Bill O'Reilly Debates Michael Moore - Tonight @ 8:00pm on FOX

[Guest klit]

All politicians lie and if you do research you'll be able to proove every single president is a liar. The question is did bush lie in his reason for going to war or was that a mistake?

I say it was a mistake because he was informed by credible sources that iraq had wmd. I know he also recieved intel saying no wmd, but with his history with iraq and feeling attacked after september 11th its understandable he chose to believe that iraq had wmd esp. after so many reliable sources told him so.

dude, nice post, very level headed. no spin, no dancing.

Thanks, im just posting and hoping that tech answers a yes or no to whether he thinks bush lied about his motive for the war or not.

[Guest endymion]

I have repeated my opinion on this several times today. Can you not read?

[Guest klit]

I have repeated my opinion on this several times today. Can you not read?

Maybe not as well as u can dance. You say he wanted to believe iraq had wmd and used the info that fit his preference to go to war with iraq. You say he kept decieving the country into believing iraq was an immediate threat. My question was none of that.

My question was do you think he lied about his motive when he said he wanted to go to war with iraq because he thought they had wmd?

By the way, off topic, but just watched bill maher on hbo. This did not even bother to hide its true colors. They had 3 guests. One was from bush camp, the other 2 were anti bush, while bill joined the other two to just turn it into a 3 on 1 debate. Poor show.

[Guest endymion]

Klit, whether he was lying about his motives was not the question, that's a new question.

I have read a lot of the books now on how we ended up attacking Iraq and I'm open to the idea that Bush really believed that Saddam was a threat. He believed that because it was what he wanted to believe but that's admittedly a different discussion about a different presidential character flaw.

The reason why I feel that he misled us is that even if he really did think that there were WMD in Iraq, he told us that he was certain when he really didn't know. He told us that it was a slam-dunk case when in fact there was a lot of disagreement within the intelligence community. He told us that he knew what was right for us when in reality he was stabbing in the dark. He told us that he knew that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda and that he knew that Saddam was a year away from a nuclear weapon that Al Qaeda would end up with. He knew that he was inflating and embellishing the truth in order to get us to support him. That's lying.

If I tell you that I know for certain that it will rain tomorrow afternoon then is that a lie? We can dance around the term "lie" for a week if it amuses you guys but you can't erase all of the misleading statements by painting them as mere mistakes.

He did not make a 'mistake' when he told us that he knew that Saddam was a year from a nuke when his own intelligence was telling him that it would be at least 10 years. That was a misleading statement that I call a lie, that he repeated many times. He did not make a 'mistake' when he told us that Iraq was trying to buy nukes from Nigeria, knowing that there was not agreement over that point within the intelligence community. He did in fact try to eliminate some of that dissent, rather than pay attention to it. That wasn't a mistake, that was deceptive. He didn't make a 'mistake' when he told us that he knew for sure that Saddam and Al Qaeda had an "operational relationship" and that Saddam was an "imminent threat". Telling me that you know for sure when you don't know shit and you know that there is a lot of dissent, that's a lie. That's misleading people into getting what you want.

[Guest JMT]

I have repeated my opinion on this several times today. Can you not read?

By the way, off topic, but just watched bill maher on hbo. This did not even bother to hide its true colors. They had 3 guests. One was from bush camp, the other 2 were anti bush, while bill joined the other two to just turn it into a 3 on 1 debate. Poor show.

and its the same way every week on maher's show.

[Guest klit]

Klit, whether he was lying about his motives was not the question, that's a new question.

I have read a lot of the books now on how we ended up attacking Iraq and I'm open to the idea that Bush really believed that Saddam was a threat. He believed that because it was what he wanted to believe but that's admittedly a different discussion about a different presidential character flaw.

