Conservative? Not these guys.

[Hedgehog]

im not disputing these facts only pointing out that there was intelligence out there that pointed to the opposite and just b/c he went against info saying there wasnt doesnt mean he intentionally misled the country which is what decker is asserting.

I understand.

You know what, I want to think Bush actually wasn't misleading the country.

But from all the facts I've seen, and remembering how the inspectors were more or less screaming that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and others saying there were no Al-Qaida affiliation in Iraq...

It seems impossible that George W Bush could've been misled himself.

Then he must been real stupid.

I definately believe that the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld gang knew what was going on.

Those cats saw the opportunity that the horrible attack on USA created, and seized it, hoping to create a new world order.

From what I understand, their plan was to use any means necessary to create their version of democracy around the world.

That's just how I see it.

Whether or not Bush just became their lackey or were instrumental is equally bad.

He is right now the man with the most important job in the world.

The most powerful man in the world.






Kind of scary when you think of it.


But no, I definately don't believe for a second that there were any conspiracy.

[Al Doggity]

I agree with you totally about being sceptical towards conspiracy theorists and sensationalism.

The only problem is he is not "being sceptical towards conspiracy theorists and sensationalism." Pretty much everything Decker has posted in this thread is a well documented fact, but mctones is ignoring the obvious. His argument can't even be followed logically.

As for a  conspiracy-Whether or not you believe this war had anything to do with oil, administration insiders have all but admitted that the ouster of Saddam was a central cog in their middle east strategy. At this stage, I don't know how anyone can deny that the Bush Regime pushed the case for war for reasons that they were not entirely straight forward about.

[Decker]

LOL so now britain is in on the shame too?

Look dude as much as you want to rant and rave there was intelligence that said they did have wmd bush choose to believe them instead of the ones that said they didnt or the one that said they could but probably wouldnt attack us.

LOL, yes, LOL Britain, LOL, was in on it LOL too.  Or didn't you pay attention while it was happening?

Now to define what 'it' is.  By 'it' you are referring to intel 5-10 years old.  Right?

Now how does that measure up to the battery of unannounced inspections on the ground in Iraq right up until Bush ordered the illegal invasion?

Bush said he would base his decision to attack Iraq ON THE LATEST INTEL. 

You keep recharacterizing the argument to make your point.  No shit there was old intel estimating Hussein had WMDs.  Too bad for you the facts on the ground destroyed those estimates.

Either way he didnt intentionally misled ppl which is what you are asserting like i said i think it was a mistake and a bad decision but your portraying it as a big conspiracy which it isnt.

Of course it was conspiracy.  Do you know what a conspiracy is?  It's the agreement of 2 or more people to commit a crime (and sometimes take some step toward the commission of that crime).

Since Bush and Blair worked in tandem and since the Invasion itself was illegal, I would say we have a fairly strong case of conspiracy btn Bush and Blair.

LOL ill wait a few more weeks but i doubt and you probably know nothing will come of it.

We'll see.  Mass Murders who are also political figureheads usually do skate.

If there's any justice in the world, Bush will be tried.

[Decker]

I understand.

You know what, I want to think Bush actually wasn't misleading the country.

But from all the facts I've seen, and remembering how the inspectors were more or less screaming that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and others saying there were no Al-Qaida affiliation in Iraq...

It seems impossible that George W Bush could've been misled himself.

Then he must been real stupid.

I definately believe that the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld gang knew what was going on.

Those cats saw the opportunity that the horrible attack on USA created, and seized it, hoping to create a new world order.

From what I understand, their plan was to use any means necessary to create their version of democracy around the world.

That's just how I see it.

Whether or not Bush just became their lackey or were instrumental is equally bad.

He is right now the man with the most important job in the world.

The most powerful man in the world.






Kind of scary when you think of it.


But no, I definately don't believe for a second that there were any conspiracy.

By conspiracy I don't think you mean legal conspiracy b/c that's evident.  It happened.  It's fact.

