Why has there not been an outcry against the Bush administration for going to war based on false evidence?

Question

The evidence Powell took to the UN was found to be false, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, yet American re-elected Bush and appear to support another was with Iran. Why haven't the American people done more to bring the troops home?

Answer 1

More Americans are now against the war than you appear to assume. At it's lowest, Bush's approval rating was 24%, one of the lowest any president has ever had. I know very few people that actually still support the war. To some degree, many feel unable to exercise much influence over whether or when the troops are brought home. The decision still rests on Bush himself and he's not bringing them home while he's still in office. Trust me, many many Americans have been calling for the return of the troops since the war effort began.

Answer 2

Just like there has never been any outcry or the need to explore into who and what race, creed or religion of those who historically were the real culprits for stirring up hatred and wars in history. Too bad that history has always been written by those who carry one-sided verdicts and opinions, and opposing views banned!

Answer 3

republicans shall not speak of wrong doings of other republicans. That is the unwritten rule of the party. They will stick together till the end even if it means the end of the country. They apparently are true traitors to the country and the Constitution.

There has been outcry, just none from the traitors.

Answer 4

It is not a war but an illegal invasion/occupation. There has been an outcry from the beginning. They try to squash it by calling us traitors or unpatriotic. Though I feel it should be spoken loudly there seems to be hesitation.

Answer 5

the American people have no power. those they elect have all the power. there has been an outcry. you will recall that Powell resigned shortly after his last trip to the UN.

Answer 6

Have you been living out of the country for the last 4 years?

Answer 7

Because Saddam violated the treaty he agreed to saying that inspectors would be able to inspect possible sights for WMD's. He didn't let them inspect. America warned him that if he didn't adhere to the treaty they would invade. He didn't adhere to the treaty so we invaded. There were terrorist organizations in Iraq( I have been there and will probably have to go back so I see my credibility to be higher then yours). There were WMD's in Iraq (yes chemical weapons are WMD's).

Lets recap shall we. Saddam said he had no intentions for acquiring nuclear weapons to the U.S. and it's allies. Yet for some reason intel showed him telling Syria, Lebanon, etc that he was acquiring nuclear weapons. U.S., British, Isreali, Russian, and Egyptian intel all confirmed the same thing. Then Saddam doesn't let the U.N. inspectors do there job and when threatened with invasion runs off and hides instead of letting the inspectors do what he agreed too. Does that look like he had something to hide, sure does to me. There are plenty of other things to whine about Bush for.. the Iraq war is not one of them.

You may now proceed with spamming me with thumbs down because I told you exactly WTF happened. Not like I was there.... or anything...../sarcasm off.

Answer 8

Do a search on Y!A. This idiocy has been asked and answered numerous times already.

Next.

Answer 9

Because the "evidence" isn't political, it doesn't care what party the administration belongs to. Democrats in congress saw and believed the same "evidence" Bush and the republicans did. It wasn't invented, and if fact, some of it was found to be true. WMD's were found, not in great numbers but remnants of manufacturing plants were also found. You do know the Iraqi's have used them in the past (remember the Kurds?). So try and get your facts straight.

Answer 10

another LOST defeatocrat...lol