Who is a bigger liar?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Wow! Talk about a tough one...

[King]

Hillary.  I think Bush at heart is a good person who just happens to blindly follow evil advisors.  Meanwhile, Hillary is independently sinister.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hillary.  I think Bush at heart is a good person who just happens to blindly follow evil advisors.  Meanwhile, Hillary is independently sinister.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Bush lied about why he wanted to go to war.  You can't beat that.

[exopolitician]

Bush lied about why he wanted to go to war.  You can't beat that.

Uhg that color makes Virginia look so.......meh.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The only problem is that these Bush "lies" have never been proven, they are just hateful liberals who claim they were hoodwinked into voting for the war. I love Democrats!

Hillary has actually lied and been caught. All of the lies the Bush administration told are just lies because the Democrats call them as such, just like the Florida legislature lied and hoodwinked them into screwing up their own primaries.

Why isn't Obama on this list?

[Thomas Jackson]

Hillary! no question about it. Bush didn't lie. Hillary! lied on numerous occasions and has been caught.

BTW: If you want to go with the Bush lied about the war angle, you have to explain away this.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

 I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Cont...

[Thomas Jackson]

 The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

[Thomas Jackson]

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.[/size]

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Clinton.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

BRTD isn't interested in debating you, ghostmonkey. Facts in general scare people like him.

No one on here can prove Bush lied about Iraq. If he did, so did Clinton and Al Gore. Let's be fair. Obama is lying right now by saying he was always 100% against the war, judging from quotes where he said he wasn't sure how he would've voted if he was in Congress.

[Aizen]

The answer to this is obvious - Bush

[The Mikado]

gporter/suburbs.

[JSojourner]

There are several problems with the previous posts.

True, Clinton said the air strikes were intended to keep Saddam from developing WMD's.  He did not, however, say that Saddam presently possessed WMD's and use that as a justification to invade and occupy an entire nation.  President Clinton did what Presidents H.W. Bush, Reagan and several other Presidents did.  He used U.S. military might quickly and surgically with the goal of eliminating a potential threat.  Too, if you will remember, many of the strikes during the Clinton years and the earlier H.W. Bush years were intended to retaliate for Iraqi violations of the no fly zone.  We can argue whether H.W. Bush and Clinton were bold enough.  But I don't see that either of them lied.

And quite frankly, those who have made a mountain out of The Decider's WMD claims have missed the mark entirely.  For The Decider to claim Saddam had WMD's was not a lie, nor was it out of bounds.  It depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes a WMD.  To The Decider, and frankly to me, a WMD can be a chemical weapon.  Saddam used chemical weapons from a number of sources, including the United States, against Iran.  Later, he diabolically used similar WMDs against the Kurds.  The question of whether Saddam had chemical weapons should not be at issue.  And if Democrats say this is the substance of the Bush lie, they are pitifully misinformed.  What's most likely is that Saddam used up his chemical weapon stockpile and the 1991 Gulf War eliminated what remained of his cache.

Where The Decider lied was in embellishing his story.  Saddam was no longer the possessor of a dangerous stockpile of chemical weapons.  (That wasn't scary enough to sell, even to the spooked, post-9/11 populace.)  The Decider had to make the threat more intimidating.  Saddam had developed, or was trying to develop, a nuclear bomb.  You can follow the Niger uranium lie from its origin (a neocon forgery fed through Italian intelligence), through its debunking by 3 US investigations (Wilson, our Ambassador to Niger, and our NATO general), through its "red flagging" by the CIA to keep it out of Bush's speeches, to its last-minute insertion into the State of the Union over CIA objections by a key WHIG member, Stephen Hadley. If that is not a lie, I don't know what it is. 

Perhaps The Decider "misspoke".  More likely, he winked and nodded as his aides and underlings told the lie.  Remember this whopper?

"Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

A year and two months later, another of The Decider's cronies served up this steaming pile of monkey dookie --

"I don't believe anyone  in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

Well?  Which is it?

But to ice the cake, The Decider believed Saddam with yellow cake uranium might still not be sufficient to frighten Americans into all-out war.  So, the myth of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda alliance was hatched.

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President Bush, Oval Office - 9/25/02

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." President Bush, 9/17/03 Cabinet Room

And then -- President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So how do we define a lie?  Is a deception a lie?  Is an obfuscation a lie?  What about a general "shading of the truth"?

Who's the bigger liar?  Well, as many Republicans have told me when I have mentioned The Decider's lies -- "Only one person ever lived who never lied.  And he was crucified."  Fair enough.  So Clinton lies.  Bush lies.  Obama lies. McCain lies. You lie and I lie. I can accept that.  I wish it weren't so, but it is.

Perhaps the real question to ask is -- "why do so many millions of people in the world regard The Decider's lies as shockingly corrupt, frightfully evil and maniacally immoral"?  Is it because the lies of the Clintons, Senator McCain, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Larry Craig, and Jeopardy's Alex Trebek (Hell -- name anyone you want -- everyone lies sometimes) are so unimportant?

Or is it because -- as the admittedly tiresome liberal mantra goes -- "Bush lied, tens of thousands died"?

[ChrisFromNJ]

Bush and it's not even close.

[7,052,770]

Bush and it's not even close.

[NDN]

Bush and it's not even close.

[Torie]

Bush may be incompetent, but I don't think he deliberately lies. His problem is that he is just not intellectually curious enough, to challenge his pre-cconceptions, and what he wants to believe. I can't say that about the Clintons.

[Nym90]

Wow! Talk about a tough one...

Any liberal who honestly thinks Clinton is even in the same universe with Bush in terms of badness is extremely delusional.

I challenge you to come up with even one issue on which Clinton's position is closer to Bush's than it is to Obama's. In the past you could've said trade, but that's no longer true. Also maybe the war at one point, but even that's debateable, and certainly not true now. On health care, Clinton is more liberal than Obama. I guess possibly the death penalty could qualify for the above criteria, but Obama isn't exactly whole hog in opposition is he? Nor is Clinton exactly a forceful advocate for it. Maybe affirmative action (though again, both Clinton and Obama's positions are kind of muddled and both are still a bit left of Bush on it), although most folks here oppose it and thus would be closer to Clinton than Obama on that one.

Now I don't like Clinton on a personal level any more than most of her detractors here. But all of this talk of her being Bush-lite or some such is insane.