They will often repeat the lie that France, Germany, Russia etc. all claimed Iraq had WMD before the war.
They did not. They wanted inspections and if those inspections found no WMD, they wanted sanctions against Iraq lifted.
How much better the world would be now, if they had prevailed and Bush had not gotten his war.
2007-08-01 18:59:29 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
so you forgot the food for oil scandals that are tied to which contries again
oh yes
france, germany and russia.
go figure
2007-08-01 19:03:05 · answer #1 · answered by Adam of the wired 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Actually, they wanted inspections and Saddam kept putting them off and denying inspectors access. When inspectors finally got in there (after 8 long years of Clinton's spending more time chasing skanks than leading this country) of course they were gone. If they were ever there or not; don't know and don't really care.
Saddam had ignored sanctions and defied the UN for so long it was nothing but a game with him. It was time for him to be removed from power. FYI the UN is the biggest drain on the US and serves no purpose for our country. They are impotent and the leaders of the world know it.
Idiots claim the French were against us going into Iraq and in fact they were. Until we had subdued the Iraqi military. Then they started complaining that they wanted their share of the oil rights. Try telling whole stories instead of the Dem spin.
2007-08-01 19:18:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was the first justification for going in, and after being proven wrong, fell into the "perception is reality" bin of political thought.
Other excuses have become more popular, but Bush supporters will never let go of this one (Hannitty's favorite rhetorical trap is to quote anonymous politicians who believed the faulty intel, only to reveal that these folks were all well-known democrats/liberals).
He never quotes the national leaders who were right throughout-- Germany, France, Russia, Spain-- or, when he does, it's because some report has just revealed UNUSABLE chemical weapons rotting since 1990 in some pre-Desert Storm warehouse.
I intuit that you feel it's one ugly lie, and I would agree.
2007-08-01 19:18:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Canada, where I live, news coverage of Bush's allegations about Weapons of Mass Destruction was much more critical. It became pretty obvious to me, as I followed the news, that Bush's intelligence had been massaged, manipulated, and made up.
2007-08-01 19:23:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No really good answer to this question. Bush wanted this war. He had to take care of his "Daddy's Nemisis". He truly believed there was a cause for war. There is a saying " Figures Never Lie, But Liars Figure" Now we know which one Bush is.
2007-08-01 19:16:25 · answer #5 · answered by Dale S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most nations who had surveillance thought that they did. Bush was going on things he was told and what the previous administration said. Clinton thought he had them. Bush did not deliberately lie to us(I know some of you will not believe this), but he was going on what he was told. Maybe waiting a little longer would have been best, but all of us with 20/20 hindsight should not condemn him for what he was told by others who may have had reasons to want to start the war. Bush may be a lot of things, but I truly do not believe he lied to us deliberately. Let the mudslinging begin.
2007-08-01 19:08:15 · answer #6 · answered by Jeff E 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
France and Russia were selling weapons to Saddam at the time, and the U.N. was ignoring mass starvations because they were getting "oil for food" money from Saddam. I don't trust the U.N. to know the right thing to do concerning Iraq if they have their hands in the cookie jar.
2007-08-01 19:06:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
it somewhat is cool if it somewhat is unique, yet loads of the time it somewhat is merely one thing it somewhat is been completed till now. Or it somewhat is 0.5 a brilliant gesture, like he tried to do some thing specific to look cool yet replaced into afraid to get too loopy. while you are going to do it, then do it each of how! additionally, whilst it somewhat is a brilliant promposal in front of a team of folk, I think of it would be loads of rigidity to declare confident, that's unfair. maximum heavily, it relies upon on the guy your asking's character. would they actual should be asked the way which you're thinking of? If no longer, then do no longer do it - you're merely thinking approximately your self(attempting to coach off to people). i individually would hate a public promposal, yet a private one remote from people may be effective. do no longer circulate over the genuine if that individual would not like over the genuine.
2016-10-13 11:12:49 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world would be better off without the WAR ON DRUGS or the WAR ON TERRORISM. Wars on things are a pretty big tip that they are BS.
2007-08-01 19:19:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are experts at bending the truth........
I guess if we didn't invade , oil would be a lot lower...........there would be a lot more Americans and Iraqi's would be alive..............Maybe Osama would have been caught if we didn't waste our resources in Traq.......There would be much less opium and heroin produced by Afganistan and less Americans would be addicted.....I could go on for a loooooooong time.
2007-08-01 19:09:36 · answer #10 · answered by richard t 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They did have WMD, they were unaccounted for when inspectors came back in to Iraq. They shipped them out to Syria and probably Iran too, just Pryor to the invasion. Some are still buried in the desert, good luck ever finding them!
2007-08-01 19:06:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