RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Duh. Nothing like invading a dictator that we armed ourselves several years ago.

he wanted to get revenge on Saddam for what is father didn't do.

The Economist magazine calls George W. Bush (and Tony Blair) a sincere deceiver - in other words, that he believed what he was saying regarding WMD's, but consciously oversold the reliability of the intelligence. The tragedy is this: by overselling WMD's GWB has made the world less safe against terrorism (again, the Economist's point, not mine). The next time the US needs to move against terrorists or rogue nations on the basis of intelligence, the political struggle to secure the resources, troops and popular support will be that much more difficult. This is a victory for terrorists.

I rate this short of a 5. It's one thing to mislead the people regarding WMDs, it's another thing entirely to go to war against them. This proves the incompetance and dishonesty of the administration. I cannot see how I could vote for an individual who lies and misleads the country. It's one thing to lie about sex, but it's a different matter entirely to lie into bringing this country into a war that kills thousands, harms international relationships, and wastes billion$.

These quotes are interesting: There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 This one VERY interesting. Note the dates of these quotes. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins And most damaging... Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003 In a speech to Georgetown University It is fascinating how politicians say one thing and say another later.

The Bush White House has lied on many issues, including this one. First of all, there has been absolutely no evidence that Iraq actually possessed Weapons of Mass Destructon. You can tell this easily from the fact that George W. Bush has stated in different speeches, Iraq has a program for developing weapons and other times, Iraq has the weapons. In addition, many of the places the government claimed had stored the WMDs were really ridiculous things such as a swimming pool. I do not believe that Iraq was or is a legitimate threat to the United States. There was nothing to suggest it was involved in any way with the 9/11 tragedy. Keep in mind that it would have been stupid, frankly, for Saddam to have attacked America; of course, he and his own country would have been annihilated. Clinton lied; no one died. The fact that Bush lied to the American public about national security is enough for him to not deserve to be reelected.

Saddam did have WMD's; like I've said many times before, we knew because we gave it to him. But I don't believe that Saddam was a clear and imminent threat to the United States at any time. Saddam was contained and could do nothing in his country without risking reprisals. This wasn't about national security, it was about politics pure and simple. The Vice President in conjunction with his neoconservative allies in the Pentagon established an Office of Special Information as a independent intelligence gathering unit not associated with the CIA and normal intelligence agencies. In short, they put together disparate pieces of intelligence together to create a sense of urgency all around. Most of the intelligence information presented to the public were half-truths. It says a lot about George Bush that he continues to play this up as a major reason why we attacked Iraq. The President has really disappointed me on this one. He's played up as a strong leader, but he didn't lead here. Since 9/11, we have been persuing a foreign policy based on hubris; it's time that we calm down and put things into perspective. I'm no pacifist, I believe that war is necessary some of the time, but we can't go around attacking people because of the simple fact that we can. Yes, there are very bad leaders out there, but we can't set our sights towards towards a crusading policy of eliminating evil. This isn't realistic and it'll explode in our face when our intentions turn out to not be so good.

Just another snowflake in the avalanche of lies being spouted by this cretin. I'd say that the man lies like he breathes, but I think he has to be reminded to inhale when he needs oxygen. He needs no such reminder to lie. Please stop using the word 'alleged'; even if he didn't knowingly lie (ha!) he misled Americans. Misleading does not necessarily imply lying, but the outcome is exactly the same. In this case, the outcome is hundreds of dead soldiers and thousands of dead civilians, and a country in ruins without making a single American life more secure.

regardless of whether or not we find wmd, saddam hussein repeatedly violated the terms of the american withdrawal from iraq in the first gulf war and he finally got what he deserved. the liar in this situation isn't president bush, it's saddam hussein.

Why don't you just say you hate Bush? The key word here you are using, again, is allegedly. It is now being proven that Saddam indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

Remember that video of the doctor looking in Saddam's mouth with a flashlight? He was looking for the WMD. Nope, not there either.

The jury is still out on this one, but it is clear that the evidence put forth by the Bush Administration prior to the war was sketchy at best. Clear and incontrovertible evidence was not presented to us, and thus, the invasion should not have taken place until it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to U.S. national security. It is clear that the intelligence that served as the basis for the invasion was both faulty and sexed up in some cases. This war was a 60-40 thing: there is a chance that WMDs will be found and evidence will surface that Iraq did pose an immediate threat. However, it still doesn't change the fact that we went in without incontrovertible evidence or justification for doing so. One thing is clear: this is certainly going to be a major issue in the upcoming election.

Nixon lied and he was forced to quit the presidency. Clinton lied and was impeached. What's the main difference between the many lies Bush has told and the ones the two presidents I mentioned told? The difference is, his lie has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Forget not voting for him because he's a liar, just impeach him already.

We know for a fact that he has weapons, because we were the ones who gave him them.

I think lying about WMD is not the issue here. Iraq definitely had WMD at some point...most countries in the world have acknowledged this point. The issue is that he referred to forged documents in his State of the Union Address to link Iraqi agents trying to buy Uranium in Niger. At best, this is a very embarassing blunder by the White House, even if it was only an honest mistake or oversight. Will the 16 Words alone decide the election? Probably not, but it does give Bush a credibility problem that makes people skeptical of other things he says.

Perhaps not all of this is his fault, but this whole thing wqas pretty much his war. And if we can hang Clinton out to dry for lying about a stupid mistake that messed up his private life, surely we can do the same for Bush when he makes a stupid mistake that gets thousands of people killed. And do BIGBABY - you think I like it any better because Clinton is saying it? Clinton's not my cup of tea either.

Bush..... you are just a paranoid friut who is sick..... THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION... all it is, is you wanted to just have a reason to go after saddam..... you must live on excuses dont ya??? well even Clinton makes a better pres than you!

I do have a problem with this. The State of the Union Speech comment was even retracted by the White House so obviously there was some false information going out to the American people. And in fairness, I had a problem with Clinton lying too. But nobody went to war and lost their lives over Clinton's icky sex stunts.