Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11

bush didnt lie. the intelligence agreed with him and he did the right thing.

i dont even understand why bush would lie, what he would have to gain.

 

You can't make it up to suit your idealogy either. Every argument you make are democrat talking points refined over time by Democrats who were convinced Saddam had WMDs and that he was trying to develop nuclear weaponry. The vote to authorize force to take out Saddam if he failed to comply with sanctions was something like 420-1.

And I don't feel like I'm hijacking the thread because your claims are truther-like.

 

Yes. You're awesome. That was the Afghanistan vote. Regardless, you maintain that 374 legislators lied to us about the WMD threat. They had the same intelligence that Bush did. Also, the leaders Great Britain, Italy, Portugal, Australia, Canada and others lied as well just to help ole Georgie get revenge on Hussein. That's quite a story you've concocted there. And you have the temerity to argue with flabengal on his claims? You're worse than he is.

 

Not true. They had their own briefings and had access to ALL of the intelligence if they wanted it.

Nobody lied. Saddam HAD and USED WMDs and biological weapons. Saddam refused to comply with sanctions for 14 years and refused to prove (the burden was his) that he no longer had WMDs or the capability to produce them. Bush exhausted every diplomatic method to get Saddam to either comply with the sanctions or face removal from office by force. At the very end, Bush gave Saddam another 48 hours to leave the country to avoid forceful removal. When captured, Saddam gave the feeble excuse that he did not want to appear weak to Iran and that's why he chose war over compliance. Bush did not want to send troops in harms way but Saddam gave him no choice. We were 2 years removed from 9/11 and the threat of WMDs/biological weapons getting in the hands of al qaeda was too great to allow Saddam to flaunt the sanctions and the international community's demand that he comply. Bush's chief responsibility was to protect Americans and that's what his motivation was. Congress and most of our allies agreed. Now, with the benefit of hindsight and years removed from the fears following 9/11, hacks like yourself try to politicize it. History will prove Bush did the right thing.

 

red, if you think bush lied, why did he do it? and why would tony blair lie for bush? does bush love unnecessary war and death?

 

I know this question was directed at red but I'll tell you what I think before I vainly try to support my previous points.

The problem is that the US is not officially an empire. Because of that it is not politically acceptable to simply say,"for the good of our empire we have to occupy so and so".

This is why Bush lied about the WMD as well as Blair. They are forced to come up with a reason to wage an aggressive war and that reason is always self-defense. They are doing the same thing with Iran even though Israel could knock that country back to the stone age in a hours time.

To be honest, I would not even be bothered if they would simply say it is in America's national interest to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy which means military engagement in the Middle East for a prolonged period of time, etc, etc.

What I find ridiculous is that the government is always spinning these cover stories and then acting like we have such purity of purpose in spreading democracy or some other garbage. Its like the airport scanners. They are obviously doing that to enrich those who have a vested interest in the sale/use of the scanners, like that guy Chertoff. They do no make us safer.

To summarize:


Iraq was never a threat to Saudi Arabia.
Iraq did not possess WMDs prior to the Iraq War.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Scanning pilots and patting down children does not make us safer.

These are all lies for propaganda purposes that allow the powers that be to enrich themselves rather than provide actual protection for US citizens.