You know, those "weapons of mass destruction"
Bush just likes seeing Americans and Iraqis die?
2006-11-15 05:43:21 · 13 answers · asked by Greg S 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That was only the first reason for going to war. Then it was to remove Saddam, then it was to liberate Iraq, and then it was to spread democracy in the middle east. He keeps changing the reasons to look like he knew what he was doing all along. And he did all this because he can. People will follow him and believe him no matter what. Why should he tell the truth when people keep believing his lies. There are still lots of people who will say that we did find WMDs. People don't realize there are differences between the WMDs in the 80s, the WMDs during Clinton, and the WMDs we went to war for.
2006-11-15 05:47:14 · answer #1 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Because he knew that the real reason (ideology - google "Project for a New American Century) would be illegal under both International law and US Law.
By playing the WMD issue up and making out there was a threat, he could claim self-defence and get backing for the war. Most intelligence agencies at the time were saying that any WMDs Iraq had were either destroyed in the early 1990s, so old they were non-functional, or strictly for use on the battlefield (shells etc) and only a threat if Iraq was invaded. As it turns out, there haven't been any found at all.
Contrary to what some say, the primary reason wasn't oil (although it did play a role), but rather the ideology of maintaining sole American military dominance into the new century.
2006-11-15 13:48:08 · answer #2 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
From following all reports and trying to make sense of them over the last 5 years, I have come to the conclusion, as have many, many Americans that he knew the intel was bad when he went into Iraq. Why didn't he pull the plug? I think for a few reasons, not the least of which was finishing the job his father started and left hanging. Another reason could be simply because his ego couldn't take admitting he was taken in by bad intel. He's never been able to admit he was wrong about anything, that we know already. For me, it really does hinge on that fine line of what he knew and when he knew it. After seeing him in action over the last six years it's become clear his arrogance takes precedence over anything resembling intelligence.
2006-11-15 14:08:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Bush lied" makes a great poster, but even European Intelligence Agencies said WMD's were a slam dunk case. He was just looking for a reason to go in because he thought a Democratic Iraq would cause other oppressive Middle Eastern nations to fall. The WMD's were just the reason he used to go in, which turned out to not be a reason. He should of just said... I am going in because Saddam is war criminal. People at the time would have supported it. Then no one could really say he lied.
2006-11-15 13:54:07 · answer #4 · answered by JP 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would say he did not actually lie, he actually did not know the truth. He should have spent more time finding out what the actual situation was. If the underlying hostility we find today was there, he should have found a way to exploit it and toppled the government that way.
2006-11-15 14:24:29 · answer #5 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus people when are you going to let that "lie" crap rest?
He made the best decision possible based on all available intelligence at the time. Let us not forget ALL of America was screaming for retribution after 9/11...
If Bush, Jr. would have pulled an ostrich, and buried his head in the sand, like his predecessor, we would be fending off terrorist attacks with some regularity. THIS IS WHAT TERRORISTS DO PEOPLE!!! They TERRORIZE everyone who does not share the same faith and belief system!!! This action was inevitable, and better it be on foreign soil than in our backyards like during the Civil War.....
2006-11-15 13:59:34 · answer #6 · answered by CrazyCatLady 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
For the same reason he lied about "withdrawing troops from Bosnia & Kosovo once being elected as president and taking office". He is a lier, simple as that.
2006-11-15 13:50:35 · answer #7 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
because in his politics the conclusion of a job is important, not the way he reaches to the conclusion. (even if plenty people die)
2006-11-15 13:54:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush has no idea than the rest of us, his puppet string was pulled and his reaction to the money directors took over.
2006-11-15 13:48:48 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
When did he lie he was told the weapons were there even by Clinton,
why are you so lacking in knowledge to ask a untruthful question?
2006-11-15 13:46:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