Yes, Bush lied (WND'S Title)

WorldNetDaily ^ | Oct 6, 2003 | Paul Sperry

[PigRigger]

"had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America"

Never claimed by the Bush Administration. However, wouldn't a planned assignation attempt against a former President fall into this category? Just wondering.

"was not operating in concert with al-Qaida"

Never claimed by the Bush Administration. Bush claimed that he feared this potential joining of enemies might manifest itself in the future if action was not taken.

"and was not a terrorist threat to America"

This one is debatable. He never stated they were an eminent threat, but did state they posed a possible danger to our security.

Regardless, Iraq failed to comply with the UN Resolutions. In that light, and given their previous use of WMD's, they themselves are at fault for their own demise.

[saveliberty]

Thanks for the article.

Why does everyone criticizing the absence of finding WMD overlook the possibility that Saddam was selling them?

How does a country whose main asset is $100million (total, not annual) of oil fields amass billions in cash accounts (we found 8bn) and nearly 100bn in foreign debt?

[Loyal Buckeye]

To expand on one of your points, it also depends on what the word "imminent" means.

In my view, imminent has an entirely different meaning when it comes to threats regarding national security. For example, SH might not have nuclear weapons today, but he is negotiating with N. Korea and might have them tomorrow, next year, the year after, or in five to ten years. That is an accident waiting to happen and is imminent in my book, especially when you factor in the slow pace at which our government sometimes functions.

[joesbucks]

The writer is an ultra conservative writer.

[joesbucks]

Even if he has an agenda, what if the report he has if fact? That's all that should matter. Fact or fiction no matter the agenda.

[Howlin]

Har!

[WhiteGuy]

When presented with this type of information, we must all examine our core beliefs.

We may either believe that the current course of war is the best and only way to protect our nation or we may believe that politicians will act as politicians have always acted.

[smith288]

If what he says is fact. It would be insulting to me that Bush would lie.

But I do see a bigger picture here. Bush has a goal of planting American power right in the center of the Middle East. I feel safer already. The ME is a bloody wound in dire need of a bandage and Iraq being a democracy is a step in the right direction.

People who think Saddam was just a teddy bear with a bad reputation is lying to themselves.

[Cautor]

had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

I suppose the attempt by Saddam on GWB's father's life was not considered a terrorist attack.

[mathluv]

Well, that will make me look twice at anything WND says.

[joesbucks]

I agree with the bigger goal and maybe that's important. The question is to obtain a good result, was their a lie or well thought out and crafted misrepresentation. Even in good situations, the ends don't justify the means.

[mikegi]

Isn't this more of the same crap from the guy who wrote that Bush let UBL get away because he (Bush) was after gas pipeline routes in Afghanistan?

Just when you think WND couldn't sink any further...

[joesbucks]

I've got to leave. Thank you for the great post. Nice formatting by the way.

[dogbyte12]

I am more interested in what the original poster wrote. The bigger story here is why WND? Is WND starting to turn away from Bush, if so, why?

Is the author the recipient from a leak from the CIA? Is he making this up out of his rear end? What is the deal here?

[joesbucks]

I agree.

[Quilla]

Paul Sperry is the reporter who once asked Clinton when he would hold another press conference. Clinton lost it. His face turned red and he responded very sternly, banning Sperry from the White House. If President Bush was so inclined, I believe he could straighten out Sperry's misconceptions with a few frank sentences. However, I would rather see the President fighting the war on terror with intelligence from numerous sources instead of responding to every criticism.