Lying implies that they knew that the information that they were giving was faulty. All research I have done into the subject indicates to me that it was merely intelligence failure. Think about it. If Bush had made the claims he did knowing that he was lying then he must have known that he was going to be found out. The claims he made were too bold, IMO, to have been lies. No, I feel that he honestly believed what he was saying.

Furthermore, there has never been any proof presented by leading Democrats or others that Bush knew that what he was saying wasn't true. There have been conspiracy theories galore, but no proof. Remember that we are a country that believes in innocent until proven guilty. If you want the example of a recent president who knowingly lied about something then look to Bill Clinton. He knew that he had had sexual relations but he lied and said he hadn't to the whole country. Personally, that was one of my biggest beefs to pick with him was that he had knowingly deceived the country.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

And he beleived it based on the intelligence he was given. So did congress, and the rest of the world. If Bush was lying, so was everyone else, Bill Clinton included. But really this is a dead horse.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

The following is lifted from this article: Saddam, the terrorist's friend | The Australian

Newly published Iraqi documents reveal just how extensive Saddam's involvement with international terrorism was. The summary of these documents, published under the heading Saddam and Terrorism, has been reported across the world and read by almost no one.Its first paragraph reads: "The Iraqi Perspectives Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the US.

"At times these organisations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements."

We get too little real journalism about these subjects and too much "churnalism", in which a single sometimes misleading wire report is repeated by thousands of commentators while nobody bothers to read the source document.

The world was misled about this report because of the focus on one single sentence of the report, which said: "This study found no smoking gun (that is, a direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al-Qa'ida."

However, the report does portray a vast network of Iraqi support for terrorist organisations that includes numerous groups the report identifies as "part of al-Qa'ida". The misleading and declaratory sentence presumably refers only to Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida central itself. For example, the report states: "Captured documents reveal that the regime (of Saddam) was willing to co-opt or support organisations it knew to be part of al-Qa'ida, as long as that organisation's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." This included, for example, Saddam providing financial support for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy.

Acknowledging this support, but saying there's no smoking gun directly to al-Qa'ida itself, means the report is taking an incredibly restrictive and precise view of al-Qa'ida.

But in any event this report is not claiming, as wrongly reported in the wires, that there was no link with al-Qa'ida, merely that it found no absolute smoking gun in the translated documents.

How many of those 'associated' organizations had directly attacked the US? Should we include the Saud government because the majority of the 911 participants were of Saud nationality or stop grasping at straws altogether?

AQs are classified as criminal in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government can't stand Bin Laden. It makes sense that OBL is not in SA, his native land, now doesn't it? The Sauds want him and AQ gone, as do we. Thus, there is no reason to attack a cooperating ally.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

The exact same was true of Saddam, and the exact same is true now of Iran. There is no state in the world that is allied with AQ or Osama. In fact, the only state that ever approached this sort of relationship with AQ was the Taliban state, and they were only doing so as a request and favor from their allies at the time SA.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Direct attack by terrorists aided by Saddam's Iraq was not identified as a basis for going to war in Iraq. Rather, that happened with Afghanistan.

Vis-a-vis al Qaeda and terrorism in general, Congress found as follows in its Authorization to use Military Force Against Iraq:

In short, presence of al Aqaeda members in Iraq and Iraq's aid of other terrorist organizations were bases, among others, for the resolution. The overriding theme, of course, of the resolution was non-compliance with UN resolutions on WMDs, support for terrorism in general and the danger, therefore, posed by WMDs winding up in the hands of terrorists. There is nothing about a direct link between Iraq and al Qaeda or the September 11 attacks.

Yea?

Ok so the leftists think we should believe mass conspiracies and want us to overlook known facts?

Here is a known fact...Saddam turned his head while Iraq was being used as a hideout for terrorists. Do I think he ever aided them? No but do I think he knew all about it? Yes.

What are you going to say next? Terrorism was never a real threat?

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

Well, the way I see it, it doesn't really matter if Hussein supported non-al-Qaeda terrorists, since those terrorists likely don't have much to do with US security. The fact of the matter is that the US has and continues to support groups easily identifiable as terrorists, even by America's standards. Therefore, simply "supporting terrorism" doesn't make one a threat worthy of invasion by the US, since it would be hypocrisy on the part of America.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

I believe you are forgetting Sudan.