How can Bush say there WERE NO WMD just because we did not find any WMD in IRAQ? That means NOTHING!!?

Question

For awhile, I was unsure as to whether or not president Bush had actually stated that their “were no WMD”; the idea that the PRESIDENT of all people would actually make such a foolish assumption when I in my own judgement could see how ridiculous it was was frankly a little more than I could fathom. I didn’t want to believe it, and yet somehow I knew it to be true, as I was hearing the prognosis being repeated so many times by others. Then I saw the 60 Minutes interview that was done with the president, and I realized that not only had he said there “were no WMD’, but he was actually affirming the fact that he had done so. Now maybe I am just paranoid, but just because no WMD were found in IRAQ by NO means indicates that the WMD could not currently be somewhere ELSE.(Continued in "additional details" (see below))

Think about it. The Iraqi government, formerly headed by the late Saddam Hussein, obviously knew that weapons inspectors were coming to Iraq to search for WMD, as it was all over the news at the time. Obviously the Iraqi government was not going to just LEAVE the WMD in Iraq to be found by the weapons inspectors. So what do you think the Iraqi government did? Bingo. They obviously moved the WMD OUT of Iraq and into another country, most likely neighboring Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. THAT is why the WMD were not found in Iraq: because they were obviously no longer IN Iraq when the weapons inspectors arrived to look for them, NOT because there “were no WMD.” For Bush, or anyone else to believe that there “are no WMD” when they could so obviously still be harbored in another country is another one of this war’s foolish and deadly mistakes.

Answer 1

Sure. Let's keep invading countries and blame the intelligence agencies when we can't find them again, huh?

Some of that pro-war intelligence was faked and no-one was held accountable for it. Yes it does mean everything, it means the united states believes in guilty unless proven innocent, and even if you are proven innocent you're still guilty

Answer 2

That is a very faulty logic. People assume that all the weapons of mass destructions can be carried in a small suitcase. If he had MWD he could gotten rid of them but there would be some trails that would reveal at least some of them. Don't think for a moment that we do not spy on these people. A massive move like that could had been detected by satelite or spys.

The other fault in the argument is the friendly neighbor theory. Asnwer me this. If you knew the cops where coming to your house, will you give all your drugs and weapons to your neighbor. Hells no. Especially when that neighbor don't like you. The only thing that Iraq have in common with the other middle eastern countries is that all of them are located in the middle east. They don't get along. Sadamn controlled the religion in his country. Iran is a very religious country. their goverment is base on religion. Then we also had the Iran Iraq conflict. All those countries don't like each other.

Ok, so what if he had the weapons at one point. The guy is dead. His sons are dead. Most of the people in his government are dead or in jail.

You should not accused people without evidence. There have been experts that are very eager to find these weapons both from the U.S. and some other countries. They have all agreed that they had no such weapons. What makes you think that simpletons like you and me can crack the case. What is going to happen if we where to invade syria base on false accusations. Then what will happen when we do not find anything. What are we going to do then, keep invading countries until we find something?

Another thing that people overlook is the paper trail. There have to be someone or some evidence that the weapons where there. Someone who knows would had spoken by now especially since the guy was an abusive bastard.

The only reason people keep thinking about the WMDs is because we always consider ourselves to be the good guys. It is hard to accept that we ****** up. We rushed the gun and now we are paying the price.

Answer 3

One thing everybody forgets . . . we most likely watched them move the WMD's via satellite. (we know he had them just by the fact that he gassed his own people and BTW was hanged for that, thank you!)

But the President can not come on 60 minutes or anywhere public and say that . . . they could be trying to trick them into believing that we don't know.

The 'good ole boy' has always tricked everyone into thinking that he doesn't know "it" (what ever it is) and they have always been wrong about GW! The enemy is certain that he will kick their butt . . . it is too bad the Democrats won't come along.

Answer 4

would not america have WMD's? in my view, i think of that WMD's are extra risky contained in the palms of George Bush than it grow to be in Iraq's or Iran's palms for that rely.. What, in basic terms reason I stay in a Western united states of america i'm hastily secure from an attack from the U.S? Piss of the states and that i'm particular Howard and the rest everybody is gonna get it... hehe.. My 2 cents...

Answer 5

True True & True...Why didn't we go after North Korea..They really do have those weapons