Why do you liberals believe the best about saddam?

Question

Why do you believe saddam when he said he didn't have WMD?

What is it about his track record that makes him believable to you?

Do you think he is incapable of lying?

Do you think he was incapable of moving/ hiding WMD to syria?


Simple answers are all that is needed for these questions. No need to go off on a tangent about Bush, because he is not involved in these questions.

Answer 1

From a Liberal.
I don't believe the best about Saddam, where did you get that? He has a heinous track record.
Yes he lies.
Yes he might have moved those bombs to Syria. Might.

Now, will you stop lumping us all in one category? Sheesh, what are you after?
I hate and mistrust Saddam. Simple answer. Period.

Happy?
A simple answer is all that I require from you.

Answer 2

What makes you think we all believe the best about Saddam?

We knew he had WMDs at one time; he even used them against his people. However, in 2003 he didn't possess any that posed a direct threat to us.

I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sun was out. Saddam is an evil, vicious bastard, and the Iraqis are better off without him. But it wasn't our job to do, it was theirs.

Trying to use the false threat of WMDs, and the constant insinuations he was central to 9/11, which he had nothing to do with, were just a way to get us into a war that Bush had been agitating for since his first State of the Union address in January 2001.

As much as you'd like, you can't separate the question of Bush from Saddam, since Bush took on the role of crusader against Saddam. We know the situation in Iraq because the administration made it front & center, and what they focus on becomes news. Think about it, have you heard much, if anything, about what's going on in Libya these days?

Answer 3

Okay - I have to butt in on this one, even if I'm not a liberal.
But all my friends who think our president is a dolt do NOT think highly of Saddam.

Just because people disagree with the asinine lack of planning that went into our invasion of Iraq doesn't mean they support a minor middle eastern dictator.

So far, the only weapons of mass destruction that have been found were made before the Gulf War, and thus, did not violate any U.N. treaty.

You can speculate ALL you want to as to whether the weapons were moved to another country.
The fact is, Americans were lied to about the reason we needed to enter into this war.

Of all my friends, from the far left to the far right, NO one likes Saddam.
But all agree, the Iraq war is going badly...and many on both the left and right feel we should cut our losses and leave.

You want to stay and fight, fine - join the army.
I'd rather see our money go towards containing those countries we can't trust...and save the lives of our fighting men & women to be used for REAL threats against America.

Answer 4

A) It's not that we believed his word, it's that we believed the reports that told us that he had no WMD. And since that is true, what exactly are you asking for?

B) Nothing

C) Absolutely

C) Absolutely

Do I think he actually hid those weapons in Syria? No.
Cheney didn't trust the CIA b/c they missed how close Saddam was to nuclear weapon in '91 and the Soviet collapse, etc... So When Bush Jr. came, Cheney wanted to go in there and slammed any info from the CIA. It turns out they were right this time.

Answer 5

We never believed Saddam. We were skeptical at least of Bush's comments that there were WMDs. And look, there is still no proof that those WMDs were there when we invaded Iraq.

He is obviously capable of lying.

He was obviously capable of moving/ hiding WMD to syria.


EDIT

HOW CAN ANYONE STILL AGREE WITH NICOLASRAAGE, THE MORON!!!

Look at this:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai9pNxdLzwwijB3Ris.iTarsy6IX?qid=20060623152004AAlm8Lo

He says:
"I just realized...?
We (Republicans) have no candidate for 2008!! How did that happen?

Additional Details

15 hours ago
Guys, stop being rude. Tell me what you don't like about the democrats. I don't like them either, but I don't want to bash them because thats hypocritic.

15 hours ago
Truth, youre still an asshole. Shut up, idiot.

15 hours ago
I still hate democrats beyond everything else, you bags of scum, I just realized we don't have anyone, and plus some of those Democrats showed me that a lot of stuff I was saying about them was stupid!!

Don't laugh, or I'll laugh in 2008 when Newt is pres!!

15 hours ago
Answerman... Shut up... you pinko commie. Give me some facts.

15 hours ago
Anyone who says Bush is a poo poo head is dumb. You know that.

Truth, I don't need your approval. Go to hell.

15 hours ago
Oilfield you are SOOO left leaning. Give me some facts.

15 hours ago
jmminic, are you serious, A Woman for president. You socialist!! Burn in he||.

15 hours ago
Be quiet. Women can not be president. SHUT UP!! NO SPIN ZONE.

13 hours ago
Id like some facts from all of you. Were in the no spin zone...

Condi and Hillary are incapable of running. What is wrong with you woman-lovers. They are meant to be housewives."

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU NICK???

Answer 6

You can't belive a word he said or says now.
Track record -- hmmm, we supported him and he was our "ally" for years. But even still not believable.
Of course he was capable of moving to syria, but there's no proof that happened.

Why would you assume Libs would believe anything he says. Libs generally were relying on the arms inspectors opinion and the fact that they didn't find anything-- not total proof in and of itself though. But even our spy intelligence didn't show any concrete evidence (so we're told). And we have found, that even our intelligence community didn't think he had the kind of weapons the administration thought he had.

although, I do remember hearing reports that our allies also thought he had weapons. How believable are they? Who knows- I wouldn't trust the ruskies.

Some libs, those who did support going to war, and there were Dems that did, went by what the adminstration said-- obviously wrong (or not completely accurate anyway).

Answer 7

The families of the victims of 9/11 could give a rat's *ss about Saddam Hussein. The so called war on terror has moved so far from it's objectives that it has become the laughing stock of the world. The terrorists continue to murder Iraqi's, Afghan's, and our troops and you want to discuss a guy who's rotting in prison. That explains a lot about yourself.

Answer 8

Did you find them yourself? I didn't. Nor did the CIA. Without going off on a Dubya tangent (which I only assume you want withheld because that would bring a teeny bit of logic to this argument...) we didn't find it, it's not there. We can't keep prosecuting and looking and arguing and fighting for something WE HAVE NO PROOF OF! What makes you better than the CIA? Lewis Black said it best, " I knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, and I was just sitting on my ******* couch. How did I know more than the CIA? It's almost impossible!"

Answer 9

I haven't seen any WMDs yet (except for the ones we sold him prior to Gulf War 1). No, he couldn't move them to Syria because Iraq was a No Fly Zone and being monitored.

Answer 10

whats wrong with right wingers? Saddam was completely guilty of having wmds. but because of all the left winged liberals bashing bush, nobody sees the point of why we went over there. all the liberals were crying "oh no! bush sent our troops over there and now they are dying! i hate bush because he made a stupid decision! im going to go tell everyone that bush is a bad person now!"

well your wrong. bush did the right thing. he sent our troops over to find the wmds. when we send our troops over to FIGHT with GUNS AND BULLETS, THEY ARE GOING TO DIE. bush is a good president but because of all the bashing he gets it makes it seem like he was wrong in sending them over. sure we didn't find them. its obvious he had them because he used them on his own people before. so obviously he hid them or moved them to a friendly country.