If Bush had found this online, would he have invaded Iraq?

Question

OR IS MR. BUSH A DOUBTER, TO SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND COMPLEX CONCEPTS, AND HAS TO SEE FOR HIMSELF?

"...I think Saddam and the United States very often have a commonality which bonds them together and that is simply this: That without Saddam Hussein, Iraq would disintegrate into several countries and make more trouble for the rest of the Middle East....When the rebellion started against Saddam in 1991, that danger loomed. The United States helped Saddam crush that rebellion...The American administration was afraid that Iraq will disintegrate. They had no plan for what might follow Saddam Hussein. And certainly President Bush was explicit on that subject, saying he did not want to be mired in Iraqi internal affairs--until he was forced into getting into Iraq by television and the pictures of the poor Kurds. And so that rebellion failed...In the case of the United States, there are huge problems that we want to solve before we think seriously of moving him..."
The Survival of Saddam: Secrets of his life and leadership
an interview with Said K. Aburish
published jan. 2000
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

I made up my mind that Hussein needs to go. The policy of my government is that he goes.-- G. W. Bush
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/02/06_Whocares.html

Answer 1

You can go clear back to the hostages in 79... we were against Iran so helped Irag and Saddam. The tables turned and our own weapons that were sold to Irag were used against us. The first time Irag was brought back to the table after the Gulf war was when Clinton came into power and Saddam started to ignore the sanctions and nothing was done except to lob bombs at aspirin factory's.

The first Bush didn't go after him and simply his son did. Clinton had things going on under his desk and ignored Saddam and Osama.

9-11 followed and here we are blaming Bush for what started long ago.

Answer 2

Hard to say ........... but according to politicians that are now back-peddling They could or didn't bother to read it or anything else put before them either....

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Answer 3

It was extremely unlikely if Bush would do such a thing. Any misinformation would've halted his plans of invading Iraq; it was the opposite instead.

Answer 4

Didn't the Rand Corporation specifically advise on this to the administration in early 2003?

Answer 5

This is more or less a question that asks for political opinion.

It's not up to us to decide what he would've done or not, time has passed and what has happened has happened. Let's forget the past and work out a better tomorrow.

Answer 6

Why do you guys think leftest website are irrefutable, only wackos believe them!

Answer 7

You can say the moon is made of green cheese, but that won't make it so.

Answer 8

Ya, sure.