Does the Bush admin depend on weapons of mass delusion to garner support for their lie based war in Iraq?

Question

- forged yellowcake purchase documents
- aluminum tubes that can't enrich uranium
- mobile chemical weapons labs that never existed
- and so on...

Answer 1

Pass the Kool-ade please, you have obviously had enough.

Answer 2

think of you are able to stand a splash historic previous? The preliminary weapons inspections by making use of the UN began in 1991, presently after the Gulf conflict. Saddam had outfitted up an arsenal of chemical weapons and had used them before to kill an predicted 20,000 people, alongside with 5000 Iraqi Kurds. He used the two mustard gas and tabun, a nerve agent. As previous due as 1999, Iraq rejected yet yet another UN selection (1284) and, after different warnings of armed forces intervention, Saddam ejected the inspectors from his u . s . a .. purely before their departure, they had destroyed 40 8 long variety missiles, 14 prevalent warheads, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 a lot of chemical brokers. there grew to become into no good monitoring from 1999 on - or perhaps the supervisor weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, admitted that even regardless of the undeniable fact that the inspectors had placed and destroyed lots of the laboratories, production equipment and chemical brokers discovered - he ought to no longer determine they had eradicated Saddam's WMD arsenal thoroughly - alongside with VX nerve brokers. while Saddam wasn't expelling the inspectors from the rustic, he grew to become into denying them get admission to to quite a few homes and diverse areas. it relatively is the state of affairs on the time while the alternative to attack Iraq grew to become into positioned to a vote. forget approximately approximately any rhetoric approximately "Bush lied" - given Saddam's historic previous and the findings of the inspection communities - HOW could you have VOTED?

Answer 3

They depend on a sustainable conflict in Iraq - Because the US not winning in Iraq has nothing to do with the government in Iraq or even the Iraqi people or " insurgents " or WMD . The US not winning in Iraq has to do with the fact that it is designed to stay that way , didn't people read the headlines that state the US is not leaving for 10 years ? Well if everything was going well why would they have to stay for 10 years ? The answer is - They wouldn't .

Politicians running for President are saying we are not leaving Iraq until 2013 ! Why so long ? Ask yourself - its not chess .

Answer 4

Bush no longer needs to use faulty (false??) intel. Now that the war is so far advanced, he can rely on calling people who dare to not support it "anti-american", "traitors", "defeatists", ad nauseum.

Now, let's lay blame in the right place. We the people and our representatives were gullible enough to fall for the "Iraq is going to nuke us tomorrow" fear campaign. There actually was plenty of contrary reporting even in the media.

I fell for the false reports of CURRENT WMD's (not past stocks as the idiot neo-cons keep harping on) and so-called negotiations for uranium to produce nukes.

I should have remembered the dismal performance of the SCUD missiles in the Iraq war #1 and drawn a more logical conclusion.

Answer 5

HERE`S YOUR " SIGN " Wise Guy !! Watch and see what your beloved Liberals said about WMDs` during Slick Willies` term and President Bush`s ! What a bunch of 2 faced Hypocrites... See , a Liberal will give you a thumbs down when you show him/her facts ! I mean these are the Liberal Dimokratz all saying on "VIDEO" about their surety of WMDs` in Iraq , of course this is while Bill Clinton is president. It shows Nancy Pelosi saying she "knows for a fact" that Saddam has WMDs`. Now they blame no WMDs` on Bush when they were betting their lives on it under Clinton .... Unbelievable Lying Hypocrties .

Answer 6

Nope.

This is our last chance in the Middle East to attempt to do something positive with these people. After this it's park an aircraft carrier off the coast of Israel and batten the hatches back home.

We did our best. Granted it was like trying to teach monkeys to read, but we did our best. We proved ourselves willing to shed our blood in opposing radical Islam and it's take over of Iraq. That was something we hadn't yet done in confronting terror.

Next time something bad happens most of us will feel justified in unleashing some US terror on our attackers. Terror the likes of which Osama and Ahmadinejad only dream of.

Forget nukes. Ever see that aerosol weapon demonstration? And that thing conviently kills people hiding in caves too.

Answer 7

It seems to me that the Bush administration will rely on just about anything be it fact or fiction.

If it sound good at the the they'll use it.

I love the 50% comment. SOOOOO true!

Answer 8

They depend on lies for everything they do.

Like the lie that the CHIPS program would give eligibility to families making $80K, when the states would have had to each have federal approval for an increase, just like now.

Or the lie that the White House was not involved in influencing the federal attorneys to make political prosecutions or that they had been appointed for that very purpose.

Answer 9

Of course they do...I just cant believe some people still believe all these lies. Well actually I'm not too surprised, about 50% of americans dont believe in evolution.

Answer 10

Absolutely! And they are doing the same with Iran right now. Can't you hear the same sickening drumbeat?

Answer 11

Yes, just like Liberals believe Charles Manson is Jesus Christ.