Did Bush really lie about WMD?

[Hammie]

I was reading the paper this morning about Kay's report on WMD in Iraq, and my first impression was "Cool, now his own guy is going to call B.S. on the WMD thing." However, when I read the thing to the end, the picture was one in which all these WMD programs existed, except that they were just hollow shells. The program managers were falsifying documents and otherwise telling Saddam what he wanted to hear, namely that there were weapons of mass destruction.

The question then, is if Bush, Blair, etc, and even Saddam think that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and it later turns out to be false, Did Bush actually lie, or is he just incompetent?

[GregorStocks]

1. Both.

Duh.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. damn

just beat me to it

theProdigal

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. could he be both?

an incompetent liar?

TheProdigal

[KensPen]

4. Saddam should have given proof

that the items that never existed were destroyed!

[sallyseven]

12. Saddam said he didn't have any

Bush chose not to listen. It never was about WMDs. It was always about Saddam and oil. His famous words while the inspections were going on "I'm sick and tired of waiting" How dare he send people to die because he is sick of waiting. Remember he planned this even before he became president. The creep.

[HFishbine]

21. He did

The US redacted hundreds of pages from Iraq's report to the UN just prior to the war. Why?

[RapidCreek]

41. sort of like bush should provide proof that the accusations of being

AWOL or a deserter are not true.

RC

[maggrwaggr]

60. Where were you when THAT info was passed out?

Saddam did, and he let the inspectors in, and the inspectors couldn't find anything, and the US continued to say "we know he has them and we know where they are", so the inspectors said "well, tell us where they are then so we can go find them" and the US said "well, no, we're not gonna do that".

Hello ....!? McFly .....?!

What gets me is how, after that, ANYBODY with half a fucking brain continued to believe Bushco.

[doubleplusgood]

5. I would like to see an ad campaign

...showing photos of Saddam & Bush with the caption: "Guess who told the truth about WMD in Iraq ?"

[Robbien]

6. He declared his intent to invade back in 2001. The man lied. eom

[K-W]

7. They still cited evidence they knew to be false.

So there were lies, your question should be, how much of it was a lie, and how much of it was incompetence.

I dont think they ever would have put so much stock in them to justify the war if they werent pretty sure he had something.

[West Coast Democrat]

8. The UN Weapons Inspectors Were Finding Nothing

BushCo just didn't want to believe it.

[maggrwaggr]

61. And Bushco wouldn't/couldn't tell them where to look!!!!

That's what got me, when the inspectors had free access to all of Iraq, they couldn't find jack shit, and Bushco kept saying "oh, they're loaded with weapons and we know where they are" and the inspectors said "well, tell us then" and Bushco said "well we don't WANT to tell you".

How smelly does a rat have to get before you notice it?

That rat was moldy, oozing goo, covered in maggots and stunk so bad the rest of the fucking PLANET could smell it, but could 75 percent of all Americans? NOooooooooooo .......

[dennis4868]

9. of course he lied!

I just posted on another thread that everyone is forgetting about the internal review by the CIA conducted by Richard Kearer (sp?)....he was deputy director of the CIA. He said that the CIA only had circumstantial inferential evidence that IRAQ had WMD....NO HARD EVIDENCE as the WH repeated over and over to us. The WH used selective evidence to use for their case for war. They knew what the real situation was in IRAQ with regards to WMD but that would not be enough to get support for the war so they had to LIE! Don't believe the liberal media when they tell you that it is the CIA's fault.

[XNASA]

10. He lied. And he's incompetent.

He lied repeatedly......

Powell lied repeatedly........

Cheney lied repeatedly...........

Blair lied repeatedly..........

The reason he was so sure that Iraq had WMD's, is because his daddy and Uncle Dick sold them the plans to begin with.

[HardRain]

23. Don't forget Condi . . .

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" . . .Condi, the liar

Yet, we are told no one EVER said the threat was "imminent". These people lie so much they can't take the truth (paraphrase, Jack Nicholson).

[never cry wolf]

27. Here are their words

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

[Liberal Veteran]

11. He bore false witness....period!

Doesn't matter if the information was hearsay, second hand, or what have you he stood in front of the nation and made serious claims that the threat to our country was grave and growing daily because Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons.

[EV1Ltimm]

13. it was a gamble and he came up snake eyes.

If i were a president as oblivious and intellectually shallow as * and i had umpteen sources telling me that saddam had wmd's, i'd have to say that i'd believe them.

Reputable sources ended up being the opposite, as did CIA and other agencies reports.

