Anything is possible.
2006-08-04 17:19:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by G. M. 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Only in that this Administration already had the "Mind-Set" of War with Iraq and nothing was going to stop them.
My Problem is 2 fold:
1. We took our focus off of Osama and he's still pulling the terrorist strings.
2. We Muzzled our very own Middle East Pit bull (Saddam) and now look at the mess we are in!!!
Bush #1 was a far better leader than #2. And Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar while Bush is a (I'm being generous here) C+ student. The Religious Right thinks they have the Moral High Ground but what they actually have is the Intellectual equivalent to a Organ Grinder and his Monkey LOL 8-)
2006-08-05 00:35:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by TommyTrouble 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok, the other people who have answered this question so far are idiots. Enjoy the short bus ride to the zoo, maybe they'll let you ride the elephants today.
To answer the question, it's possible, but unlikely. The basis for the decision to invade Iraq was based on many many factors. WMD only being one of them, as administration policy since the 91 Gulf War (Three different Administrations) had been REGIME CHANGE in Iraq.
Please remember that the information on the WMD in iraq came from many many sources, and other countries had developed I.E.'s (intelligence estimates) giving Iraq both similar stockpiles and the ability to produce more WMD's. Here's a brief education on Intelligence Estimates. About 90% of them are wrong. They are essentially educated guesses given various forms of information which are attempted to be verified by independent sources. It can't always be done, because the information is usually closely guarded (classified, state secret, etc.). INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES CANNOT BE LIES. They can be wrong but they cannot be a LIE. How do you lie in an educated guess? It's a retorical question, becaue you can't do it. Considering our primary source for the quantity of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD came from Saddam himself, from his declarations after the Gulf War in 92. This was the reason the December 7th declaration was pretty much lauged at by everyone who read it, everyone knew it was a lie.
Why couldn't Saddam prove he destroyed his WMD?
2006-08-05 00:39:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by trc_6111 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why is it that 95% of Americans are figuring this out now? I could have told you that! (Actually I did, since I posted heavily on message boards AGAINST the war in Iraq BEFORE going).
Why would a man who manipulated not one, but two major elections, and milked (some suggest even caused by omission) the 9/11 cow for all its worth politically, not lie to us about the reasons for going to war. This man was itching to go to war and this was obvious from the time he was Texas Governor.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but this is something that only an idiot wouldn't have seen coming.
2006-08-05 00:23:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by imagineworldwide 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why don't you take a few seconds of your life and see what Politicians in BOTH Parties said about Saddam BEFORE the War and his WMD's. I'll go one step further and say Bill Clinton Believed Saddam had WMD's in 98 That would be why he launched TomaHawk Cruise missles into Iraq. He Believed Saddam had WMD's Before the Iraq War And so did MANY other LIBS. Look it up if you DARE there words are Clearly out there.
2006-08-05 00:35:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you serious? We know they lied! The smart ones knew at the time, I thought the rest had caught up by now! And supporting our troops has nothing to do with supporting the war.
2006-08-05 00:19:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Naomi P 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, we were viciously attacked by idiotic Islamo-facists who do not care about any human life, not even their own. If lies were told, they were told by Democrats and Republicans alike.... they all said the same thing, but the Democrats would like you to think they didn't...... lotsa BS, they were caught on tape..... then they said they were lied to.... more BS..... the info came from data gathered while Clinton was in orifice.... errr, uh, office.
Clinton lied, that we know for sure.
The way the Iraqis are behaving today, carpet bombing is in order. They do not deserve a free democratic country..... they will not fight for it.... I am beginning to believe that Iraq NEEDS to be split up three ways, Sunni, Shite, Kurd...... no oil for Shites or Sunnis or Kurds, all oil profits go to the USA to cover the cost of trying to help the infidels of Iraq.
2006-08-05 00:42:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have been lied to from the start.
From before the start, actually, Bush had plans to invade Iraq and avenge his daddy long before 9/11.
2006-08-05 00:20:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by ratboy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is it possible? Where have you been the last few years? It is an absolute fact that we were conned into believing that there were WMD in Iraq - and surprise, surprise - none have ever been found - not even the tiniest trace
2006-08-05 00:21:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by litch 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is it possible we were lied to? Is this a rhetorical question? Yes- is my answer. Remember who's in charge and think about your question. You know the answer.
2006-08-05 00:21:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by It's Ms. Fusion if you're Nasty! 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
And Clinton didn't inhale or have sexual relations with that woman. And Al Gore invented the internet. Name one politician who hasn't lied.
2006-08-05 00:25:31
·
answer #11
·
answered by Emm 6
·
0⤊
0⤋