why do liberals say "bush lied" but don't give any examples?

Because according to them, the fact that he lied is 'in the air,' common knowledge, spread through osmosis, what other libs have said.

Even those who tried to answer your question with any amount of substance have failed.

Perhaps, if they stopped relying upon anti-Bush websites for their info, they might get a grip on what the reality of the situation was/is instead of just perpetuating myths that bear only semblances of truth, half truths and slanted truths.

(Michael Moore, please stand up.....)

Edit: Just look at the guy above me's comment on Bush's remark about having no plans on his desk. He sincerely believes that had Bush had plans to attack Iraq at the time he made that comment, he was obligated to tell the world, as though that makes any sense from a defense/security standpoint.

This is a blatant example of the mentality we are currently having to deal with and another example of the libs' total lack of reasoning when issuing all their complaints against our president.

If the thought of these same people entering the voting booth weren't so scary, we'd be simply laughing them off and shaking our heads in amusement.

Well Bush said that Saddam and Bin Laden were mates. In fact wasn't Saddam training Bin Laden's men for him?

Now any histroy student who has studied the Middle East would know that Bin Laden hated Saddam and Saddam's ideology and system in Iraq. In fact Bin Laden hated that Iraq allowed Christianity and different forms of religion. So why did George Bush insist there was a link between the two? Has he know access to information that any history student has? What are his advisers doing?

What about the Iraq 9/11 link? Several people have claimed that the Bush administration were informed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet Bush continued to mention Iraqi links to 9/11?

Wait a minute! Are these really truths or is this simply more B U l l S H i t?

Let's get facts straight. The congressional vote that you are referring to is Iraq war resolution approved on Oct.11, 2002. The votes were as follows:

Senate:

For: 48 republicans and 29 democrats. Against: 1 republican and 23 democrats.

House:

For: 215 republicans and 81 democrats. Against: 6 republican and 126 democrats.

If you are trying to blame this on democrats, think again.

Now, let's see what they voted for and what the environment was at the time. The resolution authorized the president to invade Iraq ONLY if Saddam didn't give up WMD and didn't show compliance with UN resolutions. At the time, UN inspectors didn't finish their work yet, there were some documents used as proof of WMD (later shown to be fake). In other words there was a good chance at the time that WMD could be real.

But look, this is not a democrat vs. republican issue at all. Just use some common sense and think about this:

Bush publicly justifies the war by showing multiple facts of "evidence" to prove WMD, terrorist connections, etc. Later, ALL of his assertions turn out to be false, "evidence" turns out to be fake, there are no WMD and no terrorist connections and no reason whatsoever to invade that country. So, what does George do? He says that the intelligence made a mistake! Are you really THAT GULLIBLE to believe that an administration operating in good faith and having vast intelligence capabilitites was unable to make sure that at least one of those "proofs" was not false? As a president, Bush had the best resources in the world to get this one question right. Forget about political parties and trying to put blame on democrats (who are no angels by any measure). Do you really believe that a "mistake" of those proportions is possible? Just be honest to yourself and take stupid demagogory for what it's worth...

Your refusing to accept proved and widely reported facts does not mean they haven't been (unless you've been in a cave for the last several years) put before you. Nor, does claiming that taking the word of a supposedly honorable Administration and acting on that word translate to agreement on the facts. If I knowingly give you false, exaggerated or misleading information and you, believing me to be a truthful individual, act on that information to your own detriment, would you really consider that your misplaced trust is equivalent to my misrepresentations? Of course not. And, there is no equivalency in this case either.

As to your contention that only Liberals object to false information (some elements of which have been openly admitted to even by the White House) being fed to them, you are again totally off base. Conservatives (something you are obviously not) also object to neo-con manipulation of facts and the type of dishonest propaganda you have presented here.

.

I'm thinking this question is much more of a political statement than an actual question. As far as the "liberals" you have conversed with, I've personally never talked with them, and as I doubt that many of the people here on "Yahoo! Answers" have either, I can only imagine that the actual nature of your liberals' reasoning will go unexplained to you by anyone here. If you are legitimately looking for examples of the Bush administration's lies, here are a few:

...no evidence has ever been proven to show as of yet that Saddam Hussein possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons or was directly "dealing" with Al Qaeda...

...Bush claimed the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed...

...two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence...

The preceding are just in case your "liberals" were ever unable to provide you with actual lies. If you happen to be interested in researching more of the Bush administration's lies, I'd recommend a Google search of "bush's lies", I was able to find these along with many, many more.

When libs say 'Bush lied', it's because they don't understand what exactly a lie is. In fact, some of them don't even know what the meaning of 'is' is. The reason they don't understand what a lie is because they all lie so much they can no longer tell fact from fiction anymore. But the driving force behind this is vengance, of course. They want desperately to get back at Republicans for exposing and impeaching their guy, and they're angry and frustrated that they can't do it to Bush with the facts. So, in typical lib fashion ala Dan Blather, they just make up new ones.

Less not forget that the liberal king B Clinton made his mark on American society as probably the biggest liar in history. He not only lied about political issues but also just about anything that would have cast a shadow on him or his real intentions. I think he ran for pres to start with because he thought it would be a great way to meet chics.

Why is there like 10 times more cited fact in this one question than I've ever seen in ANY Republican question EVER on here?

and since WHEN did Republicans need examples? kind of hypocritical to ask for them when NO ONE EVER BOTHERS to give any from that side...

but, even with all that... I think that you've gotten quite a bit...

my personal "lie" of his is that he said HE would bring Osama to justice... and after giving a half hearted effort in Afghanistan, he RAN off to Iraq, far away from where anyone thinks Osama is...

sounds like a lie to me?

My opinion of our President doesn't have squat to do with being "cool." I'm 51 and way past caring about "cool," and I'm not a liberal.

He lied to every one of us in his 2003 SOTU Address. He used the yellow cake intel as one of his main points when he started laying out the reasons for going into Iraq. Trouble is that the CIA had already told the White House the yellow cake intel was bad and that it shouldn't be included in even a previous MEMO that they were going to put out. So Bush includes it in the SOTU Address anyway? Why? Because he needed to convince us all of those righteous reasons to go into Iraq. That's being a liar, plain and simple.

Bush acted on evidence which was supported nearly unanimously. The fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq is not evidence that a.) they never had them, because it is likely they were moved to Syria, or b.) didn't have the intention of creating them. Either way, Bush made the right call by engaging an enemy on foreign soil and most likely averting another attack on our mainland by forcing the enemy to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. The doctrine which set forth the need for a regime change in Iraq was signed by Clinton while he was still in office. Why the Dem's are back peddling on that fact is ludicrous.

Blaming Bush for every woe in their miserable lives is now a full time job for Liberals. They have no sense of direct accountability, no moral compass, no desire to work for what they want and don't value life or the truth. I'm personally sick of it.

You're a star in my book - keep the Lib's stuttering and trying to come up with some substance. They just can't do it.

The Downing Street Memo is evidence that Bush knew his intelligence was bad, but went ahead pushing for the war.