Bush lied and people died!?

Question

Well it now seems that Bush didn't lie, as the recently declassified Deulfer report indicates that there were over 500 WMDs found in Iraq which means a couple of things. First this was a just war with a just cause and no ridicules conspiracies and false notions of the real reason of going war. Iraq posed a threat, these weapons could have very easily been used against the Iraqi people, our allies, or even us. It is thought that these weapons were created before 1991 so they don't prove that Iraq had an ongoing WMD program. They do however show Saddam's motives and intentions, because all of the weapons were supposed to be destroyed. These weapons also show that diplomacy and UN inspections did not work at all. The only option for the security of this world was war. So my question is if Bush didn't "lie" how many more people would have died? Innocent people. This just proves the ignorance of the liberals, and their lack to accept the real truth.

Answer 1

i heard about this

a couple of days ago it was weird like 3 or 4 post came in just like this one "why won't liberals believe the truth about WMD's" and the like.

Apparently on fox Sen. R. Santorum went on and made these funny yet completely wrong claims that they found WMD's.
What gets funnier is that Fox made a big deal about it, like a exclusive or special report.

Unfortnatley, it was all not only misleading but desprate and sad.

For example the person posting this claims "500 WMD's"
WTF right? But they are not Nuclear or atomic or but canasters of musturd gas aquired before 1991. These are what would be and are considered convential weapons, note by the way they weren't used because they didn't work.

What is also sad is the way the person phrased his statement "recently declassified"
To the average bumkin or tourist he could get away with lying like that. but March 2005 is more than a year ago.

The weapons we not usable. Deulfer had reported on these and still concluded in his final report that there were no WMD's


The dishonesty of the poster is pathetic because clearly these cansiter are not the reason our brave men and women in uniform have died.

Secondly the presdient wasn't referring to cansiters of convenital weapons when making his case.

Third the white house would have gloted had they found legitimate WMD.

Fourth Colin Powell is on record saying the UN speech was a sham.

Fifth, other than fox news, no legitmate news source will say this.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

Most uniformed, and gulible people, "continue to ignore conclusive assertions of intelligence officials that the degraded chemical munitions found were not, in fact, in the category of "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was looking for at the time of the invasion. They also ignore the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) September 2004 final report (also known as the Duelfer report), which noted that degraded chemical munitions had already been found in Iraq, and that they were not proof of an existing chemical weapons stockpile or of a renewed Iraqi chemical weapons program. Indeed, former ISG head Charles Duelfer stated that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction, though they may still pose a local threat.


Maybe next time right..

PS Democrats were decieved into voting for the war, the white house present information contested by the CIA as fact...
go here truth seekers..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Answer 2

the book Saddam's Secrets also showed they had wmd weapons, it was by an Iraqi general after all, think he might know, but it was ignored by alot of people. Anyone else remember the old videos from the weapons inspectors when they would arrive that the front door of a place, and out the back a bunch of trucks would leave? it was all over the news many years ago, not that anyone can remember that long ago.

the antiwar stuff is more about political parties then it is about anything else, its all they have I guess, probably why they lost last time.

Answer 3

Please pass that crack pipe since you seem so keen on defending a pathological nutcase, Mr. Bush...The CIA, NSA, and the FBI told the White House(as well as the UN) that they will full of BS, don't go forward with this...

"the chemicals found were of less significance than what one might find under their kitchen sink"
USA Today

Stop mumbling about Liberals...the WHOLE system is shattered by internal levels of corruption by both parties local, state and federal levels.

Just cause? We were already in IRAQ monitoring
their any potential threats with F-16's cruising the country...and injustice is EVERYWHERE in the world...it's just the other places don't have the oil...how many bodies per gallon?


Hitler had his followers also...maybe you can join Mr. Bush in Crawford for a BBQ when the party is OVER Nov 2008(THANK GOD!) We can't get rid of this corporate serving deadwood soon enough!

Answer 4

Deulfer himself says that these weapons were left over from the weapons program of 91 and did'nt even work and could not be considered wmds. Maybe the reason "liberals" don't believe such things is because major news organisatons have done nothing to report these things, Hmm something that actually verifies the reason for the Iraq war, youd think that would be news worthy, booo boooo its the vast left wing conspiracy boooo

Answer 5

Check your sources next time! The Duelfer report is the exact report that proved Bush WAS wrong!

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."


The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel.

Answer 6

Dude, Bush and the administration DID lie. The weapons found were old artillery shells with chemical weapons such as mustard gas, yes, but what about mobile labs for biological weapons that Iraq was supposed to have? What about processing and storage facilities for these? And don't get me started on the nuclear claim!

The fact is, we were lied to about the justification for the invasion, and Bush & Company tried to cover themselves by claiming that we went in to "liberate the Iraqi people."

And what about all the innocent Iraqis that have been killed since we invaded? Do you just not care about those innocent people because they weren't Americans?

Answer 7

actually, there are no serious or real wmd found, and irregardless, saddam was working to destroy all of his wmd...
the only things we have found are evidence of this fact. We went into a war based on lies, and now we have fools like you spouting
nonsense propaganda to cover those lies, but its still all a batch
of evil fascist lies...and nothing we do in iraq will make the world a safer place for the usa.

Answer 8

The entire democratic leaders ( kerry Clinton etc. ) all voted for war on Iraq. They all said Saddam had WMD's because they all relied on the same sources from the CIA and voted with Bush to go to war.

Answer 9

The truth is that we sold or gave him those. Its a secret ssshhhhhh. They have USA printed on them, I have a friend that was in the group that found them. There were 2 spots that were as large a foot ball fields. The us provided him with the weapons.
How do you think a 220 year old country became so strong. we did some pretty crappy thing to other countries.

Answer 10

You're not exactly singing to the choir when you defend our president amongst most of the half-tards who respond to bare as*sed facts. These dip sticks will not allow themselves to accept the fact that the current administration was right, all along.

You are absolutely right in your assessment of the chain of events that took place and Saddams arrogance to the world at large.

It has been estimated that under Saddam's rule, over 300,000 people lost their lives. Obviously, he was no Joesph Stalin or Adolph Hitler, but who knows what would have transpired, if he were allowed to continue on.