The reason why I feel that he misled us is that even if he really did think that there were WMD in Iraq, he told us that he was certain when he really didn't know. He told us that it was a slam-dunk case when in fact there was a lot of disagreement within the intelligence community. He told us that he knew what was right for us when in reality he was stabbing in the dark. He told us that he knew that Saddam was helping Al Qaeda and that he knew that Saddam was a year away from a nuclear weapon that Al Qaeda would end up with. He knew that he was inflating and embellishing the truth in order to get us to support him. That's lying.

If I tell you that I know for certain that it will rain tomorrow afternoon then is that a lie? We can dance around the term "lie" for a week if it amuses you guys but you can't erase all of the misleading statements by painting them as mere mistakes.

He did not make a 'mistake' when he told us that he knew that Saddam was a year from a nuke when his own intelligence was telling him that it would be at least 10 years. That was a misleading statement that I call a lie, that he repeated many times. He did not make a 'mistake' when he told us that Iraq was trying to buy nukes from Nigeria, knowing that there was not agreement over that point within the intelligence community. He did in fact try to eliminate some of that dissent, rather than pay attention to it. That wasn't a mistake, that was deceptive. He didn't make a 'mistake' when he told us that he knew for sure that Saddam and Al Qaeda had an "operational relationship" and that Saddam was an "imminent threat". Telling me that you know for sure when you don't know shit and you know that there is a lot of dissent, that's a lie. That's misleading people into getting what you want.

Thanks for answering. Not to annoy you, but couple questions. Did you trust bush before iraq? And do you trust kerry and the rest of the democrats?

[Guest klit]

I have repeated my opinion on this several times today. Can you not read?

By the way, off topic, but just watched bill maher on hbo. This did not even bother to hide its true colors. They had 3 guests. One was from bush camp, the other 2 were anti bush, while bill joined the other two to just turn it into a 3 on 1 debate. Poor show.

and its the same way every week on maher's show.

He should stick to comedy

[Guest endymion]

Before 9/11 I thought that he was a harmless idiot and I missed Clinton a lot. I was one of the people who was blissfully unaware of the terrorist threat. I was a registered Republican at the time (small business owner).

Shortly after 9/11 and through Afghanistan I thought that it looked like Bush might be smart enough to realize that he's too dumb to operate without paying attention to his advisors. He seemed to be doing a good job to me because that's what I wanted, is lots of American minds coordinated on dealing with the terrorist menace.

Then as we really truly did start turning from Afghanistan to Iraq instead of chasing Osama bin Laden I started to look at who his advisors were and where they came from and why they were leading him to do such a thing. I didn't make the Halliburton connections myself but Paul Wolfowitz is dangerous. His neoconservative thing led me to be pretty wary. During the buildup to the war I could see like plenty of other people that we were being fed what the adminstration wanted us to see in order to lead us into continuing the war on terrorism by invading Iraq. A lot of it seemed pretty shaky to me. So no, I didn't trust what they were telling us.

At this point they are telling us that terrorism was never even the point, no, no, of course not. We went there to free the good people of Iraq from that evil despot. The world is a safer place now because the good people of Iraq have their democracy. If I could stick a copy of today's newspaper into a time machine and send it back to myself in mid 2002 then there is no question that I would have seen what they were telling me then about Iraq as a buch of fat lies. People are such sheep that they are letting Bush rewrite history and pretend like we weren't in the middle of an active foreign war on terrorism looking for Osama bin Laden when he decided to mislead us into getting into a quagmire in Iraq. We're supposed to forget now how pissed off we were after 9/11 and support using our own military to go and slaughter a bunch of civilian bystanders on some peripheral snipe hunt that has nothing to do with the war on terror that we were supposed to be fighting. Lies. many of them. Now Halliburton has the contracts and Bin Laden is still free. Bush's new slogan is "Results matter", well there you go.

I don't "trust" Kerry because I still don't know much about him. I was reading more about him in the gym today. I know about as much as you do about Kerry so if you're looking for a Kerry supporter I'm not him. I stand by my opinion that a garden slug could be a better president than Bush if it could just avoid misleading us into any world wars while it was in office.