I suppose it's old news at this point that the Bush administration lied us into the Iraq war, and that the cost of this mess will be fully realized by the next generation when Bush leaves office with the biggest budget deficit in U.S. history.
And, while Democrats have been complaining for years about the GOP-led Congress abandoning its oversight of the executive branch's wrongdoing, a vote that took place in the Senate last week shows how the Republican desire to ignore fraud and abuse extends right into killing legislation that would help stop defense contractors from ripping off the American people.
5 comments:
Many millions of Americans are convinced that Bush told no lies constructing the US invasion of Iraq. It makes zero sense that Bush would "lie" to in order to obtain permission to commit an act that would reveal the lie... unless he had some plan and capacity to have WMDs planted.
"Many millions of Americans are convinced that Bush told no lies constructing the US invasion of Iraq."
Those 'many millions' are delusional.
So "sexing up" the intelligence is not lying? Claiming that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger wasn't a "lie"? I beg to differ.
No, "sexing up" data does not constitute a lie.
1. Do you believe that Bush knew that Iraq lacked banned weapons?
2. Why is it that so many current anti-war people -- the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, etc. -- believed that Iraq had these weapons prior to 2001? What changed their minds, apart from the results of the invasion?
3. How certain are you that Hussein's army didn't transport banned weapons out of Iraq during the "lead-up" time prior to the invasion?
4. How do you suppose Bush figured to win an election after knowingly falsely asserting that Iraq possessed these banned weapons, and using these knowingly false assertions as the very basis to conduct exactly the action that would expose his "lie"?
I agree with you that congress isn't overseeing Bush's actions as it should, and that Bush is illegally interpreting new meanings into laws and operating without required oversights. I also agree that all the war contracts require strict transparency and oversight, and that Halliburton especially should get scurtinized due to Cheney's relationship.
1. Do you believe that Bush knew that Iraq lacked banned weapons?
I can't say for certain what Bush knew or didn't know, but there was enough evidence from UN weapons inspectors to doubt the existence of such weapons. There was at least enough doubt to hold off the invasion.
2. Why is it that so many current anti-war people -- the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, etc. -- believed that Iraq had these weapons prior to 2001? What changed their minds, apart from the results of the invasion?
I don't know what those punks were thinking about. But again, the subsequent work of UN weapons inspectors provided enough "reasonable doubt" to eliminate the death sentence for Iraq.
3. How certain are you that Hussein's army didn't transport banned weapons out of Iraq during the "lead-up" time prior to the invasion?
Not certain at all, but if weapons were available in the quantities that we were led to believe, and with the constant surveillance that US "intelligence" had to be conducting in Iraq, there is no reason to believe it is any more likely than there being no weapons at all. How certain are you that there were weapons there in the first place? The Bush regime certainly has provided no proof.
4. How do you suppose Bush figured to win an election after knowingly falsely asserting that Iraq possessed these banned weapons, and using these knowingly false assertions as the very basis to conduct exactly the action that would expose his "lie"?
By stealing it like he did the first one.
Post a Comment