Bush Didn't Lie... Or Did He?

Thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq during the U.S. occupation, so why are we only hearing about it now? Today on #OffTheGrid, I take on the Bush Administration's justification for an unjust war in the Middle East.



What do you think about this? Do you agree or disagree with me?

a reply to: JesseVentura

For those that where pushing for the war, they knew there was no chemical weapons. Everyone at the UN who looked into it knew there was no chemical weapons. While the unfounded rumors linking Saddam to 9/11 helped with a lot of the local support for war, the chemical weapon excuse was used on the international stage.

Your comments that this is just the start of making George Bush a big brother hero is disturbing.

a reply to: JesseVentura

NONE of this is new. NONE OF IT. We KNEW for a freakin FACT that Saddam still had older chemical weapons stockpiles that he was in the process of disposing of. Nobody listened. When the data was presented, the MSM IGNORED IT. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could have (and probably did) look this up themselves back in 2003.

Yes, Bush LIED. He lied, because he somehow managed to convince an entire nation that Iraq somehow posed a threat to the U.S (which was a complete lie) or that it posed a threat to it's neighbors with it's chemical weapons. It did NOT have an active chemical weapons program, and that information was widely available and corroborated by U.N weapons inspectors (who Saddam was complying with, which is another lie that Bush told).

Colin Powell literally stood in front of the U.N and lied through his teeth. Being a former general who was himself involved in operations in Iraq during Desert Storm, he was in a position to know the truth. He chose to ignore the truth and tow the party line, lying through his teeth before the U.N along with the likes of Condoleeza Rice who lied through her teeth to the American public.

Anyone who denies that Bush jr. lied his way into invading Iraq is living in a fantasy world.

Democrats are terrible at staging falseflag events.
Republicans were better. They serve tptb with more efficency,
they put more quality into it.

a reply to: JesseVentura

come on, napalm a chemical weapon you know better than that. technically i guess if you want to break it down it is. but you damn well know there is a difference.

on topic, i think that they intended to use the old weapons during the 2nd war to say hey looky here what we found. i think they knew exactly where the stuff was, it was what they steady claimed being used on U.S. troops During the first war Operation Desert Shield. i think they buried them when they found them and when the second one came round, they remembered that they had and intend to use it as proof. only they didn't realize the shape it would be in.

Just to add:

The other thing that made the entire fiasco such a farce was that while Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, North Korea was actively testing nuclear weapons. Yet Bush chose not to invade the country that WAS actually developing weapons of mass destruction? Gee I wonder why? Could it be because he knew there was no money to be made in North Korea, and only the risk of starting a world war (along with massive American casualties)?

It was a joke. Anyone with an internet connection at the time could have found out what was really going on. The truth was out there. It's just that very few people gave a damn.

There were LOTS of people who DID know better, however. They protested in major cities all over the world during the run up to the invasion. Didn't matter one bit, did it?

a reply to: JesseVentura

WOW!! This is some amazing ground breaking stuff!!! Let me click on your little link to go to your web site and watch your videos!!

AMAZING

a reply to: JesseVentura

Day late and and a dollar short with this feed, Old news. C'mon, I expect better of you.

Ask Alex Jones on what is trending these days or weeks. Plenty of hoopla to go around.

You can do better than this.

I don't care. It's irrelevant at this point.

Did JFK do this or that? What about Lincoln....Did Nixon lie? It's all history now and nothing can be changed at all by dwelling on it.

The ONLY thing that matters now is the current President and what he is doing....and what the next ones do.

Beating a dead horse does nothing to help us in the present or the future.

Gen Thomas Macinnerney stated this was correct


www.kentimmerman.com...

By these standards, we could also argue he didn't lie about Al Qaeda being in Iraq, with ISIS being in Iraq

a reply to: JesseVentura

Mr Ventura. What difference does make when the red team and the blue team have the same owners?

originally posted by: JesseVentura
I take on the Bush Administration's justification for an unjust war in the Middle East.

How about you take on the Obama administration instead? Obama has been in office six years and he's continued, and in many cases made worse, the policies of the Bush Administration. George Bush is gone. Obama is here. Fix what is happening now instead of looking backwards. Hint - start with Eric Holder. That will keep you busy for a while.

Of course he had chemical weapons.
Old Rumsfeld sold them to him.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: JesseVentura

I agree. First Bush is going to get resurrected as a God fearing Republican. Then they're going to say "Well, if he was right about this, then what else was he right about?" and start promoting his new world order crap like the illegal Patriot Act or any number of the schemes that Cheney and him cooked up.

Then in 2016 when Hillary gets elected she's going to blame Obama and praise Bush and while we're at it America, I have more things to protect you from terrorists! Now just give up your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, and your right to a fair and speedy trial. Those pesky terrorists sure abuse those freedoms, don't they. And if you try to homeschool your kid, they'll get taken from you by the government.

Next we'll start seeing laws where the government can call you a domestic terrorist for what you post online. And then they'll seize weapons and property and sweep it all under the rug. Anyone that disagrees with the law is also a terrorist. You go on conspiracy sites? Terrorist! You seek to expose government corruption and lies? Terrorist!

Well, that's what they think anyways. There's about 3 dozen people I know that would care to disagree and not with words. No, they'll disagree the same way our forefathers did, with a rifle and explosives.

Rummy personally delivered mustard gas to Saddam so yes, I think little Georgie probably knew they still had some around. I still don't believe Scott Ritter was into kiddie pr0n - he was set up.

Screw the dual paradigm. Both are corrupt. We need people to vote for the best man or woman and not the lesser of two evils. How do you know a politician is lying? His or her lips are moving. Greed done #ed it up.

a reply to: JesseVentura

I dunno


There was so much lying going on during that Administration it's hard to tell where one lie ended and another began. It's kind of like that Carnival game where one throws a dart @ a board full of balloons. Ask about lies and you're bound to hit something.


Hey, Call me, we'll do lunch