I think by 'conspiracy' you are referring to some nefarious ulterior motive that was the reason the invasion was undertaken in the first place.

Motive is irrelevant.  Who cares why Bush wanted Iraq attacked?  It is wholly unnecessary to show motive to prove:

A:  the invasion itself was illegal--no UN Security Authorization was given for the attack
B:  Bush's lies and fabrications were the pretext to his sending our troops to die in a situation he caused.  He ordered the attack under false pretenses.

[tonymctones]

LOL, yes, LOL Britain, LOL, was in on it LOL too.  Or didn't you pay attention while it was happening?

Now to define what 'it' is.  By 'it' you are referring to intel 5-10 years old.  Right?

Now how does that measure up to the battery of unannounced inspections on the ground in Iraq right up until Bush ordered the illegal invasion?

Bush said he would base his decision to attack Iraq ON THE LATEST INTEL. 

You keep recharacterizing the argument to make your point.  No shit there was old intel estimating Hussein had WMDs.  Too bad for you the facts on the ground destroyed those estimates.

Of course it was conspiracy.  Do you know what a conspiracy is?  It's the agreement of 2 or more people to commit a crime (and sometimes take some step toward the commission of that crime).

Since Bush and Blair worked in tandem and since the Invasion itself was illegal, I would say we have a fairly strong case of conspiracy btn Bush and Blair.
We'll see.  Mass Murders who are also political figureheads usually do skate.

If there's any justice in the world, Bush will be tried.

LOL so what about all the other countries that sent troops into iraq they in on the shame too? 
im done dude you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country only that he made a retarted decision which is what i said earlier

[Decker]

LOL so what about all the other countries that sent troops into iraq they in on the shame too? 
im done dude you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country only that he made a retarted decision which is what i said earlier

Yes, I have nothing that says Bush intentionally misled the country to war...except for the Bush's own lying words, doctored white papers, various memos, and expert opinion.

Other than that, I'm shooting blanks.

You, on the other hand, you have won.  Your statement that "you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country" trumps all the evidence I provided. 

[Hedgehog]

By conspiracy I don't think you mean legal conspiracy b/c that's evident.  It happened.  It's fact.

I think by 'conspiracy' you are referring to some nefarious ulterior motive that was the reason the invasion was undertaken in the first place.

Motive is irrelevant.  Who cares why Bush wanted Iraq attacked?  It is wholly unnecessary to show motive to prove:

A:  the invasion itself was illegal--no UN Security Authorization was given for the attack
B:  Bush's lies and fabrications were the pretext to his sending our troops to die in a situation he caused.  He ordered the attack under false pretenses.

No, I don't deny that much indicates that there were a conspiracy to start the war.
What I was referring to, and I think this may be what tony is gunning for to, is that the 9/11 wasn't done by the government in order to go out and create the New World Order.
They just seized the opportunity, cooked up a good lie, and then went to war on it, praying that no one would question it because of the horrible loss that USA had suffered in the 9/11.   

[tonymctones]

Yes, I have nothing that says Bush intentionally misled the country to war...except for the Bush's own lying words, doctored white papers, various memos, and expert opinion.

Other than that, I'm shooting blanks.

You, on the other hand, you have won.  Your statement that "you have nothing that says that bush intentionally misled the country" trumps all the evidence I provided. 

sigh there was intelligence from experts saying that the did have them not just from our country but from others as well im sure you can ask hh6 about them as i believe he has talked about this as well...again im not saying this was a mistake it was a retarded decision but it was not, NOT an intentional attempt to mislead america which is what you portray it as. Im not saying that he didnt mislead america b/c obviously there where not any wmd however did he intentionally do so no im sorry i dont think he did.

[OzmO]

sigh there was intelligence from experts saying that the did have them not just from our country but from others as well im sure you can ask hh6 about them as i believe he has talked about this as well...again im not saying this was a mistake it was a retarded decision but it was not, NOT an intentional attempt to mislead america which is what you portray it as. Im not saying that he didnt mislead america b/c obviously there where not any wmd however did he intentionally do so no im sorry i dont think he did.