Bush was played for a sucker. This wouldn't have happened if they had just followed up with the reports and not been in such of a rush to bomb the shit out of baghdad.

But in the end, he has no one to blame but himself.

[mmm]

14. Bush lied - many times.

[TomNickell]

15. Yet another place for Dems to start an internal debate!

DESERTER!

NO. AWOL-- FOOL!
DESERTER!
AWOL! --NITWIT.

Now we can do--
LIAR!
NO! NO F'INIG WAY! INCOMPETENT. .... BONEHEAD!

LIAR! .....YOU FOOL!

INCOMPETENT! YOU IDIOT!,,,,,

Maybe the media will pick it up. Shows disarray among the Democrats.

[Trajan]

30. The world is a complex place ...

Human psychology makes it even more so ...

Do you HONESTLY expect complete and utter cohesion between ALL members of a political party ? ....

WHY would you expect anything BUT 'disarray' amongst a group of passionate human beings ? ...

This desire to demand utterly 'uniform' expression is a ridiculous ego trip ...

I love my party as a chorus of voices ...

[TomNickell]

38. I think you misunderstand.....

If Dems debate whether Bush was AWOL or DESERTER, Dems win either way.

Same with LIAR vs. INCOMPETENT.

Repubs have been doing this to Dems for a long time--

TAX RELIEF vs TAX-AND-SPEND, which side are you on?.
Is lying about sex an impeachable offense or just a felony?

Time to take back control of the terms of debate.

[Toots]

39. But my friend ~ Where does the Buck stop?

What you say is correct but they work under and speak for Bush* and that is where the Buck officially stops.

[TomNickell]

53. Suppose...

In the next nationally televised debate Clark and Kerry got into this awful brawl over whether * was AWOL or a DESERTER?

Wouldn't that force the 'journalists' to deal with it?

[southpaw]

16. He is a Liar...

And the truth is not in him.

[The Night Owl]

17. "We found the weapons of mass destruction!" - George W. Bush

Yes, he said that. Of course, Bush was referring to two trailers which at the time had not been definitively proven to be mobile weapons labs, but that did not stop The Chimp from unequivocally stating that the trailers were "weapons of mass destruction." Not surprisingly, the trailers were later found out to not be mobile weapons labs, but rather used to fill weather ballons with hydrogen.

He is not called George Whopper Bush for nothing.

[eissa]

18. Of course he lied

There were plans to go into Iraq before this administration even stole the election (for the record, I predicted the second * took office that we would be invading a third-world, Muslim-dominated country). 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to implement their strategy. War = higher polls = re-election. Problem: no exit strategy. Problem: no exit strategy = we're stuck there. Problem 3: being stuck there increases resentment among the natives. Problem 4: resentment among natives = dead Americans.

[HFishbine]

19. Simply ask yourself

What evidence has been provided of the latest "picture" -- that Saddam's "program managers" where lying to him? Maybe you've seen something I haven't yet, but this sounds like more ass air. I'll bet we never see anything convinincing that this latest "explaination" is legitimate either, but even if it is, that hardly let's Bush off the hook. The buck stops where again?

[Hammie]

45. You're right.

I have no independent information that the Kay report is correct. In fact, the whole history of who said what is beyond my recollection. My question was kind of philosophical about the boundary between lying and being mistaken that was prompted by the Kay report as summarized in the newspaper.

[Cary]

20. This is an excellent question, and . . .

we're really not getting good answers, except from Paul O'Neal.

The answer is out there for all to see. The neo-cons have published all sorts of treatises and books on point. Why doesn't Bush come out and tell it as it is? Why use WMD as a pretext? Why use a pretext at all?

Anyone have any thoughts on what would have happened if he boldly announced that he was making a statement to the rest of the world, that we're picking up where the British left off? What if Bush broadly announced that we're going to dominate the world, and that's all there is to it?

[HFishbine]

22. His approval rating probably would have dipped

to the low 50's.

[Cary]

26. Well, Fish, . . .

that's depressing! But then why didn't he just do it? Get it out of the way. Tell it as it is. Then we can all decide in November.

[HFishbine]

32. Since I'm not sure if you picked up on my sarcasm

He knew that he would have never garnered the support of congress, that the crowds marching in the streets would have been twice as large, and that Britan would never have gone along for the ride if he revealed his true intentions. Playing on peoples fears by hyping a non-existent threat was the only way Bush could get into Iraq. Coming out and announcing that he was implementing the PNAC handbook would have resulted in war crimes charges for sure.

[maggrwaggr]

64. right. Invent a problem. Propose a solution.

