Why do most people think we went into Iraq only because of WMDs?

Question

I watch the news a lot - I watched all the president's speeches. I don't like how Bush presents himself, and I think he's got a lot of things wrong in his head, but going into Iraq makes a lot of sense when you're looking IN GENERAL for terrorists. I don't think Bush claimed ONCE that Iraq had anything to do with Al Qeida or was in any way affiliated with 9/11. I watched every speech, and he didn't claim that they were connected. He DID say though, that Saddam is a power capable of such acts, and can't be allowed to rule the state when he does not comply with UN resolutions to ensure that he is not plotting terrorism, storing ANY weapons, building an army... etc. These were all in the UN resolution written post Iraq War I, and for about 4 years Saddam didn't comply - So after your country gets hit like that on 9/11, wouldn't it be more insane to NOT go after Saddam than to sit and wait for him to comply? It's a pretty easy defense for going into Iraq, but no one understands...

Answer 1

I totally agree with you. What people also don't understand is that Iraq is a fairly good sized country and finding several missiles and such isn't an easy task. It's harder than finding a needle in a haystack. For all we know Saddam could have thrown a dart at a map and buried them out in the middle of the desert(if he hid them in Iraq at all). Just because we haven't found any yet doesn't mean they are not there either. That's like saying "Well, we haven't found a cure for cancer so that must mean there isn't one. Now lets' go criticize everyone that looked for it."

Answer 2

I think a lot of people understood why we attacked Iraq. #1 Saddam was not complying with the weapons inspection program so we couldn't be sure he wasn't building weapons of mass destruction, we knew he had some that had not been destroyed. (There were materials inventoried by previous inspections that just disappeared, and there was no record of them being destroyed).

After 9/11 it was clear we just couldn't take the chance that he would supply terrorist with chemical, or biological weapons or if he ever got nuclear weapons maybe those as well.

It is well documented he had contact with terrorist groups, mainly Hamas and the Iraq government paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000. Thus he was a state sponser of terrorism. Although I don't know of anyone that thinks he had anything to do with the 9/11 attack itself.

This nation building nonsense is what is known as mission creep. The mission was to dispose Saddam, that mission was accomplished. Somebody got the idea that we could change the face of the middle east if a Rule of law, type republic could be established in Iraq. That may be a bridge too far. I say let the Iraqis work it out for themselves.

If they made me ruler of the world tomorrow. We'd tell the Iraqis you are on your own. If you wind up with another dicator that threatens us. We'll be back and it will be worse than anything you've seen so far. Then we'd load up and head home, or to Iran.

Answer 3

Your about as uninformed as anybody I have ever seen. Bush said on national t.v that a czech spy met with someone from Al-Qaeda and claimed that Saddam was having meetings with Al-Qaeda members. Of course we later found out that this information was incorrect, but Bush said it.

This is another famous quote that Cheney and Bush have used. Iraq is the Geographical base for Al-Qaeda who have has us under assault for many years, especially on 9/11. September 21, 2001.

Bush said on NPR's morning edition. There is overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. January 22, 2004.

C.I.A director George Tenant tried telling Bush that Saddam doesn't have WMD's. Richard Clark then told Bush the same thing, Bush then tells Clark "I don't care, we are going in".

And Saddam hated Bin Laden and Bin Laden hated Saddam. In fact there was a time when we thought those two might tangle.

Halliburton got a no-bid contract for Iraq. Dick Cheney has investments in Halliburton. He has made 8 million dollars in profits since the Iraq war from Halliburton. George Bush gave a no-bid fire fighting contract to a firm he has investments in. The Carlyle group recieved contracts for Iraq, George Bush and the BIN LADEN family have investments in the Carlyle group.

And don't you think we should have went after the person responsible for 9/11. In case you forgot his name is BIN LADEN. Instead Bush goes after Saddam. That's like your Uncle beats up your Mom so you go after your Neighbor.

I think this question back fired on you sweetheart, I understand sticking up for Bush by trying to convince people Iraq was a good idea, but nobody's buying it.

By the way if the Iraq war is such a good idea HOW COME YOUR NOT OVER THERE HELPING WITH THE CAUSE!!