Interesting.  We have intelligence experts everywhere except Iraq saying Saddam had WMD's but didn't we have inspectors IN Iraq saying Saddam didn't have them?

[Decker]

No, I don't deny that much indicates that there were a conspiracy to start the war.
What I was referring to, and I think this may be what tony is gunning for to, is that the 9/11 wasn't done by the government in order to go out and create the New World Order.
They just seized the opportunity, cooked up a good lie, and then went to war on it, praying that no one would question it because of the horrible loss that USA had suffered in the 9/11.   

That's why I mentioned that motive--new world order--is irrelevant to the legality of Bush's acts.  It doesn't matter why they did it.  They did it.

[tonymctones]

Interesting.  We have intelligence experts everywhere except Iraq saying Saddam had WMD's but didn't we have inspectors IN Iraq saying Saddam didn't have them?

ok so we have intelligence that said they did if you believe that to be true like bush did and then you have inspectors saying they arent there, assuming like bush did that the first bit was true what would be the logical outcome when inturpreting the second piece of info?

[Decker]

sigh there was intelligence from experts saying that the did have them not just from our country but from others as well im sure you can ask hh6 about them as i believe he has talked about this as well...again im not saying this was a mistake it was a retarded decision but it was not, NOT an intentional attempt to mislead america which is what you portray it as. Im not saying that he didnt mislead america b/c obviously there where not any wmd however did he intentionally do so no im sorry i dont think he did.

The old intel ESTIMATES of WMDs were years old.

The most current estimates and actual evidence concluded Iraq was NOT a threat and DID NOT have WMDs.

Bush, in light of that current information, kept telling the country that Iraq was an imminent threat and did have WMDs including a nuclear program.

Do you see that distinction?  

Do you know why Bush's statements can only be characterized as lies which resulted in misleading the country as to Iraq's threat and WMDs?

Do you see that if the Intel concludes no WMDs (inspections) and Bush tells the country Iraq has WMDs, that that is a lie intended to deceive?

[tonymctones]

The old intel ESTIMATES of WMDs were years old.

The most current estimates and actual evidence concluded Iraq was NOT a threat and DID NOT have WMDs.

Bush, in light of that current information, kept telling the country that Iraq was an imminent threat and did have WMDs including a nuclear program.

Do you see that distinction?  

Do you know why Bush's statements can only be characterized as lies which resulted in misleading the country as to Iraq's threat and WMDs?

Do you see that if the Intel concludes no WMDs (inspections) and Bush tells the country Iraq has WMDs, that that is a lie intended to deceive?

ok lets just run with that for a second man this is getting old though...ok so clinton said in 98 that he had intelligence that iraq was building and had wmd and was becoming a threat to the world everyone accepted this correct? if they did have them where did they go?

many many ppl in congress and poltics here and abroad believed they had wmd or where stock piling agents to build them. al gore, john kerry, h clinton and many many more here and again abroad believed they did where they in on it as well?

IF bush did intentionally lie about it why wouldnt he have planted something there to prove his claim? This man can doop an entire world into thinking that iraq has wmd but cant plant a few pieces of evidence to give his claim credibility?

[Decker]

ok lets just run with that for a second man this is getting old though...ok so clinton said in 98 that he had intelligence that iraq was building and had wmd and was becoming a threat to the world everyone accepted this correct? if they did have them where did they go?

Thank goodness there were inspectors in '98 who didn't find anything.  Should a country go to war based on an estimate, i.e., unproven belief?

many many ppl in congress and poltics here and abroad believed they had wmd or where stock piling agents to build them. al gore, john kerry, h clinton and many many more here and again abroad believed they did where they in on it as well?

Here we are with the beliefs again.

I'll take the rock-solid evidence of inspections every time.  Why?  B/c it's fact and not supposition.

Fact is fact and supposition can be wrong.  It could even cost 4000 americans their lives, 150,000 Iraqis their lives and 650 billion dollars to us.

