Why do so many believe Bush in some way lied, that there was no WMD threat, that Sadam was a cool guy?

Question

How did Bush lie? He was going by inteligence from the CIA as well as other national intelligence agencies from other countries. Everyone believes Sadam had WMD's, I mean we found him with them in 91 in Kuwait, he had been using biological weapons to kill hundreds of his own people, all intelligence from our allies suggested that he at the very least had stockpiles or the capability to procure WMD's. We waited to long to go in and he moved them to Syria, and all of a sudden you think Bush somehow lied about Sadam being an evil dictator capable of using WMDs and that this whole thing is based on a lie?

You people believe that the Iraqis somehow thought Sadam would be a better leader than their new democratic way with elections and an army that will ACTAULLY DEFEND THE PEOPLE? Sure its not completed yet and cant stand all on its own but thats why we need to stay.

Why is everyone so brainwashed into thinking that Bush wasnt 100% correct so let withdrawl and let Iraqis get killed

.

"When the government publishes a report saying NO WMD's, you can't very well say what they said was the truth, can you? "

Lol, how is this only Bush's fault? What about the congress who had the same info as him, many of which were democrats, and they authorized it. You want to scapegoat it on Bush when infact the people you re-elected to office in November elections are the same people who authorized it.

.




"Hey! Last time I checked, the media was definitely on the Bushies side!! After all, wouldn't wanna be called un-American would ya? "


What f*cking kind of Acid trip are you on? What media are you watching? The only one who defends him is Fox, everyone else bashes him.

.


@ INFOGIVER


Ive seen all of Alex Jones documentaries, they have a bunch of BS which have been disproven time and time again, yet he keeps saying them> He constantly makes predictions that end up being wrong. He is a conspiracy theorist who thinks he is doing good when instead he is just recruiting fo rthe anti-american terrorist left.

Answer 1

Because it isn't like Clinton was saying that for 8 years as President.

It isn't like Saddam broke 17 UN Resolutions.

It isn't like they have found old nuclear items that the inspectors somehow never found in there 10 years of searching sites.


In a poll that will never be seen on national media the Iraqis do believe that what they have now is better then Saddam. IT was conducted at the same time as all the polls saying the people of Iraq are not happy with how things are going. Yet, that is all the newspapers will put into their papers..because it makes Bush look bad. The other poll favors Bush.


1 2 3 Stated....

"Biggest problem - is this country has two groups that are loud and have extreme views. Turn them off - their in lies the the truth and logic "

To me that sounds a hell of a lot like America. Turn off the Democrats and Republicans and things will be great. Actually, keep the Republican stance on terrorists.

Answer 2

I'm not sure you want answers...just voice your own opinion...

But, I do not believe that Bush lied. He was misled into believing that there were WMD.

However, going beyond that…

There were inspectors in the country that were not allowed to finish their job. They did not find any WMD – never did. Now, Hussein wanted WMDs; he wanted them bad. Having the guts to say you do was a veiled threat against Iran, which did work.

However, in the absence of WMDs, Bush still invaded a sovereign nation. One in which there was no imminent threat against us. That phrase is important because our signature on the UN Charter guarantees that we will not invade another sovereign nation unless there is an imminent danger. We invaded without a clue about the cultural rivalries, without a clue of what would happen when the force holding two extremists groups apart was removed.

The US should have held a long period of talks to determine what the issues were between the groups, and how the sudden shift of power would be perceived. We also set up the wrong form of government. In this country, before the Anglos invaded, the indigenous people used a form of consensus rule. All opinions were presented, and the final decision was something that all could live with. There were no winners in ruling, there were no losers. All participants had their wishes addressed. This would have been a much more important type of democracy, and one that would probably emerge as one that the people could accept.

I think we have done enough damage. We have essentially destroyed a country…kinda like we always do when we meddle. There will be no victory, and the longer we are there the more the country will self destruct.

It’s time to leave. It’s time to cut off Halliburton from its no-bid contracts. Same for Bectel, and all the other war profiteers who are sapping the country of its oil and soul. Let the Iraqis rebuild. Let the Iraqis manage their own oil. Let them have their country back, while it is still there.