Answer 4

Wow - first, W did not say there were wmd in Iraq but he danced around it in such a way that most listeners would take that to be his meaning. (don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, remember??) Likewise he didn't say Hussein was connected to 9/11 but they tried to establish all these connections (al qaeda guy went to nation x at the same time as Iraqi guy, you know the kind of thing) so listeners would make the leap without him ever saying it. So don't go defending the administration on that score, it just doesn't hold water.

On the UN resolution, we absolutely should not have gone in to Iraq unilaterally on that basis alone, because violating a UN resolution means the UN should go, not us alone.

Come up with real reasons to defend your position, don't just try to justify the lame arguments that were originally used!

Answer 5

I don't think that is a defense at all. Bush knew he had no WMD's, he knew there was no yellow cake, he knew Saddam and Osama disagree on almost everything, Iraq also wasn't involved in 9/11, and Bush knew that!

As far as the resolutions, you can't say you attacked a country based on non compliance when you can't prove he isn't, and Hans Blix put an end to that! Moreover, you need approval from the UN Security Counsel which Bush knew his action would be vetoed! That's why he skirted it and went at it, illegally, alone!

That is also why he will be charged as a war criminal once his term is up!

Answer 6

7 Nov 2002 During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: "Some people say, 'Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.' Well, if we don't do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we're going to deal with him."

8 Feb 2003 During a radio address, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

17 Jun 2004 President Bush attempts to deflect the WMD issue: "I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. "

You obviously missed a few speeches.

Why are we the worlds policeman? If Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, that was the UN's problem. Israel is in violation of over 20 UN resolutions. Should we unilaterally attack them, too?

Answer 7

You are living in a dream world. The administration tied Iraq to terrorism, WMD and 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with any of those things when we invaded them. Bush said or insinuated these things himself, but more importantly his administration said them over and over again: Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they had no WMD's no WMD programs, no nuclear program. They were not working with terrorists. They would never give WMD's to terrorists because they would use them on Iraq! They were actively fighting terrorists.

They had complied with all of the UN orders. They just couldn't turn over things that they did not have. After years of occupation we have never found the things that Bush claimed that they failed to turn over.

Iraq was begging for the weapons inspectors to inspect whatever they wanted, but Bush kicked them out so that they wouldn't get hit by our bombs.

Iraq was a toothless enemy that couldn't do anything to the United States except bleed on them.

For all those people that have been brainwashed by Faux News into thinking that we found WMD in Iraq, WE DID NOT! No nuclear weapons have ever been found. No biological weapons have ever been found. No chemical weapons have ever been found that were in any shape to be called a weapon. Some old, forgotten shells were found that contained some chemical agents, but they were so old that they could never be used again. They were chemicals, but they were not weapons.

If you think a box of useless shells justifies all the death, destruction and new terrorists that we have created, you need to think again.

Answer 8

Do you remember the speech of Collin Powell at the UN where he showed a supposed weapon mass of destruction that Iraq was supposed to have in important quantity?

"that Saddam is a power capable of such acts, and can't be allowed to rule the state when he does not comply with UN resolutions to ensure that he is not plotting terrorism, storing ANY weapons, building an army.."

So now please tell me when Your army is going to invade all the countris capable of such acts, like north korea, pakistan, Iran, syria, Lybia...?
I would like to know because I would want to sell my stock in time and then to buy shares so I can make a lot of money like a lot of yours right wing conservative leaders did....

Answer 9

I recall watching several such speeches by both Bush and Rumsfeld in 2001 and 2002. Both linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda and swearing up and down not only that Saddam had WMDs, but that the US forces knew exactly where they were.

The stories change over time. But why we went to Iraq is irrelevant. We did. And the main reason was to topple Saddam's regime. We did. Bush announced "Mission Accomplished". We did.

The question many people are asking is, what are we still doing there.

Answer 10

One of the reasons he cited was that Iraq had the materials to produce WMD. That's why they looked so hard for them and made a big deal about it. It was a pretext for Bush to go to war. I truly believe that he would have done so anyway without 911. 911 just provided him an excuse to go in.