Bush ignored trained experts, so, why did we REALLY invade Iraq?

Question

Trained spys, analysts, employed for and by the U.S. government with the Defense Intelligence Agency, and, the Central Intelligence Agency, KNEW Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda or other active threats, to pose any harm to Americans. Colin Powell, then secretery of state was not consulted by Bush, when plans were being drawn for the war in Iraq.

In fact, Hussein's regime was a hated foe of Iran, we sold arms and gave intelligence to Hussein and Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. So, why precisely did we invade Iraq.

Leogirl you did not answer the question, and, Clinton did not make the decision to invade Iraq, Bush, did.

People that work at the DIA and CIA are not leftist propagandists, just dedicated U.S. trained spys that WERE NOT consulted by the Bush administration.

Answer 1

There were WMD, as the UN admitted after the invasion.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

And Saddam was our watchdog concerning Iran, but he chose to nip at us. So he had to be put down.

Answer 2

Throwing more BS against the wall to try to get some to stick, I see. Name some of these so called TRAINED EXPERTS, SPIES AND ANALYSTS and if they are, in fact, what you say, then I will say your question has a great deal more credibility than I originally gave it credit for. Colin Powell was just one high ranking member of the military that did NOT KNOW, one way or the other. The whole world did not KNOW, but only THOUGHT that Saddam had WMDs, just as many of the imbeciles on the left wing of the democratic party did-Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Dean, Albright, and Gore, just to name a few. If you do not stop throwing this stuff around, you may get to smell like it.

Answer 3

Even before he became President, Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq. He wanted to go down in history books as a "great" president (well, he made "greatest failure" so I'd have to call that Mission Accomplished), and figured (not being even mediocre) being a War President would be the way.

Cheney wanted Haliburton to make gobs of money off of no-bid contracts and Iraqi oil. (But he, himself, will never see any of that money. No, never happen. Don't even think it. No way. Nuh-uh. ... right.)

Rumsfeld wanted permanent bases in the area.

Those were the reasons Bush ordered the terrorist "Shock and Awe" -- great set of reasons, huh?

The day after 9/11, Bush started a campaign of yelling at staff, insisting the pin the attack on Saddam Hussein -- every time they said "But he wasn't involved" Bush responded "Get evidence that he was!"

Answer 4

Oil costs a undertaking much less approximately terrorism from places different than Iraq and the concentration could be on eco-friendly ability and international Warming. the different issues that would have been distinctive ought to be that if rather of the invasion electorate around the globe have been to acquire the only right suited to possess the planet . This to be performed to grant human beings what they own already. Then a suitable to stay away from taking factors by employing armed stress. the different as commonplace the only right suited to an unpolluted ecosystem, and to guard such an ecosystem. this would have made experience to do to stay away from The Iraq conflict or maybe The chilly conflict some years till now.

Answer 5

I would have to imagine it has something to do with Hussein outliving his usefulness to the US. We have no problem endorsing despotic regimes as long as they remain friendly to our interests, as we supported Saddam even after he "killed his own people" (gassing of the kurds). It's only when he invaded oil rich Kuwait that he became a problem for us. Of course, the fact that he's sitting on an oil rich parcel of land that US oil corporations are eager to sink their claws into didn't help him either. Basically the war served two purposes - Firstly, it allowed for us to go in, remove an unfriendly regime, and install (or at least attempt to install) a government who would be friendly to our economic interests. Secondly, it allowed for the post 9/11 US to strike out at a weakened, middle eastern country for some good old fashioned payback. (It doesn't matter that they aren't the ones that attacked us, people back at home aren't very good at telling those brown people apart anyhow).

Answer 6

In light of the 9-11 attack ANY president would have been negligent NOT to react to the intelligence that not only the previous administration believed, but the UN, Britain, Mossad, Russian , French and EVERY reputable intel outfit in the world believed!
You guys can keep repeting inaccurate nonsense, but what you are stating here is simply untrue.

Answer 7

Sorry, your completely incorrect. The evidence provided by the CIA suggested that Saddam still had WMD's. He had used them in the past and repeatedly expelled UN weapons inspectors which added credence to the intelligence reports. No matter what type of leftist propaganda you want to create, the fact is that the evidence convinced the president and Congress that Saddam still had WMD's.

Answer 8

Bush fought Iraq to start Armageddon!

Answer 9

Because we had nothing better to do that day?
Because while women like to shop, men like to invade?
Because Laura had cut him off and he needed to vent?
Because he thinks its crazy that saddam had all those Golden bathrooms and all he has is the Oval office?

Is that the kind of stupidity you were looking for??

Answer 10

We invaded Iraq for money, and dominance in the region.

It wasn't about removing Saddam, because he was near powerless, and controlled. We support him for years, but destroyed most of those weapons in the 1st gulf war.

Answer 11

Follow the $100 billions spent so far. It's as simple as that.