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

Also, how did he know that there was WMD hidding in Iraq?
Keep in mind that there is no direct evidence that links Iraq to either the 9/11 attacks or WMD.

But why did GWB believe that there was?

2007-10-27 08:02:09 · 19 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Common Sense, you had the best answer until you added your uncalled for comment.

2007-10-27 08:11:52 · update #1

19 answers

GWB didn't think anything. His family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time.
The Bush family and its influential, wealthy elitist friends selected George W. Bush to be President so that he could take revenge on Hussein.
The rest of it worked out all-too-perfectly: Cheney coveted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands, and the giant U.S. military-industrial complex [which Eisenhower warned us about] needed a new 'war' to boost its sagging profits after years of peace.
The events of 9-11 provided Bush with the opportunity to attack Iraq - a sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States. But, emotions ran high, and the Bush administration used the event as its catalyst to unconstitutionally, illegally, unjustifiably, and immorally invade Iraq.
"Weapons of mass destruction" was simply an excuse with which to hoodwink the American people, and con our valiant U.S. soldiers into believing there was honorable purpose in this obscene invasion. It is, by far, the most vile scam ever perpetrated upon the American taxpayer.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and all their war-mongering friends deserve to share a special OIL-soaked, blood-stained corner of Hell for such shameful deceit, along with:
535 members of the most arrogant, incompetent, impotent, contemptible, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress in U.S. history that stood by and allowed Bush to run rip shod over our Constitution
-AND-
535 members of the most arrogant, incompetent, impotent, contemptible, cowardly, corrupt Democratic-led Congress in U.S. history that promised to end this stupid 'war if they were elected, and - to date - has done nothing to keep that promise. May God DAMN them all!!! -RKO- 10/27/07

2007-10-27 08:25:47 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 3 2

Bush never said or thought Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Both the UN and US Congress authorized military action against Iraq. Regime change had been US policy going back to the Clinton Administration. The whole world had intelligence that they had WMD, and of course they DID, but we screwed around so long they hid them or got them out of the country. But to answer your question, it was never the case that the Iraq invasion was tied to 9-11. The timing might have been effected by it, but there was not a direct link.

2007-10-27 15:31:27 · answer #2 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 3 1

Neither Bush, nor anyone else, thought that it was Iraq.

That's why we attacked Afghanistan, not Iraq, after 9/11.

Iraq was invaded some 2 years later for different reasons (to find the so-called weapons of mass destruction)

2007-10-27 15:19:08 · answer #3 · answered by J 5 · 4 0

The invasion of iraq was not about 911 thats why we invaded afghanistan. And the fact that saddam USED wmd's on his own people is evidence that links iraq to wmd's

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Of course they could have moved them, they move bombs in / out and around iraq right under the noses of the military all the time. All of the free worlds intell services C.I.A. MI6, the Mossad and even russian intelligence reports were studied before war. but of course the libs know more than them don't they?

One thing to think about though.....Saddam ruled through fear could it be possible that he treated the weapons inspectors the way he did to maintain the ILLUSION that he had wmd's in order to keep the fear alive that he might use them on his people again in order to hold on to power. It also kept the surrounding countries from invading iraq. Just a thought.

2007-10-27 15:09:59 · answer #4 · answered by Bishop 5 · 2 3

He never said it was. He said Iraq was a promoter of terrorism which it was in the Middle East sponsoring suicide bombers, unleashing WMDs on its population and Iran, and not complying with UN and the Gulf War resolutions and requirements.

2007-10-27 15:50:13 · answer #5 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1 0

I dont' have the inteligence reports that he had nor do I think that he wrote the speeches that stated those things. I don't think he thought through those statements. however as far as WMD we know that Iraq used them against their own people for decades. I think it was a safe assumption that the existed. I am still amazed they were not found.

2007-10-27 15:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by Richmond C 3 · 0 1

911 was the EXCUSE. Bush wanted troops in the Middle East because the oil is running out. Our fighter Jets, tanks, humvee's all run on oil byproducts. GWB played up the War on Terror to gain a foothold in the richest part of the world. Does anyone else think it's just a coincidense that Geroge W, SCheney and Condolica Rice were all oil Executives????

2007-10-27 15:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6 2

Bush is a willing pawn being used by the PNAC group to accomplish a distribution of wealth and a reduction of threats to Israel. It doesn't really matter whether he's ignorant or delusional, because the group (primarily headed by Cheney) has the power to convince him of things and send him out to make speeches.

2007-10-27 17:21:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He knew Iraq had no connection to 9/11. He had been planning to attack Iraq since Saddam wanted his daddy killed.

2007-10-27 15:07:19 · answer #9 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 5 2

That's what he was told by the "people in the know"...it's all a game of MONEY distribution across the lands....

Bush's main problem is he can't admit he may have made a mistake....or was misinformed....He refuses to be wrong about anything including his mangling of the english language

2007-10-27 15:11:06 · answer #10 · answered by gr8ful_one 6 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers