A war caused by a president lying to congress to get it started and making sure all the lucrative defense and support contracts went to his buddies AND that Americans wouldnt be paying increased taxes to cover the cost of the war but rather it would go on our national debt (think credit card spending).

I would say Bush had a MAJOR impact on our economy for generations to come. My great grand children will be paying for this fiasco.

To bad we had an "opposition" party at the time that lacked the balls to stand in Bush's way. After all, they may have lost in '06 if they hadn't looked properly patriotic, right?

Nice try FMB.

1-The opposition party was in the minority at the time so couldnt have stopped Bush if they wanted to.

2-Since Bush and Cheney lied about the facts of the situation and therefore the opposition (and the majority too) were not working on the truthful reality of the situation. Therefore any claim of a lack of proper action is null and void-they were not working on the truth-they believed based on Bush's statements that Iraq represented an imminent threat of use of WMD-of course they voted to support Bush's actions.

By your definition FMB, the victim of a con man would be at fault and no con man would ever be convicted of his crimes. The idea of a con is to mislead te victim into taking an action they would normally not take by providing false "facts". In other words, Bush conned congress and the country into a needless war.

In addition, the majority (R) at the time approved his way of paying for the war which included both putting it on the American tab and leaving the tax cuts in place (first time in history we had tax cuts during a war). Therefore just to add to the incompetence of misleading the US into a war, the method of paying for that war will cost us considerably more than it would have otherwise financially.

I dont envy the president who has to clean up this mess. I consider it no suprise that the cons are running McCain as they actually consider him to be a liberal republican-they will then blame this when either president needs to raise taxes to pay for Bushs mistakes by blaming it on "liberals".

Among my favorite moments from Powel's presentation to the Security Council was when he showed the map of Iraq's reach with it's supposed WMDs. The map had Iraq in the center with a target radiating out from it, showing a 3,000 mile strike ability. While Paris was in the "danger zone", the French still opposed the war. Meanwhile, the U. S. was obviously not in the line-of-fire, yet few Democrats bothered to voice concern. There were those of us in the U. S. who doubted 1) that the WMDs existed, and questioned 2) even if they exist, do they pose reasonable a threat to us? Had the opposition party stood with us, perhaps enough popular support for the War in Iraq would have slipped and the Bush admin would have been forced to back off (or at least would have lost the Congressional support that they needed).

In your analysis, the Democrats were the old lady who gets ripped off by the door-to-door con artist. They seem more to me like the Nazi soldier who just "did what they were told", honestly. Of course, Obama was still publically supporting the war as late as in July of 2004, before the DNC convention.

July, 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” Chicago Tribune.

September, 2004, Barack "would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw." "If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that’s something I would support,” Associated Press.

November, 2004 on the Charlie Rose program, "[O]nce the decision was made, then we’ve got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we’ll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that’s the position that I continue to take."

Until 2006 we were in the minority in congress.

It took at least that long for people to start uncovering the proof of Bush's misdeeds.

Funny your timeline ends before the democrats could hope to do anything.

Please show me "links" that will show and prove that GB lied. Not that I am a pro GB fan. Just tried of the finger pointing.

Google the Downing Street Memo, look at statements by Scott McLellan and Paul Snow. Look at statements by former FBI, CIA, and NSA who claim Cheney told them to withold any data which suggested that the sources of pro-war data were questionable, Then of course there is the whole "Scooter Libby" case in which the agent who proved that the Niger Yellowcake deal was bullshit.

A cohesive statement saying Bush lied is a little much to ask for. He covered up well and he made sure he wasnt under oath when he testified to congress. Its like proving a murder when the body is dismembered and completely turned to dust and spread over the ocean-you cant prove it without the body but the evidence of the person missing, facts which dont add up, etc are everywhere.

Some of the more obvious ones:

• Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
• Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
• Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet]
• Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]
• Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ZNet] [CNN] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
• Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
• Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]

Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [Mother Jones] [New Yorker] [Wikipedia]

By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

Resources

• "Inquiry into the Decision to Invade Iraq" by the Cooperative History Research Commons (Excellent!)
• Chronology of Illegal War on impeachforpeace.org
• "Timeline for Iraq War" on Mother Jones
• Timeline of Iraq Lies by Jodin Morey
• Senate Intelligence Committee Reports from September 8, 2006
  • "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare to Prewar Assessments" (PDF 6.9 MB)
  • "The Use by the Intelligence COmmunity of Intelligence Provided by the Iraqi National Congress" (PDF 9.3 MB)
  • "Key Judgments" from Rockefeller website
  • CBS News Report
• "IraqOnTheRecord" - database of 237 lies by administration officials about Iraq, compiled by Congressman Henry Waxman. <link>
• 'CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES: Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A “High Crime”' by Elizabeth de la Vega
• "Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence", statements by Paul R. Pillar, CNN, 2/10/06
• "Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance" by Jeff Cohen
• List of Lies and News Links from BuzzFlash
• "Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel" 11/23/05, by Murray Waas
• Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371
• Fraud and False Statements - Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001
• Disarm Saddam Hussein, the White House's own summary of lies about Iraq.
• "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims" By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers, 10/7/04

