I vanish for a while, and people are arguing this, I come back and people are arguing this.
Again there is no proof that he lied, and in fact the proof is in the opposite. Especially with Russian President Putin publicly announcing that he told Bush Iraq had WMD's.
Then you have the intelligence that said they had WMD's.
Again, as I have said before, to prove Bush lied, you have to prove that Iraq had no weapons at the time of his speech, not after, but when he said they did.
Second you have to prove Bush had knowledge that Iraq had no WMD's. Not just that he was incorrect but had the knowledge of this, and this is only assuming the first instance is correct.
Also being incorrect does not make a person a liar, even though I have heard a lot of people try to make that connection. Interestingly these same people would never call their own children liars for being incorrect on a test.
I realize the Democrats are trying to get back into power, but they need to get off this idea that the only way is to destroy Bush. They actually need to come up with a decent policy that doesn?t involve hate.
And again lets discuss the issues, not the man. I don't agree with everything he has done, and thought he was an idiot for waiting this long to respond to his critics. (Although he waited for a good time.) But does anybody actually have anything of substance to talk about instead of all this crap?
Being against the war is one thing, there are justifiable reasons to be against war. It is another to make crazy accusations without proof for the sole purpose of destroying a person to make another party more powerful.
Until you can prove the two conditions, that Iraq did not have WMD's when Bush said he did, and that Bush knew about it at the time he said it, then you cannot make the statement that he lied. And until you can prove those two things, you are the liar because you are knowingly spreading a falsehood.