A question for the conservatives here who still claim the following:?

Question

Many conservatives here in YA keep insisting, in defense of Bush, that there were WMDs in Iraq and that there was indeed a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. What I would like them to explain to me is that if they believe in George Bush and think he is right about what he tells us, why do they keep ignoring his own statements?

He stated just yesterday, in his press conference, unequivocably, that
1) There were no WMDs found in Iraq.
2) Iraq and Hussein had no connection to 9/11 whatsoever

The question is that if you agree with the President on his stand in Iraq and you think he speaks the truth, why do you keep insisting exactly the opposite? Don't you believe him? Is he lying about what he has said? I'm truly confused. Either you believe him or you don't, which is it?

The Great:

I'M not saying there was no connection, GEORGE BUSH said it. You must have not read the question completely. These are HIS statements, not mine.

Chainsaw:

BUSH said they were not in Iraq, not me.

Why are these cons avoiding answering the question and just attacking me like I was the one who made these statements and not their hero Bush? This is pretty amusing.

Are they incapable of answering a direct question? Unbeliveable.

DO YOU BELIEVE BUSH OR NOT? How simple is that?

Tom:

I don't need you to remind me of anything. At least you actually answered the question in your first paragraph. But then you of course take an attitude with me and make assumptions which were both wrong and insulting. I truly AM confused by the Bush supporters who continue to insist there were WMDs and that Iraq was involved in 9/11. They either do or don't believe their President. If you look at the other cons who answered this question it's a great example. Lots of insults and skirting around the question without ever really answering it at all. The double talk is enough to confuse anyone about where you all really stand.

I'm extremely informed about everything to do with Iraq and I am not at all confused about the b.s. that Bush used to take us in there. Where my confusion lies is in the confliction that cons seem to have between what Bush says and what they keep insisting is true despite what he has said.They think they can have it both ways and still seem credible

Answer 1

I like your style..nice!! I am going to give you a star for this question.


Edit to John K above...and the rest that have spoke on this....they love to pass the buck and twist words don't they.. Ok you just claimed he had false intelligence...but most all of you have not made some sort of mention about how this Democrat or that one voted to go to war based on the same intelligence. So in your typical hypocritcal manner, you say it was ok for Bush to be the one that actually sent the troops based on false intelligence, but not ok for the Democrats to vote to go to war? So typical.

Answer 2

May I remind you that WMDs were only a relatively small part of why we went to war in Iraq. I agree that there were no (or at best only limited quantities) WMDs found. While Iraq or Hussein apparently did not participate in the 9/11 attack, they were a terrorist state who continually violated agreed upon conditions set forth for them after fighting ended in Kuwait, i.e., shot at our planes in the no fly zone. Hussein needed to go and I think the war created a giant buzz-saw for militants to flood into and be killed. --- and that's a good thing!

You say you are "truly confused." I contend that you are not really confused, you just happen to think you have a point and a lame way of trying to make it. When you consider the way the major media is George Bush could say, "Its cloudy outside." CNN, et al, would then report that the president stated today that "The nation is flooding," The democrats would then launch a full investigation as to why did Bush not hand out life jackets, umbrellas, etc.

There is no gap in what Bush says and in what we who support him believe. If there is a gap here, its in your own objectivity in understanding the problem

Answer 3

From Sept. 11 until the war started, 10 top Bush administration officials (as well as in Bush's State of the Union address) and Bush stated 21 different reasons for invading Iraq. Here a few. No doubt, WMD's were at the top of the list and touted the most. And by the way, U.S., Britian and Russia's intellegance all said the same thing about the WMD's. I know if I had something illegal and the cops announced they were coming to look before they came and even gave me the exact time they would be there I would get rid of the stuff before they got there. But breaking the resolutions from the first war is an act of war.

To prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
For Regime Change.
To further the war on terror.
Because of Saddam's violation of the treaty from the war in 1991 (Desert Storm).
Because of Saddam's U.N. resolution (17 of them) violation.
Because of the LACK of weapons inspections.
Because Saddam was a threat to region.
To spread democracy.

Get off of it, lefty.

Answer 4

Faulty intelligence my BUTT
cooked intelligence would be the correct term, and honest Republicans know it

The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the origin of these documents has been reopened.

