News-Record.com

I think what you're missing is the word "FOUND". At no time, has the President said that WMD's didn't exist. And noone can really prove that they didn't. It was well documented prior to the war that Saddam was extremely successful in transporting WMD's from one place to another. In fact, some likened it to a shell game. He was always one step in front of the inspectors.

So, from the American viewpoint, it is unfortunate that WMD's were not FOUND if they existed. It surely would help clean up some of the cream pie stuck to America's face right now.

Republican spin on WMD's:
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck , then it must be ... a HORSE!

republicans spin. democrats outright lie. what's the difference?

Huh, By your definition I guess that makes Bush a democrat.

prove it.

Um...so I guess you slept through the WMD missiles, chemicals, etc. that were found? The graves of those killed by WMD's?
And what makes you think the UN has done a good job at anything in the last 20 years? Do the names Somalia, Rwanda, or Sudan ring a bell?

Yvonne
I wouldnt call Bush an outright liar. He had enough information suggesting that maybe the intel was false. In leading up to the war, I read several articles, in "liberal newspaper" of course, basically saying what has been proven true
today. Which means the arguements against sadaam having wmds and friendly relationship with bin laden were out there. In my opinion he choose to ignore them and he failed to give a complete picture to the american people.

So in my book that makes him only a half outright liar.

Certain pre-war statement confused me. For instance, our leaders basically said that we were going to attack Iraq because they would not tell us where their WMD's were. But Iraq was saying that they didn't have WMD's. They also FINALLY allowed inspectors on the ground to search for WMD's.

Basically, my point is, how could we threaten war against a country for not producing WMD's if they didn't have them? Does that make sense?

Not that I was against the war. I was all for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Just never understood the logic, there.

Hayes, Bush plainly stated Iraq was an imminent threat to the US because of these supposed WMD and implied they could reach us with such weapons. He also heavily insinuated Iraq was tied closely with al quida in order to manipulate people's emotions and gain support for his war. So in my opinion this makes him a full-fledged lier. Sorry, no slack from me.

I have gone on the internet and read from several sources information re Iraq's ability to make WMD prior to and following 9/11. While he may have had the capability of making regional WMD for use on his own people, according to the experts I read, he did not have the means to make any weapons that would threaten us (and had not for several years).

Bush had my support for attacking Afganistan (for what it is worth) because he did not have to lie. He was on solid ground.

There has been evidence from several sources, including Colin Powell, to suggest Bush coerced people into making a case for the Iraqi war. And when all is learned about this that can be learned, I think there will be evidence to support this claim (unless the spin doctors he hired during the campaign can intercept the evidence).

"implied", "heavily insinuated"

I'm not going to go on record and say there's an excuse for bad intelligence or whatever. There is a big difference, however, between that and and telling the American public and a grand jury a bunch of outright lies.

Yes, Clinton was a disgrace and should have stepped down for telling lies. [What?? A liberal that didn't like Clinton?]
Republicans always try to divert the conversation to Clinton when we libs bring it up that Bush is a liar and a war criminal. Um, Clinton was years ago.

I admit it. I like to rub it in the face of every sanctimonious person who calls Bush a liar. Constantly reminding people of past mistakes goes both ways.

AB, Why is it that every time someone points out the obvious (Bush is a lier), you automatically think liberals approved of what Clinton did? I think he was a DOG to behave in such a manner and a bigger dog to lie about it.

But what does that have to do with Bush lying? Does it make him less of a lier to remind anyone Clinton was a dog? And exactly what do you get out of it to remind liberals of what they are already acutely aware of?

Seems counterproductive to your arguement to rehash the obvious.

Yes Clinton was a dog but so is Bush, make no mistake about it. For me, I had rather have a president who is chasing my skirt than one who is trying to chew my legs off at the ankle.

I didn't say that all liberals approved of what Clinton did. They are just the ones who voted for him. It didn't take a prophet to see the Monica saga around the corner. Not after the previous issues regarding his womanizing.

I know quite well that liberals know what Clinton did. Yet many still support him. And they don't seem to use that awareness when slapping such labels on the current President.

You are right about Bush, though. He is only going to be judged by his actions, not Clinton's. So he better straighten up and fly right, as grandma used to say.