The "problem" in Iraq was 100% invented by Bush. In 2001 Colin Powell himself said that sanctions were working, Saddam was contained and was no threat.

He probably got chastised pretty badly for that.

Bush invented the "threat" from Iraq completely. They just hyped up more and more and more until finally Saddam gave them everything they wanted and it still wasn't enough, so they hyped it up even MORE to the point where in the SOTU the guy said it would basically be suicide if we DIDN'T invade that country.

And people fucking believed it, which still makes me sick.

[Hammie]

46. Good point.

FWIW, I've thought all along that Iraq was just an object lesson for other third world countries that might want to defy the US. In particular N. Korea. ie. You want to give somebody a spanking so that everyone knows you can and will do it, but you need to pick someone who doesn't get much sympathy and you need a plausible excuse. Saddam had the hard luck (mostly self created) of fulfilling both requirements.

[maggrwaggr]

65. Well, PNAC pretty much did announce that to the world

but nobody knows who PNAC is.

When I talk to people, even people who seem relatively well informed and who hate Bush STILL don't know who/what PNAC is.

It amazes me. To me it's solid evidence that our media is deliberately NOT on the side of truth, or every American would know about PNAC.

The American people do NOT know who is actually running thier country! Is that just WRONG, or what?

[onecitizen]

24. Either way......

he needs to go!

[many a good man]

25. Bush* irrefutably lied

He stated the evidence as known fact when he knew all along about all the caveats and qualifiers. That's not merely misrepresentation, its bald-faced lying.

The intelligence community must not take the blame for this! They told the truth about what was known and what was not known. It was this misAdministration that deceived the American people and must be held accountable...

[Bridget Burke]

28. With Clinton, it was "about the lie"

Even those who admitted that impeaching somebody about a consensual relationship was silly used their total devotion to The Truth as the reason that Clinton Had To Go.

Bush's lies (& those of his cronies) have led to death & destruction. Where are the Lovers of Truth now?

Oh, he's incompetent, too!

[Cary]

34. What about Reagan's lies?

All Clinton did was possibly tell a lie about extra-marital sexual contact. Although it sounded ridiculous, his explanation was plausible.

Reagan subverted the Constitution in Iran-Contra. So what do conservatives do? They can't make Reagan a talk show host, so they enlist the next best thing.

[oasis]

29. Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz convinced him. A putty brain in PNAC hands.

[Solly Mack]

31. Bush lied. His is not competent to be President

But he's not stupid. He isn't an intellectual...but that doesn't make him stupid. He is ignorant. He is shrewd. And he is never going to get a pass from me by my blaming others for his actions. Bush made the calls...I don't care who advised him...Bush made the calls.

I am not about to portray Bush as some puppet with his strings being pulled by others. That mitigates Bush's responsibility...and fuck that.
Bush did it. Period.

This is not to say others aren't equally as guilty...but they are ALL equally as guilty.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I wouldn't portray him as a guy on strings, but...

No matter what his politics are I don't think he's competent enough to be trusted as commander-in-chief.

[Nicholas_J]

33. Possible they exist

After all saddam had no trouble hiding himself for 9 months and he was having to do relatively unsafe things like move around.

It is quite possible to hiden even tons of materials by dividing them up into thousands of locations. Hell it would not be difficult to put a factory to massive quantities of any sort of biological weapons inside the garage of a small family home. I worked in a place once which made pharmaceuticals that had to be grown in cultures, and hell, the room it was done in was half the size of my living room.

Even the low grade uranium that was lying sealed in the Iraqi Nuclear facility could be converted to enriched uranium with cetrifuges used in pharmaceutical production.

Yes it is very possible that the months that Saddam spent stalling, between November and March, were spent breaking up equipment and moving it around.

[trumad]

35. and it's possible that I'll have sex with Cindy Crawford too...

Or Pam Anderson, or Hedi Klum.

[tkmorris]

36. Yes BUT

Tons of people would know of the deception and the location. Easily hundreds, perhaps more. People who now have tremendous incentive to expose them.

But they don't. Because there isn't anything to expose.

[Cary]

37. But that still doesn't change the fact that we're spending . . .

hundreds of billions of dollars and over-burdoning our resources attacking a front that has nothing to do with our war on terrorism.

The fact that WMD probably don't exist only blows the lid off of the WMD pretext, exposing the PNAC strategy that no one really accepts. Thus, we are stuck in this lie vs. stupidity conundrum.

[maggrwaggr]

62. But it's NOT possible that Bush DIDN'T lie --

He lied.

