Did Bush Deceive America About Iraq?

[Mr-Blonde]

Do you believe that the Bush Administration embellished and/or selectively utilized faulty CIA intelligence to make Iraq seem like an "immediate threat" and thus justify the invasion and war?

[jeo4]

Yep.

[MacReady]

Bush in '03: Saddam has these super-weapon thing-a-ma-jigs.

Bush in '04: Uh, um... Saddam's a meanie!

I think you can guess what my answer is.

[Joshmo]

Without a doubt in my mind I believe him and his administration decieved the country. They did this thru cherry picking what they knew ahead of time (but only admitted AFTER they decieved us) to be bad intel.

CNN ran a great special about a month ago called "Dead Wrong". It was all about the lies and cherry picking of intel.

[someguy]

Downing Street Memo proves it, no?

[Grim H.]

Yessiree...

[The Postmaster General]

Whether or not Bush knowingly deceived the US does merit some debate. The fact that we were lead to war under false pretense is unquestionable. Bush himself has admited to this, though he denies forethought.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Did Bush deceive us? No. Did neocons with a lot of influence do so? Yes. They sure did.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Did Bush deceive us? No. Did neocons with a lot of influence do so? Yes. They sure did.


The 'neocons', the Illuminatii, the Masons --- Whomever was behind it...

Ignorance is no excuse. Nixon already tried that one.

[Lynn7]

No. Sadaam called his bluff and Bush took him up on it.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No. Sadaam called his bluff and Bush took him up on it.

And he was wrong-- well not really since it is well documented that the administration knew that the intel was false before the invasion. So really he lied about WMDs to get us there and now we are locked in a drawn out conflict that in no way serves the interests of the American public.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No. Sadaam called his bluff and Bush took him up on it.

So he went into a 200$ Billion near 30,000 dead body war just to prove he could? Makes sense to me.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The 'neocons', the Illuminatii, the Masons --- Whomever was behind it...

Ignorance is no excuse. Nixon already tried that one.

But they really did

Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were both a bigger part of going to war than the president. What did Nixon do that compared?

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No. Sadaam called his bluff and Bush took him up on it.

http://www.global-vision.org/interview/intergifs/scream.gif

[outsyder]

Deceive?

Oh please, you give him too much credit.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by outsyder
Deceive?

Oh please, you give him too much credit.

You're right of course. It really makes no difference as the whole administration is equally at fault. But let me rephrase the question:

Did Bush's handlers deceive America about Iraq?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
But they really did

Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were both a bigger part of going to war than the president. What did Nixon do that compared?

Oh, don't get me wrong - I think you're right that there are more sinister people behind Bush's actions, pulling his strings, so to say.

The comparison with Nixon lays in the fact that when Watergate first broke, he claimed no knowledge. WAIT...

That's not a complete comparison unto itself though -- I just belive that whether Bush really knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, or if the other guys were the ones coaxing him to believe it -- He's still the one - The leader, not the follower. The buck stops here, and all that jive.

To take from a Southern saying, Bush is the horses mouth. Whether he is a puppet, or really knew what the truth was - I place responsibility onto him. He's The President, supposed to be a leader - The excuse - I was tricked! doesn't work for me. He was the one who came out and said it, convinced the American people. Maybe he wasn't the one behind the war, but he sure as hell was the one who sold us the lie.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, that he didn't know - but like I mentioned: ignorance is no excuse. It never has been.

Of course as I say this I am seeing your point -- by holding Bush as having so much responsibility, the people who are the true culprits could walk scott free. So, I see your point, and agree in large. To me, Bush isn't the war criminal, but he definately should give up his position if the people who lead him forth were leading a campaign of deceit.

Definately a great point from your direction!

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by MacReady
Bush in '03: Saddam has these super-weapon thing-a-ma-jigs.

Bush in '04: Uh, um... Saddam's a meanie!

I think you can guess what my answer is.

The answer for Iraq has changed since the initial invasion. When Bush gets questioned about this, he gets irritated. He quirks his head and squints his eyes in a "How dare you?" fashion. Several abstract incoherent sentences later, he's drawn focus away from the topic and question he was asked, and then talks about how bad of a man Saddam is. Catch him on the right day and he'll give that teenager puff of air and then say "This man tried to kill my dad!"

So, um, yeah I agree with Macready. ;)

[jeo4]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
But they really did

Wolfowitz and Rumsfield were both a bigger part of going to war than the president. What did Nixon do that compared?

I agree with this. And add Cheney to that list of "handlers".

[The Postmaster General]

Jimmy Carter brought out what became known as The Carter Doctrine:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force


Now, is it strange that the two biggest attacks by America on that region have occurred during the reign of owners of oil companies?

I mean, just --- You know, say what you want. These are things worth thinking about and a far cry from far-fetched or without merit.