Is it true that Bush knew that Saddam Hussein didn't have the nuclear weapon before Bush started the Iraq War?

Question

I'm not sure but I think I've heard on the news said ex-CIA reported to Bush that Hussein doesn't have any nuclear weapon before the war, but Bush proceeded anyway.
If that was true, how can you tell that news is reliable?

Answer 1

Rule of thumb, when it comes to headlines, dig, dig, dig.

I used to work in the business of news, for a decade and its really about headlines, ratings and what the public wants, rather then good down in the dirt journalism. The story is sexed up in the headline and the first few paragraphs, then the real part is buried in the story. The news services call it honest reporting, I call that BS because they know that most people read the headlines, followed by a much lower percentage that reads the first three paragraphs, followed by a very small percentage that read the whole story.

I've learned to let the smoke clear, then make a decision.

Yes, Bush knew what he claimed was true was based on supposition, assumptions, twisting and outright lying.

If Bush really told our government, the people, and the world the truth, we wouldn't be in Iraq now, Saddam would still be in power, the sanctions that had been working for years would still be working, the inspectors would have finally given up as there was really nothing to be found, thousands of our troops wouldn't be maimed or killed, Bin Laden maybe on trial in the Hague, and Bush would go down in history as being an average president. Now he'll go down as being a mass murderer.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 2

Bush never asserted that Saddam had nuclear weapons, but instead that he had chemical weapons (these come under weapons of mass destruction too) and was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

However, at the time, Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector who had been touring the country said that Saddam's ability to develop any WMDs had been severely curtailed by the sanctions against Iraq that had been in place since the Gulf War and that the chemical weapons that Saddam had had at the time of the Gulf War would have disintigrated into a pile of quote "harmless goo".

So yes, unless Geroge Bush is a complete imbicile, he would have know that Saddam didn't have a WMD capability just before the start of the Iraq war.

This doesn't mean that the news isn't reliable, just that politicians sometimes lie.

Answer 3

Wow. What college district is that? Presidnet George W. Bush prosecuted the conflict in Iraq for multiple motives. the single maximum widley understand and least understood, advert to do with weapons of Mass Destruction. maximum folk think of that the belief became to pass inot Iraq and discover vats of weaponized botulism or almost finished nuclear units. in reality much less concrete--Iraq had made consistent efforts to stymie inspections and had never presented an entire accounitng of their WMD components. there have been such components that have been popular to be in Iraq in 1992 and in 1998, by 2002, the question became what had occurred to those materails--what were destroyed and how, the place have been they, ought to any of or no longer it fairly is examined? Hussein had additionally given plenty help and help to terrorists. We were engaged in Afghanistan for nearly a 300 and sixty 5 days and it became popular that al Qaeda participants have been fleeing--between the risk-free havens they have been fleeing to became Iraq--partly the invasionwa approximately denying those havens and battling help to different terror communities besides suhc as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Answer 4

Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, before the invasion.

So of course he knew Iraq didn't have them.

Bush said, Iraq had WMD, meaning chemical or biological weapons.

We were wrong, but every US intelligence agency, all thought Iraq had Chemical or biological weapons before the invasion.

So did most of the worlds leading intelligence agencies.

Even UN Inspector Hans Blix, thought Iraq had WMD, he just couldn't prove it.

You have to remember, Bush said we invaded Iraq, Before they could become an imminent threat.

Not that they were one.

Answer 5

Bush sold congress on the W.M.D.S in IRAQ,,he said they are capable of striking homeland America at anytime with all kinds of W.M.D.S,,,nuc was the big push,,,,inspectors were of no help,cause Bush did not care what anyone said,,Bush cemented his war by suppressing evidence of no ,,NO, w>m>d>s in Iraq,and selling congress and all America on false information that now has us in a ? war in Iraq ,with NO WAY OUT,,,he has said if you don't support the war in Iraq your UNPATRIOTIC,,other statements have been made to insane effects of his leadership.I will also say that Dem leadership from Hillary Clinton failed to stop his actions,,as she supported without question the war,,and failed to initiate impeachment of Bush...looks like both party,s are fully corrupted...chow freepress

Answer 6

How can you te;l that what the republicans at Fox are telling you is reliable ? They are well known for twisting the truth, such the casualties in Iraq which are far higher then the American governments claims them to be.

Answer 7

See who thought Sadaam had WMD's:
Right Here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Answer 8

WE ALL KNEW that!!! Nobody ever saaid HE HAD Nukes. Just the FACT that he murdered His own people using WMD's and was interested in getting Nukes ( and yes we assumed he would use them)

Answer 9

You are a leftist nitwit...your boy Clinton was saying the same thing Bush was saying based on Intel from countries all over the world....

Answer 10

three words for you
liberal
media
bias
the elections are coming and the pelosi/reid regime wont miss a trick looking for a way to regain power. no its not true and no its not reliable.