because if he told the truth the dems would never have supported him......the notion that the dems supported this war is a farce. if i sell you my new mercedes for $2000, and not mention it was in twelve feet of water during katrina, will you still think you got a good deal?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afK9ohD02R7M&refer=home
2007-02-09 08:07:27 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
if it was clear that saddam didn't have anyway of attacking us the dems would not have voted to give authorization and we would be in this mess now.
2007-02-09 08:15:55 · answer #1 · answered by paul 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
First off the Intel did not come from GW. Second the Dems did support the war (approx 50% voted in the yea column). The report you show does give me reason to believe that not everyone was on the level and I am not discounting the report flat out but Saddam did have ties with terrorist that want to do harm to the US. Even Clinton had air raids conducted on terrorist training camps in Iraq (and rightly so) so to act as if there is no link is a bit dumb. As the war was declared against terrorist it stands to reason that you would take out the governments through out the world that support and hide them.
2007-02-09 08:24:09 · answer #2 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
undesirable sufficient some were brainwashed by potential of propaganda to bliee that Saddam had WMDs even as many did not. and we went ahead and began an unlawful conflict depending upon a %. of filthy lies that has considered the slaughter of over 3 hundred,000 harmless Iraqi men women human beings persons and young children and 1000's persons squaddies. Nowmbecuase some conflict mongers right here opt for a conflict with Syria ,they ae spewing this crap .Syria has for an exceptionally very lengthy time period been complication-free to have that's amazingly personal WMDs (chemical/organic and organic and organic and organic) bypass practice your self previously passing in this tripe except of route you've some monetary pastimes in seeing a conflict with Syria as many right here idea about Iraq and performance made fortunes of human beings's miseries
2016-11-26 19:49:19 · answer #3 · answered by corral 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush presented the evidence that was provided to him. It's the same evidence that the rest of the world leaders saw and everyone thought that Saddam was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, a lot of them decided to sit on their hands and let the US and it's coalition stop him. I firmly believe that if all of the free world had supported the US, the situation would be different today. Hopefully that's what will happen when it's time to after Iran.
2007-02-09 08:17:53 · answer #4 · answered by Walter D 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Again, you are not looking at all of the facts. Bush, along with every major intelligence organization I the free world believed Saddam either had weapons of mass destruction or was attempting to get them. His attempts have been documented but no weapons found.
More importantly, many congressional Democrats and Bill Clinton himself indicated that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, long before W was even in office. The difference is that Clinton did not have the guts to anything but talk about it.
While it is possible that we went to Iraq based on some inaccurate information, it was inaccurate information shared by the previous Democratic administration and intelligence services all over the world.
If you don't like Bush, that is fine! I have my own problems with him but the fact that he had the guts to carry out a mission that the liberals before him agreed was needed is not a basis for your disapproval. Don't be a sheep of your party!
2007-02-09 08:16:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's been said before, but apparently it must be said again.
EVERY single Democrat between 1991 and 2003 said the exact same things Bush said. The vote to use force was UNANIMOUS.
If you disagree with the war, you are entitled to your opinion. But trying to say that Democrats are somehow innocent and Republicans are to blame is a total distortion of reality. You can't blame one without the other.
YOU are what's wrong with America. You ignore all facts and reality to try to make your party look good, and the other party look bad. You'd rather follow your party straight to Hell than ever say a bad thing about them. Try putting your country ahead of your party before you drag the rest of us down with your idiocy.
2007-02-09 08:24:11 · answer #6 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah makes you wonder why he'd act upon sketchy intelligence, yet, when there was so much intel given before 9/11, nothing was done. Funny how people work, isn't it? Then again maybe what's really funny is how we know nothing about the people who are really pulling the stings in this world, and we don't care.
2007-02-09 08:21:07 · answer #7 · answered by broham85 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither the Dems, the voting public NOR some Republicans would have let him go into Iraq if he hadn't cooked the intel.
Biggsey, Bush kept bringing up the fact that Hussein was attempting to purchase Niger uranium. This intel came from one source (a man not too well trusted for his information), and was unverified by anyone. The Brits discarded the info as bogus. Bush and Cheney seized on this ONE piece of intel like it was all the proof they needed against Hussein. The CIA and thge FBI both looked at this intelligence and correctly determined it to be false (as the whole world now knows). Bush abd Cheney actually started a whole new department of intelligence service, whose sole purpose was to put this bogus intl back into the stream, to give Bush and Cheney the justification they needed to go into Iraq.
Morons in here keep trying to draw equals signs between 9/11 and Iraq. I dont care how much frosting you put on a dog turd, it will NEVER be a cupcake. Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept 11. (and the whole world knows that too - well except for the Neos in denial).
So what we have in the White House is a big fat liar and a murderer (oh and a convicted felon and a Deserter in a time of war)
2007-02-09 08:13:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
Hey Lop head the question you should have asked is why did sandy berger steal secrets to cover for your boy clinton and how come the clinton administration did not provide all the correct info. But you can't think this way because you are a knee jerk liberal
2007-02-09 08:28:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
given the example,you would be WITHHOLDING information on your car.don't forget-it's your car,ace.
everyone reacted to the information which was available not only the U.S.,but internationally.do you really think that all the members of Congress who voted for the war,did not verify the intelligence?
please!
2007-02-09 08:25:51 · answer #10 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're in denial. The Democrats are as imperialistic as the Republicans. Every pig in Washington wanted this war, so the CIA just made up the necessary lies and everyone signed off.
It was a total nod-and-wink all the way.
2007-02-09 08:15:39 · answer #11 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