It seems to be a generally forgotten fact that Bush told the inspectors to leave before finishing their job so that Bush could invade. We keep hearing that "every intelligence agency in the world" believed Saddam had WMD and that's why we were justified in invading. What legitimate excuse could there have been for Bush to invade before making certain they did or did not have WMD. Personally I'm sick of hearing that it's all the intelligence agencies' fault when all Bush had to do was let the inspectors finish.
2007-05-27 08:41:11 · 15 answers · asked by golfer7 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They had already made 400 unannounced inspections in the previous 4 months without finding any wmd. They were undermining the case for the war!
Review of Disarming Iraq, by Hans Blix, the chief UN arms inspector
"Disarming Iraq is an insider's account of the diplomatic and inspection efforts leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. ...Blix stresses that he never trusted Hussein and that inspectors were often misled and stonewalled, but he also points out that they never found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction either. Though Blix welcomes the end of Hussein's brutal dictatorship, his removal was "neither the avowed aim nor the justification given" for the war—-WMDs were the issue. Therefore, he believes the invasion was unnecessary and possibly counterproductive in the long run and is disappointed that they were not given enough time to complete their task. "Containment had worked," he writes."
http://www.amazon.com/Disarming-Iraq-Hans-Blix/dp/0375423028
2007-05-27 08:46:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
You're funny. Saddam threw the UN inspectors out several times. Bush waited 6 months and through many rewritings of the proposal and the UN agreed with the plans. You won't get anywhere if you keep perpetuating lies and BS.
BTW, some WMDs were found.
2007-05-29 06:20:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it wasn't Bush. It was Saddam. He prevented the inspectors from doing their job and wouldn't let them into certian sites. It wasn't just intelligence agencies that said he had WMD it was Saddam himself. He played a "cat and mouse" game with the UN inspectors and with the USA and he lost. He said he was going to get us one way or another, no matter how long it took. He said that we had started the "mother of all battles" which would never be over unbtil he said it was over. These are facts, not opinion. Just to show us he meant business Saddam sent SCUD missles into Israel unprevoked. He was an absolute danger and needed to be taken out. The idea of freeing Iraq and creating a democratic ally is noble. It isn't working because of fanatic Islamic terrorist scum not because of Bush. Wake up!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-27 09:06:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would have supported the invasion of Iraq without ANY talk of WMD or even if 911 never happened...why?...because the cease fire was negotiated and dependent upon ALL parties holding up their end of the deal...Saddam failed miserably at this and that justifies our occupation of Iraq...I do not care how many libs and Dem's lie about Bush lying, scheming, or deceiving...get over it and move on or better yet move out!
2007-05-27 08:49:21 · answer #4 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
It wasn't Bush that wouldn't let them finish. It was Saddam that wouldn't let them inspect facilities, and often kept them away from areas our intelligence believed they were.
I believe that Saddam transported them out of the country - most likely through Syria.
Bush simply gave them a chance to get out before the bombs fell, since they weren't able to perform their jobs.
2007-05-27 08:47:02 · answer #5 · answered by Mike Frisbee 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Because there were 17 unenforced UN resolutions. What would make any sane person think Saddam would comply?
2007-05-27 09:42:16 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saddam is the one that kept kicking them out. He was warned for months ahead of time to let them do their job and kept them from only inspecting where he wanted them to. He could have stopped the war before it started if he had wanted to.
2007-05-27 08:52:42 · answer #7 · answered by question212 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They had 10+ years... When they were not being thrown out of the country by Saddam.
2007-05-27 08:44:46 · answer #8 · answered by SouthernGrits 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
well, they did have about 13 years to do their job, now didn't they? it's interesting how you forget to mention Saddam not allowing them to finish their job which started the whole conflict. He kicked the inspectors out probably 3 times a year for over a decade and finally did it one too many times. now he does satan's bidding.
2007-05-27 08:44:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
the reson, bush wanted to take over iraq, so that he can take out saddam, because he theart to kill his daddy (bush), and it's a oil rich country. remember, bushs are in the oil business too. i belive there were no wmd in iraq, it's iran and north korea. how come he is not going after them?
2007-05-27 08:48:22 · answer #10 · answered by rickinobetz 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