why did g dumbya insist consistently and emphatically that iraq had weapons of mass destuction?

Question

was he just incompetent or just another lying, self-serving, born again.
perhaps he just wanted to be commander-in-chief because he never finished his own military duty ( fact ).
or did cheney influence him because he wanted an eight
billion dollar contract for his buddies at haliburton ?

in any even they should both be impeached for lying, incompetence, abuse of power, and crimes against humanity

Answer 1

PREEMPTIVE WAR
Hate aside. There’s no justification. WMD’s were a lie, plain and simple.
Saddam was never a threat and had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
The pretext was false. No Coalition in this war!
The real agenda and strategic interests are obvious and transparent to the world (oil for starters) and Americans are realizing this! (14 "enduring" bases!)
America is on a dangerous path with preemptive war. History threatens to repeat itself again with the sites on Iran. This time the stakes are higher. Hopefully not before the next election.
HOPEFULLY NEVER.
This hallmark of the Bush Doctrine will be marked in the Annals of Infamy.
Keep this up and America will be the bad guy.

Consider -

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
- Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer 2005

m1a1mike...
With all due respect sir, the President proceeded on flawed intel at best. At the time of “Shock and Awe” he didn’t have your units' reports of course.
I grew under the credo “The ends do not justify the means” however many subscribe to the converse ie. “The ends justify the means”. Take your pick.

ThorGirl...
Nice dig. However, WMD’s aren't the point. Donald Rumsfeld had no qualms about Mustard Gas (2-chlorethyl-sulfide) and nerve agent, Tabun, which were used against Iran when he sought to normalize and restore full diplomatic relations with Iraq (Saddam) in 1984.
m1a1mike... probably found some of those old stockpiles.
What you’ve aptly illustrated is that the REAL MOTIVES behind PREEMPTIVE WAR breach all parties and go beyond mere partisanship. That’s why America (Bush) acted alone.

Answer 2

Perhaps because Iraq USED weapons of mass destruction when they gassed their own people (the Kurds) in the '90s.

Perhaps because the 2002 National Intelligence Report, written as a compilation of intelligence estimates, said that Iraq either had WMD or had facilities that could quickly and easily generate WMD. This was the SAME intelligence report that folks like Kerry and Hillary Clinton used to justify their vote for the war.

Perhaps it was because Iraq was given the chance, repeatedly, to prove they didn't have WMD by allowing UN inspectors to inspect, but they did not allow UN inspectors to inspect - thereby implying very strongly that they were hiding something.

Okay - now you list all the documented reasons from 2002 that anyone - President Bush, Hillary, you, whoever - could have known that Iraq did not have WMD. Go ahead. We're waiting...

Answer 3

I would just like to remind you that even the Democrats in congress, given the same intel that George W. Bush had, voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

While, admittedly, we didn't find any in the long run, when the preponderance of evidence points to the conclusion that a dictator responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of his own people, has access to weapons of mass destruction, you have to take them away. If you don't, the dictator in question is likely to upset the entire region, especially the little nation to the west whose very existence is a burr in the sandal of every other Middle-Eastern country. Because of that threat, it wasn't an abuse of the Bush's power to act in an attempt to ensure the future stability and peace of the region.

As for crimes against humanity, the reason we conquered Iraq in two weeks is because we didn't kill any of their soldiers--that's why they're all strapping bombs onto themselves today. Removing a dictator isn't a crime against humanity. It's stupid, but it's not a crime.

In my opinion, when we found out that there weren't any WMD's, we should have just left, instead of changing the stated purpose of the war to "liberating the Iraqi people". I don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people.

Nevertheless, Bush's constant pounding of the issue of WMD's was neither incompetence nor lying--he was just calling Saddamm's bluff.

Answer 4

There is a really logical reason for him stating that information in the beginning. You should look into your history books for that answer...
The reason that ol' GW said the Iraq's had weapons of mass destruction, is because the U.S. Government sold them to Iraq, when Iraq was fighting a war with Iran. If you recall in history, there was the leader of Iran, who was overthrown by the people of that country, and with the overthrow, several Americans at the American Embassy were held captive for more than a year. After their release, America as a whole hated the Iran people (and still do). Iran and Iraq, two neighboring countries began a war with each other. Iran was being supplied by the Russians, and Iraq was being supplied by the Americans. When the war ended, it was "assumed" that the Iraq's still had the weapons of mass destruction, but they must have used them to either kill Iranians or on their own people...another history lesson.

Answer 5

The reason that President Bush still feels that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is because people like myself were sending the reports whenever we found them.

My unit found to artillery shells filled with mustard gas. The only thing they needed was to have the fuze's inserted and set.

Answer 6

How many times do you have to be shown the direct quotes taken from public speeches where Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Al Gore, Sandy Burglar, Harry Reid, nancy Pelosi and two dozen other loopy leftys all stated for public record that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Did you not see the footage of the Dead Kurds who were gassed by Saddam? Do you not call poison gas a WMD? Why do you keep lying about this? Is it that the truth doesn't fit your sick agenda? Your post is full of lies.

Do you really hate the President so much that you'd sacrifice America to satisfy your hatred? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Answer 7

1. Haliburon increasing it's profits, didn't put a dime in Cheney's pocket.
2. To be impeached, you have to break the law. Bush and Cheney haven't.
3. They did find shells of sarin nerve agent in Iraq, proof that Hussein was lying about having gotten rid of his WMDs and stopped attempting to acquire more.
4. Congress had ALL of the same intelligence that Bush had, and THEY agreed to invade Iraq. Hillary Clinton's current claims that "She didn't read the whole thing" did't cut it in grammar school, and certainly don't cut it now.

Answer 8

Why be partisan about it?

I've said since the start of this massive deception:
If you KNOW they have them, then YOU MUST KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.

Otherwise, how do you KNOW they have them?

Lack of evidence means lack of proof, which means you are SPECULATING.

Try that in a court of LAW. The judge will want to see those WMDs . . . or he will THROW THE CASE OUT.

Accusations mean NOTHING.

We PROSECUTED Iraq based on simple accusations . . .

I don't give a D@mn which Party said what. Show me the MONEY.

Where is the stuff that makes the "mushroom cloud"? Where is "the smoking gun"? Where is that which you claimed existed?


---Yes, I'm an @sshole. I'm okay with that. Our Founding Fathers were @ssholes, in their day, too.

Ron Paul for President!!

Answer 9

Ask the intelligence agencies of France, England, Russia, Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Spain. Toss in about three dozen Democrat Senators.

Looks like you've uncovered a worldwide conspiracy of lying, self-serving, born again incompetents.

Answer 10

The intelligence at the time said Iraq had such weapons and it is historical fact that they have used those weapons in the past. My question is so what? Are we supposed to invade every country with weapons of mass destruction? Iraq posed zero threat to our country even when they had WMDs and the 7th largest army on the planet.