Do you "REALLY" believe Bush lied about WMD?

Question

I have been disappointed to see people that I thought had common sense who have been so sucked in by conspiracy theories. And many of these are not the people that would believe in UFO's and Kennedy's assassination for all sorts of weird reasons.

To make it clear what I mean about "REALLY" is that we all know Kerry said this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. Many picked up on that and agreed but they really didn't believe it because we all know that our neighbors were not starving and standing in soup lines like they did during the Great Depression. It was just a "political statement" against the other side.

I mean in your heart, no matter how bad Bush is, was, or will be, do you think he intentionally lied about going into Iraq. If so, why?

BTW, I'm not trying to trap anyone to show proof that Bush intentionally lied but I would ask you to show proof of "why" he went into Iraq if you think he intentionally lied. IOW, motivation without proof is still speculation and where most conspiracy theories fall flat on their face. While I've seen many conspiracy theories disproved on that basis, I've never seen the approach used for this WMD and Iraq war. Prove the "why" as best you can.

LOL! I almost forgot about the oil thing. Please help us that don't understand... once Bush got the oil, where has he put it or where is he going to put it?

Answer 1

He didn't lie.

That's just the Liberal Democrat's party line.

Answer 2

He needed to lie about Iraq. He couldn't come right out and state the real reason. The real reason was to stop Saddam selling his oil in Euros which was hitting the dollar badly.

Basically the dollar is the worlds reserve currency and remains so because all oil is sold in dollars. More dollars exist outside the US than inside the US. In 2000 Saddam began trading his oil in Euros which meant that countries no longer needed dollars to buy oil through the oil for food program. At that point the Euro was weak against the dollar trading at just $0.83 per Euro and the US laughed at Saddam because he was losing money. Saddam then converted his national reserve (around $10 billion to Euros). The Euro began to strengthen and other countries began holding Euros as their reserve currency alongside the dollar.

So what does this mean for the US. Well the dollar is linked to oil while most other currencies use a gold standard. This is good for the dollar because the US has ensured that all oil is traded in dollars. When countries start trading in Euros and not dollars then the dollar is no longer needed and rapidly loses value. Since the Euro was floated the dollar value has dropped. In 2000 €1 bought $0.83 but today buys $1.3.

Not only was Iraq slightly damaging the dollar but OPEC were and still are considering switching to the Euro. If this happens the dollar is effectively finished and the US will have a recession greater than the 1930's. Iraq has a seat at the OPEC table. The combined motivation of ensuring Iraq switched back to dollar trading and had a say in OPEC talks regarding the switch to the Euro led to an invasion. The first thing that happened after the invasion was that Iraq went back to the dollar standard. Then the puppet government was installed to fight the US corner at the OPEC table.

So what actually happens now. Well Iran are now trading in Euros. We can wait for that invasion. Venezuela want to start trading in Euros and look how often we Chavezs face. Russia conduct some of their oil trading in Euros and want to set up a gas cartel with Iran. Look how the US have been criticising Russia of late (yesterday as being undemocratic and moving away from democracy).

If Opec switches to the Euro many countries will cash in their dollars as they are no longer required to buy oil. This is like calling in a huge bank loan. The dollar value will literally plummet and that recession will hit very hard.

As for WMDs virtually every politican before 2000 was saying that ra was militarily finished - Bush senior, Rice, Cheney, Clinton, Albright, Rumsfeld. With the surviellence that Iraq was under Saddam couldn't fart without the US knowing about it. If the US pre war stated that they knew were the WMDs were how come they weren't there after the invasion. Can these things not be tracked by satelllite. It was a BUllSHit cover story as were the links to Bin Laden. It was all about protecting the US dollar.

Answer 3

Without a doubt he lied about WMD in Iraq.

There have been dozens of former CIA operatives on this case come forward. Even the former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it.

Let's be perfectly honest here. Why would he even go to Iraq in the first place? Iraq had NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with 9/11, period, end of story. It had been noted on many occasions by many different sources that, as much as the repubs like to think, show that Saddam and Osama were not butt buddies. It even goes as far as them being on different ends of Islam (one Shiite, one Sunni). And as we can see in Iraq today, these people don't like each other. So this idea that people have developed, "well the ideals of the two are one in the same," is complete nonsense. If most of those hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, like we have been told, why did we not attack Saudia Arabia? Was it because this administration has close personal ties with them? Was it because George H. W. Bush visits there quite frequently and has close business ties with them? Was it because the house of Saudi invested in George W. Bushs' oil ventures back in the 80s and 90s? Who I might add, were part of the Bin Laden family. It just doesn't add up to me.

Bush constatly rubs 9/11 in the face of anyone who opposes the war in Iraq. Why does he do this? Fear? Obsession?