Answer 3

Hello,
The UN is the one that had inspectors in Iraq, on the ground doing real inspections. Although Saddam was not complying in Jan. with them, by March he was and they were okay with his cooperation but GWB bulled ahead and made a pre-emptive strike anyway (by international treaties that we helped write, that's illegal).
As for brainwashing, the run up to the war was about Saddam funding Al Qaeda and providing training grounds and WMD's to Al Qaeda. None of these things proved out so the rhetoric shifted to liberating the Iraqi people and taking down a dictator. As noble as that might be, it's not what we were told when we went in. Does that not constitute a lie?
FYI: the intell that GWB was using was not available to congress because it was classified. Their source was the president. They believed it because he said so just as most of America believed it because he said.

Answer 4

The Clinton admonistration stated Iraq and their WMD software from the day he took workplace to the day he left workplace. So, to assert Bush lied or lined something up is like saying Clinton did to boot. there's a clean coverup with the Benghazi tragedy. The delay in reaction, the delay in calling it what it replaced into, the edited conversing factors, the place Obama replaced into and the place Clinton replaced into, and so on.

Answer 5

First of all Bush is just a puppet for the gov. You all need to see Terror Storm by Alex Jones,
From Freedom to Fascism by Arron Russo and Beyond Treason by Joyce Riley and Dr Doug Roukey
911inplanesite
There are so many to see just start with one and educate yourself on what is really happening in the world and your question will be answered!
Remember:
When the people are affraid of the government you have tyrrany
When the government is affraid of the people you have liberty
websites to check out are
infowars.com, prisonplanet.com, jonesreport.com, thepowerhour.com

Answer 6

(Sigh)

Read the Downing Street memo concerning US/ British "fixing" of intelligence to force entry into a war with Iraq.

Who cares if the Iraquis "would" have been better off with or without Saddam: that is a post-invasion attempt to justify why we are there AFTER we have learned that the original reason was a lie. Americans are dead because of the Bush administration, and you are trying to justify the deaths rather than admitting that the administration ****** the whole thing up. Thet's pretty sad.

Why are you buying the latest round of propaganda and forgetting ALL of the previous "justifications" offered by the administration? Do you hate our soldiers so much that you would rather they die than the administration be proved wrong?

And Dinah (above): of course Iraquis deserve to have rights. Not at the expense of our soldiers, though: let them die for their own damn rights.

Answer 7

And why are people so elitist over here that they do not want Iraq to have a strong democracy.

To have the some rights and liberties that we have.

If find it hypocritical the Democrats do not think the Iraqi's deserve to have a chance to keep personal freedoms, when they always are going on about the 1st Amendment.

Answer 8

Quite simply, when the US government tried to sell it's war campaign to the American people, the reason was to prevent Iraq's WMD from attacking Americans. When the government publishes a report saying NO WMD's, you can't very well say what they said was the truth, can you?

In hindsight, we should have left Iraq alone. A lot more people would be alive, and the US would be no safer from terrorism than it is today. Saddam let the inspectors comb his entire country, but apparently that wasn't good enough. Attacking Iraq did not make us safer.

Although I disagree with the anti-war withdrawal movement as well; two wrongs don't make a right.

Answer 9

Hey, I'm with you 100%. Bush didn't sit there one day and just think this crap up. He got intelligence from others and that is how he made his decision. I'm also tired of everyone saying that it's all his fault. He made the decision from what he received and now he wants to make it right by not pulling out and letting Al Quida take over that part of the world. I hear you!

Answer 10

of course Hussein had WMDs. where do you think he got them? if you said from the USA, you are correct!! we gave/sold Hussein all sorts of nasty weapons during their war with Iran (after funding Iran's military for years before the Shah's overthrow). unfortunately, we wound up with egg on our face when Hussein chose to use the left over chemical and biological agents against the Kurds in Iraq. to save face, we took a hard stance against him - knowing full well that he had all kinds of weapons, since he had gotten them from us.

of course -- he used most of them years and years ago. even if he had any left by the time we invaded, it is unlikely that any of them would have still been operational.

and this isn't a Bush bash -- all of this stuff happened long before he had political aspirations.