IF bush did intentionally lie about it why wouldnt he have planted something there to prove his claim? This man can doop an entire world into thinking that iraq has wmd but cant plant a few pieces of evidence to give his claim credibility?

It's easy to rely on dated evidence and lie about it and its relevancy to today.  It's another thing to actually deliver stockpiles of WMDs with no one noticing.  IF caught, that's death for treason.  Why risk that when the lies worked so well.

I mean you're still here defending this sonufabitch.  That's a great indication of the efficacy of Bush's lying.

[tonymctones]

Thank goodness there were inspectors in '98 who didn't find anything.  Should a country go to war based on an estimate, i.e., unproven belief?
Here we are with the beliefs again.

It's easy to rely on dated evidence and lie about it and its relevancy to today.  It's another thing to actually deliver stockpiles of WMDs with no one noticing.  IF caught, that's death for treason.  Why risk that when the lies worked so well.

I mean you're still here defending this sonufabitch.  That's a great indication of the efficacy of Bush's lying.

the thing is again that there was conflicting evidence...

LOL your reasoning doesnt make sense like i said apparently this guy dooped the entire world into believing that iraq had wmd but he couldnt plant any evidence of wmd...we probably have black ops going on all over the place but coudlnt get some in a remote area of iraq to plant evidence? come on bro if he was going to go so far as to fabricate lies he would have gone the little extra distance to plant evidence.

Im not defending him AGAIN IT WAS A FUKING STUPID MISTAKE no denying that but i dont believe he intentionally lied to get us into a war.

[Decker]

the thing is again that there was conflicting evidence...

NOt according to the Bush Administration.  Can you show me one statement about Iraq where any Bush administration official comes out and says--there is evidence that Iraq does not have WMDs....or even, "we could be mistaken"....or any statement that is not "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to.....

Why is that?  And don't tell me the fucking estimates from '98 warranted it b/c the most recent estimates and evidence just before the war contradicted the '98 estimates.

LOL your reasoning doesnt make sense like i said apparently this guy dooped the entire world into believing that iraq had wmd but he couldnt plant any evidence of wmd...we probably have black ops going on all over the place but coudlnt get some in a remote area of iraq to plant evidence? come on bro if he was going to go so far as to fabricate lies he would have gone the little extra distance to plant evidence.

With nowhere left to run you start playing games.  Stop it.  I entertained your question and it's over. 

Why didn't Bush just use the alien technology from the Roswell crash to teleport the WMDs into Iraq, hmmmmmmmmm?  Answer me that one with your fancy reasoning.

Im not defending him AGAIN IT WAS A FUKING STUPID MISTAKE no denying that but i dont believe he intentionally lied to get us into a war.

It wasn't a mistake b/c that lacks the requisite intent.

Bush intentionally and repeatedly about mushroom clouds, the deadliest toxins known to man, long-standing support for Al Qaeda, mobile death labs, drones of death.

And you have the balls to write that Bush was the harmless dupe of mistaken information?

Stop that.

[tonymctones]

NOt according to the Bush Administration.  Can you show me one statement about Iraq where any Bush administration official comes out and says--there is evidence that Iraq does not have WMDs....or even, "we could be mistaken"....or any statement that is not "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to.....

Why is that?  And don't tell me the fucking estimates from '98 warranted it b/c the most recent estimates and evidence just before the war contradicted the '98 estimates.
With nowhere left to run you start playing games.  Stop it.  I entertained your question and it's over. 

Why didn't Bush just use the alien technology from the Roswell crash to teleport the WMDs into Iraq, hmmmmmmmmm?  Answer me that one with your fancy reasoning.
It wasn't a mistake b/c that lacks the requisite intent.

Bush intentionally and repeatedly about mushroom clouds, the deadliest toxins know to man, long-standing support for Al Qaeda, mobile death labs, drones of death.

And you have the balls to write that Bush was the harmless dupe of mistaken information?

Stop that.

