Was everyone in the US including the US congress misled on facts before invading Iraq?

Answer 1

This is a tiring debate. Let's get the facts out first:
1. Intelligence agencies around the world reported presence of or intent to create WMDs
2. Iraq was bound to agreements following the cessation of hostilities from the Liberation of Kuwait, 1991.
3. Iraq (specifically Saddam Hussein) repeatedly ignored those obligations, including subsequent U.N. resolutions
4. The United States wants to have pro-Western stabilization in the Mid-East

If you want to speculate on possible untold truths as to why the United States spearheaded an invasion of Iraq besides those relating to the facts above, you should look no further than Iran. Sure, cheaper oil is great for America. But, if you didn't notice, the U.S. and it's allies did not TAKE the oil upon reaching the strategic goal of overthrowing the Hussein regime. Instead, the coalition instituted a democratic government of the Iraqi people, elected by them (not the U.S.) to take control of their country, including their oil. That should put the oil-conspiracy theorists to bed.

Back to Iran. The only plausible underhanded reason for going into Iraq that I can think of would be to influence another revolution in Iran. The United States would have rather invaded Iran over Iraq but clearly had little legal or moral means to do so in 2003. The theocratic regime, proven to have ties to terrorist organizations, spouts hate rhetoric toward the U.S. and its Western allies, namely Israel. A military incursion into that country would have been far more costly than in Iraq. Success would have meant obliterating the country, turning the citizens against the West, which is counter to the idea of getting rid of the regime in the first place. Instead, by instituting true democracy into it's neighbor and galvanizing a local presence in support, the United States was attempting to give a nod to the Iranian youth to stand up for freedom within their own borders and institute their own democracy at the cost of the right-wing Islamic theocracy at its head.

Doesn't that make much more sense than the idea of a U.S. President with a pitchfork in his hand dealing death and destruction to the globe so he can add more money to his checking account (which he could have done much easier by staying out of politics anyway)?

Think people....

Answer 2

Well, it appears that everyone - including Presidents Clinton and Bush 43, the UN, and the intelligence services of many nations (including the US) - all had it wrong with respect to WMDs in Iraq.

Either that or they were moved or hidden.

As far as the congress goes, I believe they received the same intelligence as the president. A report was also distributed to each person in congress, although many acknowledged later that they never read the report.

Answer 3

I for one was not, as were not millions of Americans who went out on the street to protest before the start of the Dictator Dumbya Big Lie Iraqi Crusade, but all too many Congress members were or PRETENDED to be fooled then. That Dumbya was intentionally deceptive is rock solid history. Larry Wilkerson, the guy who worked with Powell on the UN speech, recently said the war was a "hoax" on the American people on coast to coast TV. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 4

The Rev. Pat Robertson reported President Bush handed over his warning that u.s. could go through heavy casualties in Iraq and advised the television evangelist in simple terms before the beginning up of the conflict that "we are unlikely to have any casualties." on the outset of the Iraq conflict, the Bush administration predicted that it could fee $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, fix order and set up a sparkling government. Getting on the actual fee of the conflict is complicated. costs like a troop enhance have been paid from the backside protection budget, no longer conflict charges. the fees so some distance 5 years in, the Pentagon tags the fee of the Iraq conflict at variety of $six hundred billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the conflict, pegs the long-term fee at greater beneficial than $4 trillion. The Congressional budget place of work and different analysts say that $a million trillion to $2 trillion is greater real looking, relying on troop tiers and on how long the american profession maintains. different precise officers, collectively with Cheney and Rumsfeld, reported the conflict could final "weeks, no longer months." "i don't be attentive to the place bin encumbered is. I have not got any theory and unquestionably do no longer care. it is not that important. it is not our precedence." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 ...

Answer 5

It's silly to Monday-morning-quarterback on things like this. We have little overseas humint, a problem we've always had, and our intelligence estimates are always risky propositions. In this case, the risks were high, so the certainty level required for action was low. Sort of a parallel to the global warming debate, where the data are very skimpy, but the potential consequenses are so great that most people think something should be done.

Answer 6

The people were and will always be since they are just 'sheep' being led to slaughter. Congress knew all the details before hand and 99.5% voted for the War as well as the Patriot Act ! and 2.

Answer 7

The war in Iraq was for profits. Not only oil, but also military defense spending. Lockheed Martin, Gruman-Northrop, and other military defense firms needed money. Therefore, for miltary defense firms to get more money, the U.S. government must go to war. That is the only way these companies make money. The U.S. government will buy from them. Also, oil and Israel has a lot to do with this war. USA, what a country?

Answer 8

I see posted on Answers several times a day, liberals asking questions about President Bush having "lied" to the U.S. Both political parties need to remember that they shared the same information as President Bush, and also voted to go to war. It was a bi-partisan vote. I don't think we have been intentionally misled.. at least not by President Bush.

Answer 9

Yes, I don't know why our intelligent people got bad information, but I do feel they believed the information they received was correct. I feel it was also fueled by Saddam's uncooperative attitude. If he would have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to just do their job without harassment, evidence would have been questioned more.

The way Saddam acted made it appear he was hiding something. Most people that don't have anything to hide allow inspections without a fuss.

Edit: To those people who believe Saddam allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job you were fooled, since he didn't, he only allowed them to check places he knew didn't have any evidence against him. And he forcefully kept them out of other places.

Answer 10

People accuse Bush of lying when he had the same intelligence info as other world leaders. The info was about Iraq having WMDs.