Question for Bush Haters?

Question

(Looking for a Sensible answers)
Subject: IRAQ WAR
We hear from the left that Mr. Bush lied about wmd's, in fact he knew there were no wmd's and that he misled the Congress & the Nation

IS that a fair assessment?

Okay, let's assume GWB knew there were no WMD's in Iraq

FACTS: 139 Iraqi scientist that escaped from Iraq said he had them or was working on them to destroy Israel & the U.S. Saddam said his greatest dream was to see a mushroom cloud over Washington D.C. Over 170 nations including IRAN, Syria all said he has them or was working vigoriously to obtain atomic weapons. He has also used WMD on his own people...these are FACTS!

Okay so assuming Bush knew this was all lies and he also knew that the "LIES" would soon be "UNCOVERED" and he knew he would go down as the worst President in history for giving the world the biggest FRAUD in the history of the planet...that he would send 1000's of soldiers to their death for a lie

make sense of this?

STILL WAIT.....for a LOGICAL ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

Ask George Tenet . How many hundreds of times did the Clinton administration say Iraq was trying to develop WMD's? Who was giving Clinton this Intelligence, George Tenet...

Answer 2

Are you looking for a sensible answer or a logical one? You asked for both.

Sensible: As far a GWB and the rest of his cabinet goes, they all thought he had a much larger cashe than has been found just in the last year. Yeah, I'm sure everyone has forgotten about the 150 canisters of Sarine that was found last August and no one had heard about the nerve agent that troops stumbled across late last year. Saddam had a bunch of time to hide a lot of what he had. Which brings me to a counter-sensible question: If Saddam DIDN'T have WMD. Then why give UN (not US) weapons inspectors such trouble when asking to inspect specific areas?

Logical: WMD means weapons of mass destruction. 150 canisters of Sarine is just that, weapons of mass destruction. So much as one milligram of this stuff will kill a human being. And nerve agent is just some nasty stuff. Depending on if it is persistent or non-persistent would determine just how long it would take before the place you exposed it to could be inhabited again.

And for you college students
Rhetorical: Why does the child with the orange lips, nose, cheeks and fingers deny eating the bag of cheesy-poofs?

Answer 3

Here's the answer. People who truly believe that Iraq didn't have WMDs or at least the components are seriously disillusioned, and are the sort of people that believe whatever they see on the news. The media has amazing power in most countries, our especially.
When the UN inspectors tried to gain access to Iraq to search for WMDs, Iraq initially refused entrance, and when it was finally granted, all inspections were carried out with an Iraqi government escort. UN inspectors were not allowed to inspect just any old place that they wanted to; they were restricted to specific areas. Well, here's a news flash for all the media believers out there: in the period of time that the inspectors were barred from carrying out their searches, Iraq was making a mad scramble to shuffle any weapons they had in assembly to other, hidden locations.
You see, while the United States follows the Law of Armed Conflict and does not use medical, religious, etc. facilities or vehicles to house or transport weapons or soldiers, the rest of the world does not necessarily play that fair. We also don't tend to use civilian transports to move that stuff either, because we place a high value on the lives of our people. Again, countries like Iraq do not place that same value. For example, Saddam had a nasty habit of hiding missiles and launchers (armed ones, ready to fire) in the middle of cities, next to schools and the like. He did this because that effectively ties the United States hands when it comes to destroying those things, because we "play fair" and try to minimize civilian casualties.
Most of the civilian casualties in Iraq have been caused by Iraqis. The war lords there have absolutely no compunction about throwing away innocent human life to further their causes. That's one of the travesties we are trying to stop with our presence over there.
Iraq has, or at least had weapons of mass destruction, I assure you.

Answer 4

Awesome question, sorry you aren't getting any good answers. Aren't really surprised are you?

Just to add to your fire, I have seen and read interviews with service members that were in Iraq the first time who said they physically saw WMD. I totally think they are there or were there and have been moved to a friendly neighbor's yard.

And, just like another post said, WMD don't have to be nukes. They can be anything that cause more than one death at a time. Clearly we have all seem pictures of that from Iraq, and I don't mean what the US has done.

Answer 5

There has been documentaries interviewing members of the CIA and some senior officials about the Iraqi WMD program. I can't remember what they're called but I remember seeing one on PBS. From what I know, Saddem WANTED to have WMDs, but he was incapable of developing them after the first Gulf War and the Israelis air strike on his uranium factories in the 1990s. Former CIA director George Tenet was responsible for convincing the president that Iraq was developing its WMDs. After the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddem, it was clear that Iraq was never near having a WMD capability. I'm not going to blame Bush for lying about Iraq, he just didn't pay enough attention to the country and trusted his subordinates without thinking, much like LBJ back in the Vietnam War.

Answer 6

Your penultimate paragraph sums it up.

Bush doesn't care what people think of him, he'll just do whatever he wants regardless.

The escaped scientists and other exiles were precisely the ones giving us bogus intel, because they were talking about things that happened in the 1980's! The CIA didn't buy it because they knew how dated the intel was, and that there were political reasons for these exiles (like Ahmed Chalabi) to exaggerate their claims.

Furthermore, there was LOT of intel that contradicted the cherry-picked evidence(and in the case of the Niger yellowcake scam, fabricated evidence). Again, this gave pause to the CIA and DIA but the Bush operatives didn't care.

Bush and Cheney cherry picked intel to fit a political objective, which was to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. It was never the other way around, meaning they made the intel fit their objective instead of creating a political objective/strategy based on intel (which is how things are supposed to work).

I have nothing against us taking out Saddam, and I'd be fine with us invading Iraq if they would have a) been honest about the real reasons and b) actually have a functioning post-invasion plan. They failed on both counts, and we are mired in a mess thanks to their arrogance and incompetence.

This may not be an answer you like but it is perfectly logical.

Answer 7

You probably won't get a logical answer as there are all kinds of variations out there least of which is yours. What would have happened if their were any WMD there.......ie nerve or mustard agent, would your rhetoric be different or would the death of all the solduiers which is the real issue here mean anything to you. During your whole line of crap above never once did you mention troops that served, are currently serving or are going over. Your lost. You and people like you disgust me.

Answer 8

Certainly it makes sense.
Before the invasion oil was at $22 a barrel, Chevrons Quarterly profits were barely $2 billion. The UN was threatening to remove the sanctions on Iraq and Sadaam owed $90 billion to France and as much to Russia. Sadaam flooding the market with cheap oil would have driven the price of oil below $18 a barrel or 99 cents a gallon. Exxon and Chevron were in real danger of going into the Red.
These are Bush's people, his peers. If he didn't act right then there was danger of the US iol industry needing a bail out.

Mission Accomplished

I'm sure he, Cheyney and Rumplestiltskin had no clue of what a quagmire Iraq would be.

Answer 9

Bush was inclined to go to war with Iraq because "God spoke to him." or so he said. The fact is that many leaders wish to see a mushroom cloud over D.C. Does that justify military action? So lets invade Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran...... Will you shoot someone for saying "I wish you were dead" without having the means to carry out the threat? Do you not know who sponsored the war Iraq fought with Iran for eight years were Iraq used chemical weapons? (Rumsfeld and Saddam did shake hands at one point!)
Bush who never went to war himself but instead hid in the air national guard refuses to admit that the invasion of Iraq (a sovereign nation) was a mistake. It is obvious his daughters are not over there. If he wanted to take the fight to the terrorist he should've concentrated on Afghanistan where violence is once again flaring and Bin Laden whether dead or alive got away.

Answer 10

Your so called facts are propaganda. Even the CIA knew there were no WMD left in Iraq before the invasion.