Oh, thanks, I think. Still not sure where the left is trying to go with this, --
- Repeating debunked stories as facts
After the stories were debunked Bush continued to lie about it claiming it true, I think you are saying. Can you show me the examples of this?
- Reading iffy and fraudulent intel reports
Well by itself nothing dishonest by reading something. I am assumming you mean Bush knew that the intel reports to him were fraudulent, and he chose to push them as truth to go to war. Show me where he knew they were false again, if indeed they were?
- Telling us Saddam was am imminent threat
You might not believe Saddam was, but many did and still believe now, that he was. Certainly not a threat as in an impending military strike on continental US, but threats to our interests and safety in many other ways. Bush obviously was a believer in the threat, so how does this make him dishonest?
- Telling us Saddam and Al Qaida were linked
Again, I'm assuming you are not happy with the evidence shown to you that they were. Fine. Bush however was satisfied that there was a link. How does this make him dishonest?
The way this all sounds to me is that it's just some political agenda. If Bush can actually be proved to have outright lied and purposefully misled us into war, he should be impeached. This is far from the case as of now though. To claim otherwise is indeed a lie in itself, no matter how hard the left wants to put that idea out there, there is NO evidence to support that idea. Bottom line, the world will be a better place without that tyrant in control, and I don't understand why the left wants so badly to say how things were better with Saddamn in power. |