LOL again you JACK ASS im not saying that bush is innocent you fuktard he is to blame for believing false information that is very different from him intentionally misleading the country...supposedly there where ppl that came foreward that said they had participated in terrorist training camps in iraq

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003

"My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism"

Also whether you want to believe it or not again there was conflicting intelligence saying that they probably had or did have wmd...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32394-2003Jun8?language=printer

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
"said the possible or probable presence of prohibited weapons in Iraq "was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration."

Again there was evidence that there where wmd there was evidence that there wasnt it wasnt an intentional mislead.

"And, like Rice, Powell pointed to Tenet saying that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "the official judgment of the director of central intelligence who is the one responsible for gathering all this information."

[Decker]

LOL again you JACK ASS im not saying that bush is innocent you fuktard he is to blame for believing false information that is very different from him intentionally misleading the country...supposedly there where ppl that came foreward that said they had participated in terrorist training camps in iraq

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003

"My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism"

Also whether you want to believe it or not again there was conflicting intelligence saying that they probably had or did have wmd...

Thank goodness the 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq HAD NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL TIES WITH AL QAEDA.

Read that again slowly you pinhead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32394-2003Jun8?language=printer

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
"said the possible or probable presence of prohibited weapons in Iraq "was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration."

Again there was evidence that there where wmd there was evidence that there wasnt it wasnt an intentional mislead.

I asked for a quote from the Bush administration, not democrat Carl.

You're a pinhead.

"And, like Rice, Powell pointed to Tenet saying that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "the official judgment of the director of central intelligence who is the one responsible for gathering all this information."

Isn't that just lovely. 

And how is that ESTIMATE more probative than the findings of the WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ.

You remember the inspectors, right....the ones who begged for more time to complete the inspections b/c they were so successful.

Of course you don't. . .you're a pinhead.

[tonymctones]

Thank goodness the 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq HAD NO SIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL TIES WITH AL QAEDA.

Read that again slowly you pinhead.
I asked for a quote from the Bush administration, not democrat Carl.

You're a pinhead.

Isn't that just lovely. 

And how is that ESTIMATE more probative than the findings of the WMD inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ.

You remember the inspectors, right....the ones who begged for more time to complete the inspections b/c they were so successful.

Of course you don't. . .you're a pinhead.

what im trying to stress to you, you fuking retard is THAT THERE WAS INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THERE WAS WMD AND INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THAT IRAQ DID INDEED CONTRIBUTE TO TERRORISM.

you are asserting that bush had no intelligence to say there was even though there was intelligence that said there wasnt doesnt mean there wasnt intelligence that said the opposite...jackass

I remember the inspectors i remember saddam not letting them in as well if you dont let them in and supposedly you do have wmd then all of a sudden decide to let them in and they dont find them what would that make you think?

[Decker]

what im trying to stress to you, you fuking retard is THAT THERE WAS INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THERE WAS WMD AND INTELLIGENCE OUT THERE THAT SAID THAT IRAQ DID INDEED CONTRIBUTE TO TERRORISM.

you are asserting that bush had no intelligence to say there was even though there was intelligence that said there wasnt doesnt mean there wasnt intelligence that said the opposite...jackass

I remember the inspectors i remember saddam not letting them in as well if you dont let them in and supposedly you do have wmd then all of a sudden decide to let them in and they dont find them what would that make you think?

This isn't a fucking game of "look, Bush does have intel that says Iraq is a threat". 

That intel was years and year old.  It was completely destroyed by the most current intel.

Yet Here come Tony McTones saying, "look, Bush had intel that said Iraq had WMDs" 

No one is asserting there was no intel claiming that some thirdworld tiny shithole country was a WMD threat to the USA (on its face that's preposterous).   The distinction is that the intel was no good...years old...no longer applicable. 

The inspectors proved Bush's intel wrong and Bush ordered the killings anyways.

Now here comes some more of your buffoonery.  The old "Hussein moved the WMDs" myth.

What makes you think that world class scientists can't tell if an area had WMDs which were moved? 

