Oh, I'm sure they are aware of the discovery. And I would agree that they will end up with egg on their faces as well. They deserve it for giving in to the media hoopla.
JohnnyBlaze -- 1. I never said that Clinton was to blame. I'm not blaming anyone. I think Clinton was right when he said that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the US. 2. Nearly every weapons inspector I ever heard from said they believed Iraq had a weapons program that put them in violation of the UN's mandates. There were 14 different orders, at least.
I guess none of the Bush Bashers will address my original questions. Oh yeah, it is because they can't.
We found a trailer? Omigod. Stop the presses! We found a trailer! ...that didn't have anything in it or proof that there had EVER been anything in it. Of course, though they were fleeing for their lives, I'm sure the Iraqi scientists stopped and wiped down the entire trailer before they left. And look at all the biohazard protection these soldiers are wearing while they inspect one of the trucks.
ok..try not to be too deceptive, greenvegan. aren't you assuming this picture shows the FIRST inspection of this truck? isn't it far more likely that the guys in biohazard suits checked it out well before they'd let any other personnel go in??
Bush did lie, and this article is either lying or the Bush whitehouse is lying again. I don't know which it is, but this is just one example showing that the article is at least in part wrong. This is from JH's article: Another Bush statement that Milbank labeled "dubious, if not wrong" was something the president said last September during a news conference with British prime minister Tony Blair. The president "cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] saying the Iraqis were 'six months away from developing a weapon,'" Milbank wrote. But Milbank said the IAEA report, which was issued in 1998, "made no such assertion." In response, the White House argued that the president had simply misspoken. "It was in fact the International Institute for Strategic Studies [IISS] that issued the report concluding that Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in as few as six months," Fleischer wrote. "The source may be different, but the underlying fact remains the same." And in fact, the IISS had finished a report, which was released the Monday after Bush's Saturday statement, which said Iraq could "assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained." First of all the article said he is quoting from a different report. However the article goes on to saythe report he was quoting from wasn't issued until after he quoted from it. I didn't know our President was a mind reader. Secondly, this isn't really what the White House argued. They argued that Bush was referring to a 1991 IAEA report, and didn't mention the IISS report at all. This is from an article at the time of the lie:The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report. "He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away." http://www.leanleft.com/archives/000441.html It seems that Bush is really stretching to justify his lie. If he wasn't lying when he made the original statement, and he did misspeak and meant the IISS report, then the follow up response was a lie. Either way they were lying. Of course even the 1991 report isn't actually what they say it was either. Even Powell knew in '91 there was no real nuke threat from Iraq. The IAEA responded that not only was there no new report, "there's never been a report" asserting that Iraq was six months away from constructing a nuclear weapon -- not in 1998, not in 1991. White House deputy press secretary Scott McClellan evidently didn't persue his Nexis search far enough to find Andrew Rosenthal's front-page analysis in the Sept. 26, 1991, New York Times stating that "American officials, including Gen. Colin L. Powell . . . acknowledged . . . that [Iraq's nuclear threat] is not any real threat -- in the short term or even medium term." http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-09.htm Sorry, folks, Bush lied.
Oddly enough, they even had time to bury one of them, grasseater... I wonder why they would have done that?
SamFisher, I guess you were right there b****ing about Bill Clinton when he was lying under oath, right? Tell me this is not just the democrats whining about not having any power...heck truth is they have screwed up for so long running around yelling the sky is falling, that the rest of America decided to try something different. Bully for us. DD
DD...Uh, I can't speak for Sam, but I certainly was. He should have been booted. I said it then, I still say it now. I've said it in here many times...ask Max. So, then, in response...no, this isn't just about Democrats ( which I'm not) whining about not having any power.
As I said before, does character not matter in politicians? Should people not care if their elected officials lie to them? Should anyone be able to lie in order to go to a war they want to do? The thread was about Bush's lies. It claimed he didn't do it. The evidence has been shown that he did. If you don't like the thread you don't have to read it, but why lambast people who debating the topic of this thread?
oh my gosh...where am i?? what year is this??? i feel like i've been transported back to the late-90's. am i still in law school?? arguing with friends about high crimes and misdemeanors??
FB: No, it has not. That is the whole problem. At best, the intel was faulty. There is *no* evidence backing up the notion that intentionally lied. That is simply the current conspiracy theory making the rounds...
