I hope you don’t need cites to all the many times we’ve been over that here, including before the fact when it would have mattered.
You still don’t get the part about citing facts instead of personalities, do you?
There are no new facts in anything you have linked to, and therefore nothing new to consider.
Hahahahahaha.
Thanks for attempting to assign our icons for us, but we’ll go ahead and pick who we choose to trust all on our own.
No. He merely needed to believe that it was the best course of action.
But you seem very heavily invested in the notion that Bush lied—about, er, uh, er…SOMETHING! I chalk it up to what is called Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Just because everyone hates Bush doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve it.
I personally don’t know if Bush lied or not. He heard and believed what he wanted to hear and believe. That’s not uncommon, but disappointing when you’re the leader of the free world.
I’m willing to accept he was just some dumb fuck who did dumb things without knowing how dumb they were. I’ll grant you that.
One only needs to look up Iraqi drones. U.N. inspectors found a piece of shit model plane made from balsa wood and duct tape and included it the back of a report.
Administration officials quickly jumped on them ‘The U.N. found an Iraqi drone program that could be used to drop chemicals on New York and didn’t tell us! We can’t trust the U.N. and have to go to war!’
Luckily the report was classified so the public couldn’t call them on it, but the Iraqis released photos of it this pile of junk the next day and the U.N. said that was the same one from the report.
The U.S. response was basically ‘Yeah but… The U.N. found an Iraqi drone program that could be used to drop chemicals on New York and didn’t tell us! We can’t trust the U.N. and have to go to war!’
I’ve never liked the “Bush lied” phrase because I think “Oh, did someone finally nail down one single false thing that he was on record saying that caused the war?” No, I’m not aware of anything like that that can’t be hand waved away with “he was just wrong, but he believed it.”
But I am aware of 100 things that took place exactly the way the drone thing did. They either lied or were stupid. It could be both, but it can’t be neither. Maybe Bush can’t be nailed down to one lie, but his administration was full speed ahead with bullshit for months on end. It was like watching someone argue with a flat earther. They had their mind made up and would simply ignore people when called on their bullshit, then keep repeating it as fact.
I would be surprised if anyone could seriously make the argument that the administration was acting in good faith and searching for the truth. No, a smoking gun lie or not, they obviously wanted war and ignored everything else.
I expect politicians to lie anyway, but I can’t give them a pass for killing a million people to prove the earth is flat just because someone tells me “Yeah but he really believed it.”
It’s not whether I’m a better journalist than Woodward, it’s whether Woodward is a better journalist than some actual journalists that claim Bush lied.
But I don’t get the sense you were interested in an accurate topic for debate.
Anyway, it’s moot, because I believe Bush was deluded. He’s responsible for a lot of intentional misstatements, but not *specifically *that he knew there were WMDs there when he knew damn well there weren’t. He should have known, and Colin Powell seemed to have figured it out, but Bush apparently really believed it, because he wanted to.
Recently there was a bloke in an university that claimed that Bush was a genius and that he was aware of all that was going on.
As I pointed before the choice is clear, the right is welcomed to prop up Bush meaning that he was aware and that he was an evil rat bastard.
Or we can go for the most likely option and conclude that he was just one of the biggest incompetents in history.
They should had already chosen their poison a long time ago but the right wing media does not seem to decide what is the best approach for its audience when they have to teach them a bit of history.
Saying “Bush lied us into the war” is short hand for a terrible process involving plenty of deception, and not just by Bush either. I don’t know what Woodward has written, but he’s a better investigative journalist than I am, I’m not one at all. I do think his books have presented one sided views of history tending to rely on a single source, so while they be accurate they may still less than comprehensive.
You know, I do fear that my OP was incomplete. I should have spent some time letting the leftists know that there head would NOT explode if they admitted that Woodward’s investigation and conclusion changed their minds, or even gave them pause. But who could I possibly cite that would deliver that (what I believe to be factual) information that they would actually believe. Such a conundrum!
Not that some of those cerebellums wouldn’t be better off post-explosion. 
And I’d agree with most of this. Tell me, were you of the opinion that Bush lied? Whether or not you were, does Woodward’s conclusion change your calculation in that regard?
Change our minds about what? This war was a terrible thing with disastrous consequences for the region and the world for perhaps decades to come. There was no valid justification for it. Bush either knew that (lied) or didn’t know that (stupid). Take your pick. I don’t care.
I’ve been saying for a decade that Bush didn’t lie (as in, he knew there were no WMDs but said that there were) but I never get invited onto Fox News. Harumph.
I have never been one with a “Bush lied” bumper sticker. If I really had to guess, and be honest, based on everything I know about the guy, or think I know, I would come down on the side of concluding he really believed the garbage he was being fed by those close to him who were smarter and more evil than he will ever be.
But that’s the problem I’d had all along. “Bush lied to get us into war” is a specific and serious accusation. and if one is going to claim, “Well, I didn’t mean he actually lied, but you know…”, then that’s pretty weak and I can just ignore it as lazy hyperbole. But many here were, and it seems, are, adamant that Bush actually lied.
Personally, I think accusations of lying, particularly about something so important should be taken very seriously. This board does, too, when it’s about another poster in GD. I think it’s one of the best rules here.
When you’re done giggling to yourself, realize this: We all recognized that you gave us a false dilemma, because it doesn’t matter if Woodward is a better investigative journalist than any of us, as long as we realize that there are a lot of investigative journalists out there that are better than him. My next door neighbor is a better game designer than I am. Does that make him a great game designer? Hell, no! His games suck, but it’s better than what I could do because I can’t design games at all.
O.K.-Resume giggling.
Evidently there are other posters less willing, or able, to give up on the bumper sticker.
Well, you’re assuming I stopped. 
But tell me, are you of the mind that Bush lied to get us into war? Yes or no?
Yeah, there are no good choices for Bush here. Either he lied or was too eager to believe only stuff that reinforced his preconceived ideas or he was really stupid or too easily persuaded (into war!) by others or… take your pick. Lying isn’t necessarily the worst offense.
It’s not specific, and not really serious either since you’ll have a hard time pointing to a president who never lied, and even if there was such a president he would have been accused of lying by plenty of people anyway. That’s how politics works, if he doesn’t like being called names he shouldn’t have run for president.
And if George Bush joins the board and wants to defend his actions you can take it up with the mods if someone accuses him of lying.
I agree with this completely.