Why do Bush defenders, think Bush unwittingly used faulty intelligence?

Question

Im sorry but do you guys really believe he didnt know Saddam did not have WMDs? We did give them to him more than twenty years ago. Do you really think Saddam Hussein was a threat to America? I mean you seriously honestly without laughing believe that? Did you forget that at the time of the decision to go to war, they had so brainwashed people, that you either voted for the war or they branded you a traitor who sympathized for the terrorists? But seriously I mean do you honestly believe that Bush did not know that he was presenting faulty intelligence for the case for war with Iraq?

Ok so you guys who back Bush are still drinking the kool aid? Since Bush stole the first election I have hated him, even before when he was running, I researched and looked into him and decided he was a bad guy.After 9-11 it became a horrible thing to badmouth Bush for along time, So I would just like to say that Im really happy to see that more and more people are waking up to what kind of administration this is.Its really nice to see people looking outside our government controlled media for their information and using their brains to put two and two together.

Oh and thirdly, Did you forget that we were the ones who kept Hussein in power over 25 years ago? Or did you conveniently forget that part? We gave him any WMDs he might have had.

Answer 1

They want to believe that he used faulty intelligence, because they cannot admit that they voted for a criminal who has nothing but the goals of the PNAC as priority. If they would admit that Bush is wrong, they would admit they are losers and that they are also to blame for the death of thousands of American sons and daughters in a war for oil.

Admission will never come. In order to do so the redneck Bush sheep would have to open their eyes and see the injustice their idol commits, but that is impossible, because they are hiding under a mountain of bibles.

Answer 2

So much idiocy, so many lies in one 'question'.

1) Nobody knew if Saddam had WMD or not. He'd failed to prove he'd destroyed all the WMD he already had. He had also not dismantled his WMD production facilities, and he had maintained WMD-capable missiles, both contrary to the resolutions. When it comes to military intelligence, if you don't know, then you have to assume a worst-case.

2) Bush had the same info that everyone else did. Why did the info that Clinton had based all his actions on, including sustained bombing attacks on Iraq, all of a sudden become 'unbelievable' when Bush took office?

3) Was Saddam a threat to the US? Not directly, no. But they retained capability and raw materials to make WMD, they had a long association with al Qaeda and were supporters of terrorism, and were a destabilizing presence in the ME. As for WMD, as Bush said years ago, when the threat becomes imminent, then it is too late.

4) We did not give Saddam WMD. That's just a propagandist lie to fool the gullible... and I suppose it worked.

Answer 3

It's possible that he didn't know. The more important truth is that he didn't care. This administration came into office itching to go after Saddam, and they were inclined to use any evidence they could, no matter how flimsy. "True believers" like Bush and his cohort tend to view information through the lens of their own biases. Thus, the thin intelligence that said Saddam had WMDs was viewed as Gospel truth, while any evidence to the contrary was dismissed as false and the messengers were attacked. (See Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame)
When you want something badly enough, facts become irrelevant in the face of a biased view of the "truth."

Answer 4

they think of it is going to help them win elections. can not say it greater efficient than this guy: "the incentive ..... to tell such glaring lies is basic. they're attempting to reclaim the positioned up 9/11 “glory days” of the Republican occasion. the point is to cajole the yankee people that throughout user-friendly terms Republicans can save them secure, and while a historic certainty like the date of 9/11 stressful circumstances their claims, then they rewrite historic previous to blame invoice Clinton for 9/11. The Republicans are nevertheless treating the yankee people like they're finished idiots. all people is conscious that Bush substitute into president throughout 9/11. Their pathetic attempt to alter the information ought to be an insult to each American. This contemporary super lie of the surprising is a shallow attempt to restore the politics of worry that carried the GOP to victory in 2002 and 2004." Jason Easley EdIt: and then they lie approximately announcing there have been no assaults. Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino it reported final November. Rudy Guiliani reported it final Friday on ABC information. Mary Matalin reported it on Sunday. analyzing the righties spinning this could be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic. No none of those people reported "after 9/11". Guiliani reported that the underpants bomber substitute into an act of relatives terrorism, meaning on American soil or in American airspace. you may locate any of those on video. and that they say liberals have a topic with information! The costs weren't taken out of context. seem on the video clips!

Answer 5

FIrst off, you ignore like the liberal media, the scientist who stated on public tv that Syria was now the proud owner of almost all of those " WMD's". You know, the ones banned by the UN! That group that couldnt fight its way out of a wet paper sack and not worth the powder and lead to blow them to Hello!!!

You beleive what youwant, but sometimes CNN and fox mess up. Why would you have a dozen 55 gallon drums of a strong pesticide, and empty chemical shells if you werent going to fill them and fire them?? Oh, I forgot, thats the new liberal way to control insects in the fields. My bad.

Answer 6

The invasion was planned BEFORE "9-11".
The Dumbya Coup had a neo-con wet dream of seizing assets and global strategic advantage, with the addition that their proxies (Halliburton et al) could loot from the American Treasury, and for that, the presumption was that the locals would be grateful for empty bags of "democracy". This is not unlike the myth that historically propelled the seizure of native American land in the USA. The problem for Dumbya is now the "natives" now have near state of the art weapons... AKs are arguably equal to or better than the M-16, ect... and tactics to resist.

Answer 7

Anyone thinking

1-Bush "bungled" intelligence or was "misinformed" Yep. Nixon was misinformed too and had no idea.

2.-Saddam had massive quantities of WMD's that were threatening the U.S.A. with annihilation.

is a complete nutcase, or just wants to support his or her "party" regardless of common sense.

This is the same nonsense that always drags a nations people into wars of coprorate opportunity.

Google famous Marine Corps General Smedley Butler and his retirement speech when he spoke plainly about it.

Answer 8

I don't like either party; in fact, I hate both, but I'm going to say he may not have known, simply through the chain of command thing. Look, if you're the head person of a company, you don't know all the little details. You don't look the information up. You don't generate the reports. You get your peons to do it, and they bring it to you all snazzed up. It is possible that he got information that was faulty without knowing it because of a biased opinion organizing that information. He told a cabinet member to make him a report, who in turn talked their assistant, who passed it down to a low-level worker who happened to have a gift for numbers, but wanted to make a splash, and they slapped something together and handed it back up the chain of command. It works like that everywhere else; why not the White House?

Answer 9

Two words. Dick Cheney

You conveniently forget that Bush made up his mind right after Stolen Election 1 to attack Iraq (illegally). You also disingenuously neglect to mention the separate intelligence unit that Cheney established in the Pentagon to filter out anything mitigating against attacking Iraq.

Blaming the CIA only crushes the morale of civilians sworn to protect US. It also removes a civilian check and balance against a Military ready to gorge at the trough of civil rights.
--------------

The only WMDs he had were stale leftovers from the early 90s which military weapons experts said were no longer usable. In other words, the sanctions had worked, and he was contained.

Answer 10

Do you honestly believe that Saddam did not violate the terms of Cease-Fire.....???? Do you honestly believe that violating cease-fire agreements does not justify the continuation of aggressions??

Do you honestly believe there were no WoMD components found? Do you honestly believe that WoMD components were not ushered out thru Syria???

yet again.......
Found in Iraq:

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

################

So the further truth comes out.. You have "always" hated Bush... Bush "Stole" the election.... once again... you ask who is drinking the kool aid, all the while you are chugging the liberal kool aid like a desert weary traveler who has not seen water in 3 weeks....

The question is not about the truth or the facts behind it, and the willingness to find out... it is just another chance for one like you to Bush or Rep bash without actual foundation