He said he knew what they had and where they had them.

But he couldn't tell the inspectors where to look.

Turns out there was nothing. Bush said there was something.

Bush lied.

How can you not see the logic in this?

If I showed you a hammer and then hit you in the face with it, would you say "hm, it's possible something other than a hammer hit me in the face"?

[TomNickell]

40. Self-Deception....

The evidence is these guys decided to invade, then went looking for evidence to support the pre-determined conclusion. Contrary voices were silenced rather than heard and considered.

So they invaded with no realistic understanding of the likely problems and no plan for handling predictable difficulties.

Now they are in deep soup.

[maggrwaggr]

63. Yes, they wanted to invade, did NOT want inspections to work

If they did, they would have told the inspectors WHERE to fucking LOOK.

They refused. They wanted to invade instead.

I saw this then, and it about drove me nuts with anger. How anyone else believed thier bullshit is WAY WAY beyond me.

[RapidCreek]

42. the question is...why did we need to kill 10,000 plus Iraqi civilians

and 500 plus American soldiers before this question warrented consideration?

RC

[alcuno]

43. He lied and here's the first one I can remember......

about an IAEA report indicating Saddam could be within six months of developing a nuclear weapon.

September 2002- Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad’s development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.
“I don’t know what more evidence we need,” Bush said as he greeted Blair for a brainstorming session on Iraq. “We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem.”
In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam’s ouster was the only way to stop Iraq’s pursuit — and potential use — of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
“The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to,” Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.

IAEA: NUCLEAR ABILITY DESTROYED

Contrary to Bush’s claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News’ Robert Windrem reported Saturday.
Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.
The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported.
In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that “based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material.”

[Hammie]

66. Thanks, I didn't know that. eom

[platinumPens]

44. He lied AND he's incompetent

At any rate he promised to give inspectors a chance to uncover WMD's and he never had any intention of giving inspections a chance to work. Whether Iraq had WMD's or not was irrelevant - they were not a threat to the US, nor were Iraq's neighbors concerned about Iraq.

The point was OIL!!!! And there was going to be a war come hell or high water.

[proud patriot]

47. From the horses mouth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html

[Lindacooks]

48. He lied

eom

[LunaC]

49. They ALL lied in a collaborative effort.......

"911, Al-Qaeda and Iraq"

Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) "If you're asking, are there al Qaeda in Iraq, the answer is yes, there are. It's a fact, yes."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/Iraqpolitics020926.html

Vince Cannistraro (Former head of the CIA's counterterrorism office): "Is there any confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism? No."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59403-2002Sep9¬Found=true

Brent Scowcroft (Foreign Policy Advisor): “There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11
attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

=========
George W. Bush"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror....The regime has
long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations and there are al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq."

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101

Ivan Eland (Director of Defense Studies at the Cato Institute): "The CIA is skeptical of ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq -- justifiably so. The
CIA run around trying to corroborate this stuff, and it hasn't had too much luck. And the ties that they have claimed seem very thin
and on closer inspection don't seem to go anywhere.”

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/29102002161249.asp

==================

"Saddam is Evil"

Colin Powell (Secretary of State): "This despotic regime .....gassed its own people.....".

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/107/81814.pdf

"Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war. At the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors
Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of
the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was
Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=22569589

=================

"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

George W. Bush:

- "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

- “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.”

- Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich
uranium for nuclear weapons.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Mohammed ElBaradei (International Atomic Energy Agency Director): "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear
weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_01-27-03.html

Mohammed ElBaradei (International Atomic Energy Agency Director): “First, we have been inspected all of those buildings and facilities that
were identified through satellite imagery as having been modified or constructed over the past four years. The IAEA inspectors have
been able to gain ready access and to clarify the nature of the activities currently being conducted in these facilities. No prohibited
nuclear activities have been identified during these inspections.”

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_01/alia/a3012703.htm

Mohammed ElBaradei (International Atomic Energy Agency Director“A particular issue of focus has been the attempted procurement by
Iraq of high-strength aluminum tubes, and the question of whether these tubes, if acquired, could be used for the manufacture of nuclear
centrifuge. Iraqi authorities have indicated that their unsuccessful attempts to procure the aluminum tubes related to a program to
reverse-engineer conventional rockets. To verify this information, the IAEA inspectors have inspected the relevant rocket production
and storage sites, taken tube samples, interviewed relevant Iraqi personnel, and reviewed procurement contracts and related documents.
From our analysis to date, it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purposes stated by Iraq and, unless modified,
would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/elbaradei_report.html

========

The dangers of Saddam as the ultimate evil of terrorists was hammered even further into the nation's psyche during the State of the Union
address. Conspicuously missing from the national address was any mention that the joint congressional investigation of 911 had been completed and there really wasn't any evidence linking Saddam to the attacks or Al-Qaeda.

