Many say President Bush lied about WMD. Also those that said there were WMD include Bill Clinton from 1995-00, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton and the nations of England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Eqypt, Iran, Russia and on and on. The "QUESTION" is did these people and nations also lie about WMD in Iraq?
2006-06-08
15:55:02
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Has anyone considered the possibility that he maybe sent them elsewhere (Syria?) to embarrass the administration? And why is it so far fetched to believe he had them? He did use them before, right? He also intentionally led other nations to believe he did have them to fend off exactly what we did, getting rid of him!
2006-06-08 16:13:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by alieneddiexxx 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
they are all liars (Politicians) what else did you expect. Every focus was on thier own PERSONAL OIL STOCKS. You know the expression money sticks with money. It was thier best interest to invade. first it was WMD, none. Then sadam's killings, not an excuse to re-write a countrys culture. Terror, so we go an blow people up. You can't expect a civilization for thousands of years to follow this gov's religious beliefs... the women will always be 10ft behind and all else. The white house wants a second US, they don't buy it and neither do I. It is about oil. there is no shortage and the dinosaurs are not the ones who made it through fossilization.. scientists have found oil a few million years above thier bones... to finish off... yes and myself adding.. 5000+ years and this country has only been around about 250 and everyone hates us overseas... think about it
2006-06-08 15:59:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by need to know basis 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think any of those you mentioned lied at all about WMD. Certainly President Bush did not lie. He spoke with what he knew to be the best available information available at the time. Our intelligence forces AND those of other countries all agreed that Saddam was building WMD. As was done to Barry Goldwater in the 1960's, there are those who love to bash and criticize just enjoying every opportunity to bring those in power down. These same critics seldom if ever offer alternatives that are constructive. They just bash and bash with no willingness to improve the situation. President Bush is to be congratulated for the way he has dealt with that crowd--he has ignored them!!
2006-06-08 16:08:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by No one 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to revionist historians....Kerry, Clinton 1, Clinton 2, Edwards, Kennedy, Sharpton, England, Spain,Italy, ....Saddams own generals, etc. ...were "misled". Only Bush "lied".
2006-06-08 16:06:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
4 diplomats are lifeless. in that experience they no longer exist. bushs wmd's have been got here across and stated by ability of Richard buter, un observer. in that experience they do exist. Benghazi became a classic textbook occasion of inept management and failed radical Marxist coverage from Obama. wmds have been a tacit reaction to the main suitable intelligence obtainable at that factor. bushs tenure became a democratic elected individual with skills to steer and the music checklist of growing to be high quality judgements. Obama is a con artist Marxist and liar who gained election, a minimum of in around 2 by ability of worry mongering, smear and innuendo, class conflict and envy and incessant play of the race card. I see no "like" or assessment right here. what I do see is a sparkling occasion of what many call the bush derangement syndrome. ill leave it as much as the reader to verify why as I have not have been given any clue why it would benefit everybody to take the concentration off of a failed chief who now adversely impacts our society.
2016-10-30 10:32:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
None of them lied about WMD in Iraq. That S.O.B. had them, used them against his own people, and hid the rest in neighboring countries. Meanwhile the UN tiptoed around on eggshells, trying to figure out what to do about him violating the terms of the treaty after the Gulf War. Those terms that allowed for weapons inspectors- the ones he kicked out.
2006-06-08 16:09:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by meathead76 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Perhaps... but what are they basing the lies on? If they are basing it on faulty intelligence, then they were deceived... the actions based on the lies are much more important than the lies themselves...
well... many never really were confident enough in the intelligence to move troops in... until Bush gave his own "report" to the UN that Powell later said was a mistake....
2006-06-08 16:04:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
bush said he had proof of wmds when in fact he did not. everyone else only suspected it. making him solely accountable for this grave injustice to our nation.
2006-06-08 16:04:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by shannon d 4
·
0⤊
0⤋