Betty Smith of Wilmington, among way too many others, repeats the old canard that "Bush lied about WMDs" to get into Iraq, thus that's why Congress went along with him:
This administration fed us false information about weapons of mass destruction, so the Congress would support the invasion, and we are still given false information about this war.
Hey Bet -- as I've said many times, disagree with the war (I do), but WMDs not being in Iraq doesn't mean Bush lied about them. It means the intelligence was erroneous. Take a look.
All those folks must have been "lying" by your standards, right?
A close runner-up is Wilmington's Bill Knox who, as a disbeliever of [organized] religion, thinks it inappropriate for politicians to call on the nation to pray:
The call by lawmakers for all Americans to spend time praying for the nation is alarming. These lawmakers are elected to serve "We the People," not religion. As far a I know, there is no religious requirement to be an American. I am an American who is deeply opposed to all organized religion, especially in politics.The politicians who propose this type of ruse use it to distract us from their failures and incompetence.
It is surprising that "We the People" have not marched on the White House yet with pitchforks and burning torches to remove the contemptible criminals led by Dick Cheney from office.
Ah, now we get it! Knox is your typical Bush-Cheney hater! Nevertheless, get your historical knowledge straight, Bill. The nation was indeed founded by deeply religious men who actually would be appalled at how religion has been excised from the public realm. And politicians asking for people to pray for the nation doesn't mean they're demonstrating that they were elected to "serve religion." That's just patently absurd. Yet you'd have The People violently fomenting revolution rather than utilizing -- GASP! -- prayer.
Nice.
In point of fact, we really don't know if Bush lied or didn't lie about WMD. There's circumstancial evidence (the Downing Street Minutes) both for and against the notion of his lying.
But assuming he didn't lie; assuming no one in his cabinet lied about WMD, I think Bush still advanced the war with faulty preconceived notions about Saddam, Iraq and its links to al Qaeda, and Iraq's alleged ongoing WMD programs.
If Bush didn't lie -- and we really don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he didn't -- he had blinders on and settled on inadequate intelligence to stake his policy and America's future on. He was the president. If he wanted corroboration or better intel to support his theories, he could have requested it, but he didn't. In other words, he royally f*cked up.
And I don't buy the old, "Congress fell for the same intel the president did." Congress doesn't command the intelligence community. The president does. Congress only sees what the president makes available to them through his direction of the intelligence community.
Posted by: Blue at April 5, 2007 07:20 PMIf Bush didn't lie -- and we really don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he didn't
Boy, and the prez's critics have a problem with him and civil rights/the Constitution?? Read that again and you'll see what I mean.
Not to mention the 'ol "can't prove a negative"...
Posted by: Hube at April 6, 2007 07:07 AMignoring all the Dems who claimed Sadam was a threat with WMDs,
ignoring that the removal of Sadam was the congressional aproved goal of the previos administration
ignoring the size and scope of the conspiracy neccesary for "Bush lied"
IF President Bush new there were no WMD's, why didn't he have them planted? Surely the CIA could have mocked-up a few labs and a couple of stockpiles for quik photo-ops before destroying them for safety. They could have even staged a chemical attack... "luckily the wind shifted and the republican guards were kille by there own nerve gas..."
Posted by: steamboat willy at April 6, 2007 01:44 PM