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants
off the American people and justify the war....What you've seen here is the manipulation
of intelligence for political ends."

"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then
slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in
Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out.

"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known
these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration

Former Sen. Max Cleland who helped produce the 911 report

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

[OneTwentyoNine]

50. Yes,but the CIA is the way it will be spun around and around....

Radio whores like O'Really spent his entire show spinning his ass off for Chimpboy. He trys to act like he's coming down somewhat on the Bush administration but in reality he just keeps blaming the CIA over and over.

Guess this spin has two purposes,protect Chimp and keep O'Reilly from having to apologize about WMD.

Whatever...are the American people REALLY supposed to swallow the fact that Bush and his ENTIRE administration was 100% mislead by the CIA?? Wow,I'd love to hear their take on this accusation.

David

[VOX]

51. He lied, faster than a dog could trot...

Along with the rest of the PNAC gang.

All they needed was an excuse to get us involved over there. Well, now we're there.

[ElementaryPenguin]

52. The lying fuck said it would be "suicidal" for the U.S. not to act

"Immediately" - even when the world's greatest weapons inspectors were IN FUCKING IRAQ!!!! Bushler and his henchmen lied every step of the way to start this fucking war for the war profiteering BFEE/PNAC/Military Industrial Complex Mob that pulls their strings!! FUCK THEM - they need to be prosecuted for war crimes - or these bastards will continue pulling stunts like this endlessly - reducing the 21st Century to an endless war zone of upheaval!!

:mad:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. Dishonesty Categories

The question of whether the administration lied falls under different categories.

Dishonesty about Fact (existence of WMD and/or programs):
-The administration claimed that the presence of weapons and programs necessitated the military action. This was THE centerpiece of the case for war despite all current backtracking. Since there has been controversy then and now over the existence of WMD/programs (certainly less now than then) it is fair to examine whether the administration was honest about what it actually DID know. Here I think the Joseph Wilson "yellowcake" affair is most damning.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Administration wanted to look into a "sexy" sounding rumor, sends someone to look into it. Their agent finds nothing and says so. Obviously fake documents upon which the accusation was based are discredited. But the allegation appears in the State of the Union anyway, and that is speech from the President's own mouth for which responsibility can't be pawned off.

In Wilson's account it's clear that some layers of "deniability" were created in his mission, but the fact remains that the speech belongs to POTUS.

The importance of Wilson, like O'Neill, is that he was an insider who worked for the administration so that his account can't be so easily dismissed. The "outing" of his wife gives a clue as to the tactics used by the administration on those who would cross them.


Dishonesty about Intent:
-The Administration claimed an intent to avoid war and use it only as a last resort. However some of O'Neill's disclosures and the generally obvious pattern of hyping the war and war resolution prior to midterm elections to push for the domestic political advantage during midterms makes the intent to go to war no matter what rather obvious. I am glad Ted Kennedy has mentioned this in his in his great speech and Wash. Post editorial. I am surprised that he seems to be the only one not only criticizing the administration for bringing us to war over false WMD claims but also citing domestic political election manipulation as one of the obvious motives. I am really disappointed that virtually no one in the big media is courageous enough to even examine this aspect.

[Demonaut]

54. He lied, and Kay is just doing as much damage control as possible

The argument doesnt hold water.

[ComerPerro]

56. Both, but you bet your ass that he lied

He even gave us exact numbers of the weapons we "know" that Saddam has, and Rumsfeld said he knew where they were.

[Dr Fate]

58. 50 Iraq Lies

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=484504

[maggrwaggr]

59. Did the Nazis really kill all those Jews?

It just seems so ..... well, it's pretty over the top, don't you think, that anyone who's that busy conducting wars on several fronts would actually go out of their way to systematically kill thousands and millions of people in organized death camps?

I mean,it's like something you'd make up.

And who benefitted anyway? The Jews! Because after that they could lay all the guilt on the world and everybody gave them a free pass to create Israel and all of that.

So it's just VERY difficult to believe that the Nazis really killed 6 million Jews.

(TONGUE FIRMLY PLANTED IN CHEEK)

How could anyone EVER fucking QUESTION if Bush lied or not?

If I took a hammer and hit you in the head with it, would you deny it?

[RebelOne]

67. Let's put it this way. Is the Pope Catholic?