So I ask again. Why are we in Iraq? One reason we went there is without a doubt because of oil. Plus it puts us right on the doorsteps of China and Russia should we ever need to pressure them. Sure you don't see the difference at the pump, and you probably never will. It is a strategic location in the world that has one of the biggest oil reserves on the planet.

I never bought the "economy is in the worst shape since" speil. Sure it's in bad shape, but, we can still afford to eat and pay the bills (some of us at least). Plus you are sitting there on the internet on your home computer. :D

And for the record, on the UFO note. If you think we are the only living things in this universe, with trillions of galaxies, and billions of stars in those galaxies, then I urge you to take a statistics class. :D

In addition, I am neither republican nor democrat.

response: Iraqi oil, we were told, would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. If that is true, why have we mounted up a 500billion dollar debt doing so?

Answer 4

I just went and looked at that exact spot with satalite teck.
Charlie's conclusion is:
Even though the missle site which at one time might of exist resembles that of a site near whats called the trinity site which certanly does house a few, one must really be sure that there is atomic material in a site before invading a country. Also the military had been flying planes over Iraq daily and their military was basicly disabled. I would say also that Iraq was not planning to attack America and was not involved in 911. I think they knew very well there wasn't very much if any which is why they decieded to attack before inspecters could find this out-> thus THEY WERE LIEING. And low and behold there be no weapons of mass distruction at this site or anywhere. Bush and friends were out to start a war and it's obvious they are doing the same with Iran. The thing to do with atomic war games is to not put people in the state where they think they have to attack you with nuclear weapons. (such as poke a aircraft carrier off the port of Iran) There are real time satalite tecknologies and if they be so conserned with something they can just do this. Bush and friends are well awaire that people are rather ignorant to nuclear tecknologies and if some country is making nuclear power they think they can invade which accually drasticly increases the liklyhood of a atomic attack. He seams to be very conserned with the presthidential bunker which will save him and his friends? apparently
Really it's just about sevearal trillion dollers of potential oil revenue and Bush and company wants it so they invented all this silly logic as to why they must persue it.
BUllSHitt'

Answer 5

I believe that if Saddam had WMD : 1- the US would have found them already because such things don't disappear like that and 2- he would have used them on the US soldiers which he didn't.

So all this for what ? Either UFO came and stole the WMD, Saddam was too afraid to use them and destroyed them before the attack, the US found them but hide them, they are still well hidden or most plausible reason there were no WMD to start with.

I hope you don't mind that I'm not American, but I do believe that the reasons to go at war where not because he had WMD but because Bush just wanted to get rid of him ( what was a good thing indeed ) and also because he wanted OIL.

Answer 6

I truly believe that Bush didn't necessarily lie about "him" BELIEVING there were WMD in Iraq, but I do believe that he failed to meet the burden of proof (both before and after the invasion) To justify going to war with Iraq. Not that that matters as Bush disregarded the United Nations decision of saying no war.

Answer 7

What if Bush initiated attack on Iraq to draw the terroists there and keep them out of the U.S.?

If I were Bush, I would fire the V.P. he has huge issues about justification of the Iraq war look at the fallout from that (Lewis "Scooter" LIbby) and I believe faulty intel the administration needs a huge shakeup Bush is the figurehead so naturally everybody blames him and yes he should do more about it than he is!

Answer 8

The weapons inspectors who were tasked with checking said he didn't, so Bush went to the CIA to get "proof". His famous state of the union speech had the part in it about yellowcake that the CIA told him was based on bad info - but he insisted in adding it back anyway. That was the key argument for going to war. Additionally Gen Zinni was tasked with containing Saddam and he told Bush that even if he had WMD's, he couldn't use them so don't worry about it. All in all it adds up to a president who put his own desire for a war ahead of the facts. He lied, and he knows it.

Answer 9

It's only you backward republicans who believe with no proof. Even he tried to admit that, but I can see how your limited brain would not comprehend his ape-like Engish. He screwed you. Perhaps you like the pain in your butt. He's a stupid, fithy thug and alcoholic, no matter how much you glorify him, and everyine but some 25% of Americans knows that.

Answer 10

Yes, just as he lied, before being elected president, about "withdrawing US troops from the Balkans".

Answer 11

No, I don't believe that for a minute. Politicians during the Clinton administration believed that Saddam Hussein was working on the development of weapons of mass destruction. I don't see how these congressmen were truthful, but Bush somehow lied while giving the same answer.

The main red flag was that Saddam was refusing to let the UN weapons inspectors inspect his weapons. That was a violation of the ceasefire.

In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Law, which included a clause intending to establish a democracy in Iraq. Bush simply put this bill into effect. The only way to et rid of Saddam was through ground warfare. We hadn't been able to get him out for thirteen years using other methods.