collected from todays news:
“”””there’s no question that saddam hussein had al qaeda ties,”” bush said.
“”we don’t know,”” cheney said. “”we’ve learned a couple of things. we learned more and more that there was a relationship between iraq and al qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.””
“”we’ve had no evidence that saddam hussein was involved in sept. 11,”” bush told reporters as he met members of congress on energy legislation.
in recent speeches, he has called iraq the “”central front”” in the war on terror, saying u.s. occupation forces face “”a foreign element”” as well as saddam loyalists.
but the u.s. authorities have yet to produce any foreigners known to have participated in any recent military operation.
before ordering the invasion that toppled saddam, president bush talked of an imminent threat posed by iraqi weapons as a prime justification for war.
un chief weapons inspector blix, who said this week he believed iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, told bbc radio that the united states and britain “”over-interpreted”” intelligence about baghdad’s weapons programs. five months after saddam’s overthrow, no banned weapons have been found.
so, to paraphrase:
according to bush, the war was justified because of iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and iraq’s role in terrorism. and now we see very clearly that there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq
and no iraqi involvement in al qaeda.
and we also see very clearly that the bush administration knew these things before the war was started.
so now we’re stuck with a peacekeeping job that is taking american lives daily and will cost over $100 billion dollars, and it’s all because the bush administration egregiously misrepresented the facts(aka-‘lied’) to start a war.
if clinton was impeached for lying about sex wouldn’t it stand to reason that bush should be impeached for lying about reasons for starting a war?
-moby