or little WMD, than the US (because he didn't think Bush would act). It was a massive misconception on his part that lost him his regime. No they did find some WMD, but not to the level they thought. The UN inspectors were trotted around from one place to another while everything was hid away. However the inspectors were convinced there was something, and suspected the Iraqis were hiding their stuff; PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTING LIKE THEY WERE. The Iraqis didn't submit all the documentation required by UN resolution. They were delaying, decoying, obfuscating, and doing everything they could to hide the truth!

But our leftwing friends either weren't born, were in kindergarten, don't know, don't care, or are just lying about what happened from 2001-2003. They also want to forget every mistake Bill Clinton made regarding terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
 
reinoe said:
I care about this country
~Obama

Nothing Trump says or does can top the colossal magnitude of that lie by Obama.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I wish people would actually learn what words mean before they use them.

'lie
[lahy]
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.'

Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com


A lie requires a deliberate intent to deceive on the part of the person telling the 'lie'. So unless you can prove that intent to deceive, than you have no idea whatsoever if they are lying or not.

To my knowledge, Obama never stated that the above statement was a deception - in which case, you have ZERO factual proof that it is was in fact a lie.

So, your statement is completely erroneous.

Though I suppose considering you seem to hate Obama so much, it brought you some sort of childish satisfaction nonetheless.

Noted.


Have a nice day.


Once again, I despise both parties and think all POTUS's in at least the past 50 years were failures.
 
Last edited:
Cigar said:
Too late ... Trump Won ... by a HUGE Margin ... just ask him.
Click to expand...

Trump won 30 States and he flipped 6.

I would call that a wide margin
 
KLATTU said:
You've already lied about this once, There was a whole lot more to going to war with Iraq other than WM.

But that was all publicly and explcitly promulgated in the Iraq war resolution.
Among the many reasons , Iraq was not living up to the terms of he cease-fire form the first Iraq war. Not living up to the terms of a cease fire is a well established causas belli.

Democratizing Iraq was most definitley another reason but that was old news.
hereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

the Iraq Liberation act of 1988. Ring a bell?
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

hmm no why in the world would Clinton think it was necessary to remove saddam Hussein from power?

Let's let him tell us.
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....

President Clinton ~ 1998[7]

So there we have it -Iraq has WMD.

So by your ( cockamamie ) theory, After 1998 , the CIA found evidence that they HAD destroyed all their WMD , but kept it all secret at the behest of Cheney. Is that what you want us to believe ?
Remember the whole premise of this thread was that Bush lied about Iraq'a WMD.
Click to expand...

So there you have it, Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. :lamo
 
KLATTU said:
You've already lied about this once, There was a whole lot more to going to war with Iraq other than WM.

But that was all publicly and explcitly promulgated in the Iraq war resolution.
Among the many reasons , Iraq was not living up to the terms of he cease-fire form the first Iraq war. Not living up to the terms of a cease fire is a well established causas belli.

Democratizing Iraq was most definitley another reason but that was old news.
hereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

the Iraq Liberation act of 1988. Ring a bell?
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

hmm no why in the world would Clinton think it was necessary to remove saddam Hussein from power?

Let's let him tell us.
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....

President Clinton ~ 1998[7]

So there we have it -Iraq has WMD.

So by your ( cockamamie ) theory, After 1998 , the CIA found evidence that they HAD destroyed all their WMD , but kept it all secret at the behest of Cheney. Is that what you want us to believe ?
Remember the whole premise of this thread was that Bush lied about Iraq'a WMD.
Click to expand...

#1, as I stated, I did not intend to hijack this thread with a discussion about Iraq. Start another thread and we can square off.

#2, you really need to understand what a "lie" is, as the definition seems out of your grasp. Webster's might be a good place to start.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

For those too lazy to click through and actually read something, having a different opinion on something, particularly when it seems contrary to your view, is not a lie. Its a different view of things. May I point out that my view was well documented, yours just came out of your head.
 
Trump has his supporters trained to believe anything he says...or hypnotized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom