Muscatine

Was wondering when you were gonna add up 2 & 2, hiroad.....

There are many sane and logical people who have been paying attention who really believe Bush "lied repeatedly about the cause for war."   Cheney even more so and with no corrections from Bush.   Others in his administration joined in too, again with no corrections from Bush.

'who really believe Bush "lied repeatedly about the cause for war." '

"Believe" as in "leap of faith"?  "Believe" connotes acceptance based on something other than logic.  I imagine that is a pretty accurate description.

According to the LA Times, Bush absolutely did not lie about WMD's  (here it is:)

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/16/opinion/oe-kirchick16

And the following is quite instructive relative to "did Bush lie" (please read it, if you are an honest individual):

Did Bush and Blair Lie About WMD?

To put the controversy surrounding one of the main causes of the Second Gulf War into perspective, we have to go back some 60 years: Over two hundred U.S. Rangers were among the 135,000 Allied troops that stormed the coast of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Their mission was to climb the cliffs of the Pointe du Hoc and destroy a battery of heavy artillery that threatened both the Omaha and the Utah landing beaches, not to mention Dwight Eisenhower's invasion fleet. After scaling the 30-meter-high cliffs under a withering fire, they emerged, bloodied, on the top only to be in for a terrible surprise; no cannons were present. Not expecting the invasion, the Germans had dismantled them and removed them to the rear.

The main purpose of this website is not to be a pro-Bush website or an anti-Bush website, or even a pro-American or an anti-American website. It is to be a pro-common sense website. Or, if you insist on putting America's 43rd president in the equation, it's (among other things) a "I'm-sorry-but-I-hardly-think-that-the-evidence-warrants-that-Dubya-is-the-horrible-man-and-the-terrible-danger-that-he-is-said-to-be" website. In other words, it is to show, based on solid evidence, that the anti-American feelings present all over the world would be just as present no matter who is in the White House, no matter what Washington's policies are, and no matter what America does or doesn't do. And this is a constant case of double standards that will never go away, no matter what happens.

In the case of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to accuse George W. Bush and Tony Blair of "lying" because no such arms were found in Iraq is akin to saying that Ike and Monty (or Churchill and Roosevelt) lied when they had their staffs include Pointe du Hoc in their battle plans for D-Day.

One French writer, who usually displays more intelligence, has said that, in fairness to Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, he made the new year's wish that "the American people, which forgave neither Clinton for lying about one case of fellatio nor Richard Nixon for having pushed on a tape recorder button, will sanction next November a Bush who lied on the theme of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

First of all, is it not presumptious both to speak of "the  American people" (when both the 37th and the 42nd president were defended in the newspapers and on the airwaves by untold numbers of citizens thinking, rightly or wrongly, that these cases amounted basically, if not entirely, to being politically-motivated) and to assume that said people "did not forgive" (when the effort to impeach Clinton failed and when Nixon has seen his popularity rise since his 1974 resignation)?

But more importantly, whatever you think of these men and the circumstances that brought them down or threatened to do so, you cannot deny that they did indeed lie and then try to cover up said lie. If you say that one or the other event hardly warrented such punishment and, indeed, should never have been brought up, believe me, I do not disagree with you. Trust me on that. But certainly, an open and discerning mind must be able to make a difference between a statement about oneself deliberately made and known to be false (however important or unimportant, however relevant or irrelevant to the political process, and/or however appropriate or not to what is supposed to be known about a public man's personal life) and a strong belief held about another leader, country, or system, one that is authoritarian, has been regularly deceptive in the past, and has an extremely bloody track record. The evidence seems to be pretty strong for both Bush and Blair to have been stumped, along with their governments, by the fact that no WMDs have turned up so far.

If deliberate falsehoods were really the case here, one must admit that the only option available to Bush and Blair to support the "lie" (and avoid the scandal they must have known would otherwise come) would have been to have US and British troops install the WMDs themselves stealthily and deliberately. (In fact, how would you like to bet that that is exactly  what some of the two governments' cynical foes would have charged, had  such arms been discovered?) The paradoxical fact that none were found, therefore, is pretty strong evidence, conversely, that Bush and Blair did not  lie.

It has been at least 2,500 years since Greek writers discovered that a negative cannot be proved. Therefore, whereas it might have been theoretically possible (before the war was launched) to prove that Saddam did have WMD, it would never have been possible to prove conclusively that he did not have them. And no, this does not mean a free ticket for Washington to intervene whenever it wants and do whatever it wants. As the next part of this piece demonstrates (outakes from an article from the anti-war New York Times), the intervention in Iraq was made on the basis of hard evidence, and that evidence pointed to the fact that Saddam was hiding something and that (to say the least) he was not a man to be trusted.

By the way, who do you think the American voter now trusts more Bush or Obumbler?

Corrections? Corrections?

No one can prove any lie occurred. That's what pisses liberals off. If they could, we would have seen indictments, and we would have seen the impeachment that teaparty davieboy said he "knew" was coming.

Beyond proof, it's all just blather.