[tonymctones]

LOL again you JACK ASS im not saying that bush is innocent you fuktard he is to blame for believing false information that is very different from him intentionally misleading the country...supposedly there where ppl that came foreward that said they had participated in terrorist training camps in iraq

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

Statement of Judith S. Yaphe to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003

"My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism"

Also whether you want to believe it or not again there was conflicting intelligence saying that they probably had or did have wmd...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32394-2003Jun8?language=printer

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
"said the possible or probable presence of prohibited weapons in Iraq "was turned into a certainty over and over and over again by the administration."

Again there was evidence that there where wmd there was evidence that there wasnt it wasnt an intentional mislead.

"And, like Rice, Powell pointed to Tenet saying that Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction was "the official judgment of the director of central intelligence who is the one responsible for gathering all this information."

reread this all this info given was in what 2002-2003 right? again there was info recent info that pointed to iraq possesing weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorism. You can rant and rave all you want my point is sound there was conflicting recent intel do some research.

[Decker]

reread this all this info given was in what 2002-2003 right? again there was info recent info that pointed to iraq possesing weapons of mass destruction and assisting terrorism. You can rant and rave all you want my point is sound there was conflicting recent intel do some research.

Nobody is ranting.

You seem to think that the 5-10 year old intel pushed by the Bush administration was more than enough justification for the war.

Is it the job of the US President to marshall as much evidence as he can to start a war?

Does that sound like a president who grudgingly had to attack the little piss ant two bit desert country b/c of the threat it posed the USA?

Does it sound like a president who was "misled" by the intel?

Bullshit.  He was lying as well as fabricating 'evidence' of Iraq's WMDs?  Why don't you just acknowledge that?

That's not my opinion.  That's cold hard fact.  You've seen some of the lies and fabrications.  Why do you pretend they didn't happen?

Do you understand that all the intel ESTIMATES crumbled when the WMD inspectors were turning up no WMDs in Iraq?

Yet you trumpet discredited intel as if you have a valid point.

[tonymctones]

LOL again its not outdated do some RESEARCH

ok so he all of a sudden lets inspectors in after what 3 yrs or so of keeping them out...again if you thought they did have them and then all of a sudden he decides to let ppl and you dont find them what would you think?

I agree with you that it is the presidents job to weigh all evidence which is why i believe he is to blame but that doesnt mean he INTENTIONALLY mislead the ppl. He weighed the evidence and came up with the wrong conclusion and made a bad move. What was his rationalization on this i dont know and either do you all we know is that there where conflicting reports. You have to accept that there where reports and intelligence coming from the US and abroad within a respectable timeframe that said they probably had or did have wmd even though there where reports and intelligence that said the opposite as well.

[Decker]

LOL again its not outdated do some RESEARCH

The findings of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq doing the inspections render your dated OPINIONS irrelevant.

ok so he all of a sudden lets inspectors in after what 3 yrs or so of keeping them out...again if you thought they did have them and then all of a sudden he decides to let ppl and you dont find them what would you think?

Why did Hussein let the inspectors into Iraq?  B/c Bush's intense saber rattling made it so.

But Bush went too far.  He ordered the attack in spite of the inspections and now we have 150,000 dead b/c of it.

I agree with you that it is the presidents job to weigh all evidence which is why i believe he is to blame but that doesnt mean he INTENTIONALLY mislead the ppl. He weighed the evidence and came up with the wrong conclusion and made a bad move. What was his rationalization on this i dont know and either do you all we know is that there where conflicting reports. You have to accept that there where reports and intelligence coming from the US and abroad within a respectable timeframe that said they probably had or did have wmd even though there where reports and intelligence that said the opposite as well.

He absolutely did intentionally mislead the Congress and the People.

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.



"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.



"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq’s UAVs were intended and able to spread biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."



"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.



"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war. This statement also was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledge that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."



"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government’s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.


Those are just a small portion of the INTENTIONAL LIES told by Bush.  How can you deny that?