Bush LIED plain and simple

He LIED so he could invade Iraq, a plan that was being worked on since his election.
He put 9/11 on the back burner and went his own way against the UN---against Germany ---against France---against anyone he later "got rid of" that stood up to his BS

George H.W. Bush had this to say in a 1998 Time article, when asked why US/UN forces didn't go after Saddam Hussein after Iraqi forces were pushed out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Seems like besides running the CIA and being a one term president, Bush Sr. was a a fortune teller, for his own kid.

Answer 5

1. There were WMD's found in Iraq, despite what the President says. There have been small stocks of artillery shells with I believe Sarin and Mustard gas found. The masses of WMDs weren't found in Iraq, but I'd check Syria for those.
2. Iraq and Hussein didn't have a connection with 9/11, BUT there was a 10 yr. ongoing communication between Al Queda and the Iraqi govt. It has been reported that more than a couple AQ prisoners have stated they recieved training, mostly in chemical weapons, from the Iraqis.

Contrary to what many people believe, us "conservatives" don't take the Pres.'s word as gospel. I disagree with him on many topics, and he has made mistakes. I believe we do have to finish what we started in Iraq, but I don't believe him when he says there were "no WMDs found" because it has already been proven to the contrary.

Answer 6

Here is the defense: the intelligence said he had WMD. Either their weapons were spirited away when we invaded, or it was bad intelligence. There was never any evidence to support a connection to Hussein, but Cheney/Rice et. all did the media circuit (or, CIRCUS if you will) INSINUATING such, which is why everyone started to believe it.

Either way, no one has taken accountability for their actions/bad intelligence/whatever. It's all conveniently been swept under the rug! Let's only remember 9/11 and forget about Bin Laden! See, it doesn't matter because the terrorists are going to ATTACK US AT HOME if we don't GET THEM OVER THERE! For the love of God, do you not understand this, man?!

Answer 7

On WMDs, he used gas on the Kurds. That is a WMD. Not only that but he bragged he had them. The UN, France, Germany, and on and on stated he had them.

Just because something was not found does not mean they were not there.

I have never heard Bush state that Saddam was behind 9-11. We went into Iraq to enforce the 17 unenforced UN resolutions and could no longer afford to give him the chance to develop nukes.

Al Qaida was in every single country in the Middle East before 9-11. You really think that they were not in Iraq.

I am honestly sick and tired of uneducated people who forget history, do not know it, or flat out ignore it. These issues were not why we went into Iraq. Get some facts.

By the way, Al Qaeda thanks you for helping them spread their propaganda

Answer 8

1. Saddam had probably used most of them on thousands of people (hence the mass graves), and the rest were probably sent off to some other country.
2. So Hussein had NO training camps at all?

Ever heard of something called "peer pressure"? When enough people like you keep saying "there was no connection!" it does eventually get to some people. Don't worry about being confused, it is only a side effect from being a lib.

Answer 9

Obviously when others speak you choose to pick and choose the words you want to hear... Bush said in the beginning that Saddam is "BELIEVED" to have WMD.. Then when the reports came out debunking that Iraq had WMD, it was said that there "was not enough SUBSTANTIAL eviedence to conclude that Iraq had WMD" And that "It is not believed that Saddam had DIRECT ties to Al-queda" if you learn to read between the lines you can clearly see that in the not enough SUBSTANTIAL eviedence means that they had some eviedence... and that Saddam didn't have DIRECT ties to Al-queda means that he may not have been on face to face terms with them but had ties through other people possibly in his regime... Or it could even mean that his 2 sons had ties to them.... And then last "There were no WMD found in Iraq" Means that they did not find any there, but does not rule out the possibility that they were once there and have been moved.
"

Answer 10

A link to the information you are asking about would be helpful in giving you an accurate answer...
the best I can do with the question is to tell you that we believe in Bush and we support his efforts. We do not believe he was deceitful in any way and if what you say is true and he made those statements then ask yourself who you support and would they have been as honest?

Read this and compare it to what you believe...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Edit:
Lois...honey if you want to talk about betrayal then look to your newly elected congress, they rolled over on you hard and WE told YOU so...