English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Here is Bush's interview admitting no WMD:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/15/wmd-irrelevant/

This was two years ago. So why are some Republicans on YA! still saying different?

2007-08-13 08:44:30 · 15 answers · asked by Rosebee 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

So Reguru, you know better than Bush, is that it?

Last I heard mustard gas is not a WMD.

2007-08-13 08:57:48 · update #1

15 answers

1. They believe that some 10-20 year old unusable canisters that were found in the desert justifies Bush's claim that Saddam was still producing WMD when we invaded in 2002.
2. They fail to see that if, in fact, there were weapons of mass destruction which were successfully moved to Syria or another country when we invaded; then the whole war has been a failure from the start.

2007-08-13 09:11:41 · answer #1 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 1 2

Because Bush knew that the only "WMDs" in Iraq were the ones that Daddy Bush and Reagan sold to Saddam 20 years ago. The Soviet Union did the same 30 years ago, and France and China have been doing from 1992-2003. That being said, Iraq is a very socially unstable country. That in itself would spark a civil war once Saddam was overthrown, causing the current situation where car bombings are a daily occurrence, and we all know, a car bombing means "terrorism", and we have to "stop terrorism in Iraq before it spreads elsewhere".

2007-08-13 10:12:08 · answer #2 · answered by gregtkt120012002 5 · 1 0

Because denial is a disease

They said an old chemical truck lab that was found empty was a WMD - used 15 years ago for developing the Mustard gas

They gassed the Kurd's like 15-20 years ago - that wasn't the reason the U.S. invaded. We invaded because we were told Mushroom Clouds and a link to 9/11 - both of which have been proven to have been a lie!

War on Terror (9/11) - not handing out a democracy because Saddam gassed Kurd's 15-20 years ago.

SO YES - A LIE!

They say that rusted flimsy aluminum tubes they found were WMD's

They say 20 year old depleted Mustard gas canisters and nerve gas are WMD's. They were so degraded they were barely detectable.

Yes - Denial is a sickness

And those items sure do not equate or apply to Mushroom Clouds or the actual term WMD's - which was the reason they gave for invading in the first place.

Half the World has more extreme weapons than what they found in Iraq.

It's a joke!

2007-08-13 08:55:54 · answer #3 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 3 3

Dude, we knew for a fact Saddam had WMD's, BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT SOLD THEM TO HIM. Granted, we sold him nerve gas, guns, ammo, mustard gas and other goodies back in the 1980's during the war with Iran.

Never forget, Saddam was set up to take Iraq's leader role by the CIA. Google Saddam Hussein and Detroit, MI, to see a nice picture of Saddam receiving the key to the city back in 1970's. IN the same vein, the CIA, NSA and others set up a mujahadeen fighter agains the Sovieys (one Usama Bin Laden) also supplying weapons, training and ammo.

Those who do not learn from HIS STORY.........

2007-08-13 09:17:12 · answer #4 · answered by irish_american_psycho 3 · 0 0

Oh my god, there's one thing that liberals will side with him on! But fact is, Sadam had and used WMD's in the past, and every intel agency believed he still had them when we invaded. But I don't understand why everyone comes to the conclusion that since we didn't find them, then they didn't exist. It's very possible that they were transported out of Iraq, or just burried somewhere. Am I the only one who saw the satelite footage of endless convoys of trucks going in and out of Sadams compounds right before his deadline was up? Or am I the only one who thinks that maybe he was having incriminating evidence taken out? Remember that there were a lot of political prisoners held there that were never found either. Does that mean those people didn't actually exist?

2007-08-13 17:39:17 · answer #5 · answered by soulclutch4u 1 · 0 1

It is a fact that they had them and no we did not find them. So if you have something and hide it or give it away and do not admit to this. Does this mean you never had it? No it means you deceived and lied. And this is what Sadam did And the fact he used them WMD's on Kurds and Iranians id fact. He than went on and said he would not give them up and played hide and seek with the UN and when they did find he was doing this they pulled out and put those wonderful sanctions that work so well on them. And this is why Hillary , John Kerry who by the ways served himself in Vietnam and many other Democrats all voted to go to war with Sadam. You want to make a point lets now go into Iran and Syria and find them and wipe them all off of the face of the earth. They want and will do this to us and they only know the power of the sword.
If you wish to make a statement do so with some facts and intelligence. It is yours and mine and every American and person who loves freedom who are under attack. They said it is WW III and they every day talk of our fate of death. Look at what Islam did under Turkey to Christian Armenians and Greek and in the Balkans which brings me to Clinton as all roads lead to him and his inactions as president. 911, the first twin towers attacks, Mogadishu, 2 embassies, the USS Cole. and yes the Balkans which he only dropped bombs. And I wonder how many innocent people died from this?

2007-08-13 09:17:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Simply put, even the UN knew that Iraq had WMDs when inspections started in the 90's. The WMDs that were known have never been fully accounted for. Therefore, where are they?

Also, do you seriously believe that Iraq was burying barrels of pesticides (precursor agent for chem weapons) in the desert to help fight Iraq's roach problem?

But, even though there was a worldwide concensus that Iraq had WMDs, including agreement by such Conservative stalwarts as Clinton (both), Kerry, Gore, et al, it just has to be those pesky neocons and pubbies. [sic]

2007-08-13 08:56:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

just because no wmd's have been found as yet;

1: doesnt mean there are not any to be found

2: could be they were secreted out of the country.

why do liberals harp on one particular reason for going into iraq when there were 23 different reasons, only two of which had anything to do with wmd's? you think that firing on US aircraft legally patroling the UN sanctioned no fly zone might constitute an act of war? or that there was only a cease fire agreement and not a peace treaty signed between saddam and the coalition? and the saddam continually broke the terms of the cease fire accords, and thumbed his nose at the world? why did clinton sign the iraqi freedom act into law?

2007-08-13 08:58:39 · answer #8 · answered by richard b 6 · 1 3

It is because of the WMD fairy

duh

she came down with her wand and tapped all the WMD that Saddam had amassed

and it just magically vanished

.

2007-08-13 09:02:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Let me try to answer a question with a question. Why did the Vietnam war drag on for something like 10 years too long? It must be something in human nature, but it`s not just a Republican thing. signed,,,,,,Old Ammo Troop

2007-08-13 14:17:06 · answer #10 · answered by Neil R 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers