Thread: Should BushCo be Impeached?

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

The United Nations herself was convinced that Sadaam had the aforemtioned tonnages of weapons.

They obviously did not have proof because it was later found to be bullshit

I can give you pages and pages of quotes from Democrats of the time who said exacly what Bush said.

They obviously did not have proof because it was later found to be bullshit.

Why do you think the President knew that any of those statements were false?

Because on a number of them he was told that evidence suggests, but there is no proof...obviously there wasn't because the claims were later found to be bullshit

Just to clarify, lying is what happens when you say something that you know to be false........ you know.. something like "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky...." Now that's a lie, because we know he knew he was lying....

Just to clarify, when someone tells you that they think someone has WMD's and they say evidence points in that direction, to claim it as fact IS a fucking lie. That is what Bush did, pure and simple. All the conservative and republican excuses can't change it.

And yes Clinton lied....big fuckin deal, it was about some girl suckin his dick. Consequences of that lie were really nothing compared with the thousands of families who now are without a son or daughter because of Bush's.

Originally Posted by mpano66

I guess reading down to some of the posts pretty much answered that question for ya, huh?

Stand by the fuckup Manpan....knew you would.

[quote=Pragmatist;204132]

They obviously did not have proof because it was later found to be bullshit


They obviously did not have proof because it was later found to be bullshit.


Because on a number of them he was told that evidence suggests, but there is no proof...obviously there wasn't because the claims were later found to be bullshit



Just to clarify, when someone tells you that they think someone has WMD's and they say evidence points in that direction, to claim it as fact IS a fucking lie. That is what Bush did, pure and simple. All the conservative and republican excuses can't change it.

.

When did Bush say it was a fact Saddam had WMDs?

[QUOTE=Zarathustra;204137]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

When did Bush say it was a fact Saddam had WMDs?

Heres one, my post above lists many more.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Our intelligence as well as others said prior to this statement, the tubes were unsuitable for such a use.

We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas

This is bullshit. If we discovered them, we must have known where they were or such a statement is a lie. We never found one, let alone a fuckin fleet of em!

If you were to impeach every President who made statements he believed to be true that turned out to not be true, we could impeach every one...

Barak's 10,000 dead comment would disqualify him to even run, by your standards.....

And by the way, I don't think Clinton's lie was a big fucking deal either. But it was clearly a lie...

When Bush tells the country what Intelligence tells him or even what SOME of his intelliegnce agencies tell him, unless they did not tell him that, it's not a lie and you are really full of it to think otherwise.

If any President got up and said, 75% of the CIA reports say Sadaam has WMDs, 20% are not sure and 5% think all the weapons were destroyed, people's eyes would glass over. Of course the President is going to lean on the evidence that supports what he thinks we should do. He's the commander in chief not a scared little bunny rabbit who's afraid he might get something wrong. He's elected to LEAD. That's his job. Not reporting the 5% is not lying.