It's not funny at all that during the time when most of the American servicemen died in Iraq for the pointless war, Obama was still supporting it. It wasn't until the public opinion dictated it that Obama and other Democrats came out against the war. That's not leadership. You obviously are a Democrat first (by the way, what have the Dems don't since taking power in 2006?).

Good day, war pig.

FMB do you assume all this data was available during the vote to go to war? It wasnt.

Obama was one of the first to speak out against the war-you know this too.

You are desperately seeking to out liberal liberals-good luck. Only a conservative whack job thinks people will believe that democrats only voted for the war because it was a popular position. When the vote took place most Americans bought Bush's story too. I mean think about it-what American would think Bush would lie to start a war? I can still remember thinking Bush was smart for saying that any country which harbored the terrorists was as guilty as the terrorist-so I bought it too. We were lied to and we believed him.

Now the facts come out and it is pretty damn clear we were fooled knowingly by the Bush administration and that the war was needless.

Obama was one of the first people to insist we dig deeper-and he was one of the first to cry out we needed to do something.

And just how is McCain not complicit in the republican con job?

It was obvious as per the information presented to the U. N. security council that the U. S. was not in danger. The rest doesn't matter.

McCain is as guilty as the libs are for getting steam rolled to avoid looking weak. Difference between me and you is: I'm not here to make excuses for these people.

Still not convinced who is telling what lies or truth. You or them. Truth or lies can be twisted to ones convenience.

Well the facts of the case were clearly not put before congress or the people and that Bush clearly intended to invade Iraq is demonstrated in the Downing Street Memo. When coupled with known members of PNAC (a conservative think tank in DC) its pretty clear what was going on. 9/11 provided the needed catalyst to launch the war in Iraq enabling Bush and his people to snag both oil and a beach head in the middle east from which to base troops and planes to establish control in the middle east by the US. That Condy Rice and numerous other members of PNAC were in a position to seriously influence the US foreign policy was pretty damn convenient. McCain then furthered the idea when he suggested we would be there for the next 100 years. Consipiracy theorists can be easily spotted of course but lets look at the facts of the case and draw some conclusions-Condy got what her group sought-a war in Iraq which will establish a US presence for bases. She even got the accidental or on purposed 9/11 (regardless of whether she was involved her policy benefitted from the attacks of 9/11).

So you say gee it isnt spelled out in writing.

Go here first to learn about PNAC

<link>

Then look at the events which rolled out under George W Bush.

Sure, it isnt spelled out with signatures in triplicate and on file in the hall of records, but other than that it sure is on the money. And that is really what it is all about.

I suggest you read "Spying on the Bomb" (fairly recent book release, I don't remember the author since i got it from the local public library) and you will find, basically, that for each of your points, one or more intelligence agencies disputed your conclusions AT THE TIME of the decision making. So he picked the wrong reports. That does not make it lying.

And by the way, don't confuse outcome with poor decision making. You can make the right decision and get a bad result. Just ask anyone who ever had a complication from cancer surgery. You have to treat the disease, even if you end up with a problem.

The real problem with chanting "Bush lied" is that nobody learns anything from all this. Not Obama, not McCain, not any future president. There are ways of making better decisions (Stanford runs a program for business people for just this purpose) but you have to recognize that and be intentional in creating an environment where sound decision making is possible. My read of the Bush White House is that there was no room for dissent--thus insuring a group think mentality.

You can certainly "overshoot" and refuse to intervene when you should--an equally serious error. (First Twin Towers attack, the Cole, Khobar Towers, etc...did these set the stage for 911?)

Having said that, this fiasco happened on his watch. And Bush will take his lumps in the history book.

Actually Bush lied. He failed to present ALL the information and he stacked the deck so that it appeared there was no other solution.

Just this week another CIA operative came forward to tell how he was ordered to change his reports or not file them at all because they indicated that Iraq and Iran were not currently operating WMD programs. When he refused to follow directions he was promptly fired after 22 years of service-a fluent speaker of both arabic and farsi.

I understand its hard to admit your guy lied us into a war-no one wants to have that on your team. But facts are facts.

Have you just not been paying attention all of these years?