Why do Bush supporter claim "everyone thought Saddam had WMD"?

Question

And then only quote the CIA? The CIA is quite capable of making up lies "in the national interest". The British Security Services are quite capable of colluding with them, especially when they are about to collude on an invasion of Iraq because of those lies. Oh, and the Israelis thought so too??? You don't say?

But I never read anything claiming the French, German, Russian, etc. intelligence services thought he had WMD.

In other words, nobody thought he had WMD. But a few countries SAID he had WMD.

leogirl, "dig deeper" is not really an answer to the question.

C=JD, Democrats said so because the CIA said so. The UN looked for them because the US demanded the UN look for them. All roads lead back to the CIA.

Dr. Shapiro, as someone who continues to hope that your government lies to you, you are a perfect fascist.

bopoppa, here is your chance to enlighten me with an alternative perspective. So far I haven't gotten one with any evidence attached to it.

bopoppa, I'll listen to any reputable journalistic source or an international agency. If you are right, you should have a lot to choose from.

Answer 1

Actually, the Russians did give intelligence that concurred with the Israelis and the British. My question to you is what has German, French, and Russian intelligence done in the last 70 years or so that would make them anymore reliable than ours? I guess the French and Chinese are more reliable because they didn't have billions of dollars invested into Iraq. Oil for food scandal mean anything to you. Or it must be that everyone except the U.S. and Brits are honorable. You are not looking for an answer, you are just letting everyone know how you feel about it. In other words, nothing anyone says here will change your mind on the subject as you are a subject expert due to your extensive knowledge of liberal blogs and websites. Good job, you are a real intellect. There will be someone along shortly to tell you what to believe next.

I've wasted more than a little time trying to convince people like you. I don't agree with this war and I served over there for a year. You know the facts, you just decide to pick the ones that fit your agenda. If I give you sources you will just say they are not trustworthy or that the source is collaberating. Nothing will change your mind. Again, you don't want answer, you just want to state your thoughts on the subject.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187796,00.html

The first is an official assessment, but it painful to read. Of course it comes from our govt. so you probably won't consider it to be a viable source. Now there are many, many, many articles out there that report parts of this report, but just parts. The second is a talking points from O'Reilly. Now I wouldn't take it as the gospel either, but what I was trying to do is give you the link to the article in the NYT. However, as I have to pay for this thing, I'm not THAT into proving this. Hope you can follow the link and maybe you have an account with the Times. I tried to find two sources that you might trust. The dems did sign off on the report by the way. Now I am done here. Thanks for the rapport.

Answer 2

Actually, they wanted inspections and Saddam kept putting them off and denying inspectors access. When inspectors finally got in there (after 8 long years of Clinton's spending more time chasing skanks than leading this country) of course they were gone. If they were ever there or not; don't know and don't really care. Saddam had ignored sanctions and defied the UN for so long it was nothing but a game with him. It was time for him to be removed from power. FYI the UN is the biggest drain on the US and serves no purpose for our country. They are impotent and the leaders of the world know it. Idiots claim the French were against us going into Iraq and in fact they were. Until we had subdued the Iraqi military. Then they started complaining that they wanted their share of the oil rights. Try telling whole stories instead of the Dem spin.

Answer 3

The French were in Saddam's pocket as were the Chinese. The UN believed that Saddam had WMDs. There were 25 or so different intelligence agencies who also reported that he had them. Even the CIA and FBI under Clinton held the same opinion. Arguing this is really not relevant any more because this is all behind us and it doesn't matter if it was all a lie because Bush will leave office next election. What does matter is that the war is won and the country moves forward with a little more insight into how to beat terrorism.

Answer 4

As usual, you're uninformed about a topic, but that doesn't stop you from spreading your opinions.

Major members of the Democratic Party were convinced that Saddam had WMDs.

The U.N. was convinced Saddam had them. They sent teams to search for them for 12 years.

Re the French, Germans, and Russians, they had long term billion dollar oil deals with Saddam which would be worthless if Saddam was deposed.

______________

So you concede that Dems did in fact believe that WMDs existed? Thank you.

Regardless of what the CIA said, wrote, or thought, Dems were not forced to say the things they said. Your apologies for Dems' own words makes you look silly.

Also your assertion that the CIA "is quite capable of making up lies" is unsupported. Even if true, anyone can lie about anything! It hardly follows that Dems are not responsible for their public statements.

Also, labeling people "fascist" makes it clear that you're losing the argument.

Answer 5

You need to do some research regarding the input from the French, Russian, German and Israeli intelligence estimates at the time. You might try Google...or even Yahoo.

And, thank you for your enlightened, illuminating and unbiased contribution to the national dialogue.

Answer 6

He does have WMD (well someone has the ones he had).

They are buried in a hole (like the one we found Saddam in) in a Country the size of California.

And because it is almost impossible to find them, you cant prove they don't exist, and I cant prove they do.
But like a Democrat that hides her pot from his parents. Just because you cant find the contra-ban don't mean it ain't there.
And Sir Braindead, If the Cia is making up lies in the "National Interest" I hope they continue to lie.

Answer 7

Obviously, your answers have listed numerous sources other than the CIA - I'd just like to add that Saddam's own military leaders and troops believed Iraq processed WMDs.

Perhaps he orchestrated this illusion to help keep Iran at bay - or perhaps he really did have them. I have seen no verifiable proof either way. Until we do, everything is just speculation and opinion.

Answer 8

From
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html



"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Answer 9

Not to mention the American people who didn't believe it either. Some of us were against the invasion from the beginning, and that doesn't mean we like madmen with nuclear arsenals and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

As far as the Democrats in Congress voting for the invasion, they did that because they're a bunch of bas****s who were trying to look patriotic voting for legislation they knew they could never stop, so they wouldn't lose votes in the next election. The Republicans, on the other hand, could have organized against it, and I'm sure more of them than will admit it had their suspicions about whether Bush was telling the truth.


reagan was the one who couldn't recall, digory

jd, the U.S. was just as deep in the oil-for-food scheme as anyone else

chrissy, that "evidence" is exaggerated and quite simply made up. Iraq had WMDs before because we sold them to them, so there was no question about the fact that they previously controlled WMDs when we supported them against Iran. As far as evidence that he was going to build WMDs, don't you remember that the best thing they could come up with were some tubes for legal conventional missiles, and the "mobile weapons lab" idea which turned out to be TOTAL SPECULATION? By their standards, anyone who owns a truck could be considered capable of making WMDs. I bet a few people here own one.


infobrokernate, they gassed them with weapons we provided them. in Iraq they found nothing but the smallest, overlooked traces of chemicals which, due to their age, would likely not have worked properly.

Answer 10

there was no question saddam had them! bio-chemical weapon stockpiles were found,and destroyed by our troops.he had already used them on his own people,and had plenty of time to move any low grade nuclear weapons he had into surrounding countries,or bury them in the desert.
do I believe intelligence gathered by the CIA or long haired freaky person intelligence?
put me down for CIA