Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace....I am left with the impression that you "skipped over" the most prominent quote in my last post....the one from president Bush, on March 8, 2003:
|
I read it. I agree with Rumsfeld and saw information in a new light as well. I my view having a defiant dictator with control of billions of dollars and a history of agression and using chemical weapons was not acceptable.
You don't need Tenet's o.k. to go to war. The question does not point to lies by Bush. What does "imminent" mean anyway? Ask 100 people about an "imminent danger" you get 100 answers, who is telling the truth and who is telling the lie, the term is subjective.
Quote:
<b>ace....if you consider what Tenet said in his new book, and the quote from Rumsfeld in the above July, 2003 USA Today reporting, and the evidence in the "Downing Street Memos" that the US was "fixing the facts around the policy" to invade Iraq....it is not unreasonable to view the following Bush statement as a lie:</b>
....so, ace....is it more reasonable to believe that Bush's <b>"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq"</b>, is misleading to the point, considering that it is about a life or death matter...of the gravity of whether or not "everything" is being done to avoid, going to war, that it is a lie....since it was the opposite....every effort was being made to justify a preemptive invasion of Iraq, while attempting to convince the world that it is a imminently necessary,....and legal thing to do?
|
I am just looking for the specific facts that were the basis of the lie prior to our invasion of Iraq.
True - we did not "do everything to avoid war" we could have bent over and took it up the *** for peace, we didn't. I think most people see that as a figurative statement, and most people would see that we did do a hell of alot prior to the invasion. So if that is what you consider a lie, you have one.