Why do you think our leaders completely lied about the weapons of mass destruction?

Answer 1

Bush and Cheney needed a rationale for attacking another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States.
When it began becoming obvious that Saddam Hussein had no involvement with the 9-11 tragedies, the White House needed another reason. It was, after all, the sole reason George W. Bush was selected to be our 43rd President:
1. "Settle the score" and satisfy a personal vendetta the Bush family had against Hussein ever since George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humilaited for not 'finishing the job' during Operation Desert Storm and ousting Hussein at that time;
2. Cheney coveted all "our" OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands;
3. The giant U.S. military-industrial complex needed a new 'war' to boost sagging profits from too many years of peace.
George W. Bush was ordered to declare this unconstitutional, illegal, unjustified, immoral 'war' so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists, oil barons and power brokers could beomce wealthier and more powerful - at any cost.

675.000 Iraqis have died and 3,900 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives as part of the atrocious cost of this atrocious 'war'. Bush has put American taxpayers TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, which will take generations to pay off [and will probably cause the country's worst economic depression in history shortly after he leaves office in 2009].

The #1 non-military 'benchmark' Bush is forcing on the Iraqi Parliament: allowing foreign OIL companies to take control of two-thirds of Iraq's oil field, which - in effect - lets Exxon-Mobil and other corporations virtually STEAL Iraq's most valuable economic resource, all so that American motorists can continue to drive gas-guzzling Hummers and SUVs with comparatively cheap fuel.

Our leaders lied about 'weapons of mass destruction' because it was politically - and commerically - necessary for their own enrichment.

NEXT STOP: IRAN. For the very same reasons - OIL and WAR PROFITEERING. Although, this time the Bushites know 'weapons of mass destruction' won't be a viable rationale. They'll most likely stage another 'terrorist attack' on U.S. soil, this time somewhere in the Midwest, perhaps Chicago or St. Louis. Watch for it in late summer of 2008.
-RKO- 12/06/07

Answer 2

Well, did they lie? I'm not sure if that was even necessary.. I think they accepted any reports that supported what they had already decided to do, and rejected any that didn't. The Bush Administration has done precisely the same thing in dealing with Global Warming, Sex Education support, Stem Cell research, all kinds of stuff.

Also, look at the history... we KNEW Iraq had WMDs because, a decade before, we GAVE them WMDs, and looked the other way when they started to make their own (chemical weapons, not nukes, back then). Prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was our bulldog... at least the CIA's, and Reagan's. He was employed to be a thorn in the side of Iran, our enemy since the Carter Administration. Thing is, we have a horrible history of keeping these dogs in check. Same problem with our former dog, Osama bin Laden, once employed to be a thorn in the side of the Soviet Union.

It's easy to believe it was all orchestrated, but as a scientist and engineer, I like to weild Occam's razor... none of that was even necessary. They had a plan, they let circumstances push it through. Sure, they could have believed the reports that said that Iran had no WMDs. But they had reports that said otherwise, and they had already planned to attack, if politically possible, even before the election. A good conspiracy involves clever liars.. a great conspiracy can do it "honestly".

It was all planned out before the 2000 election. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and other Neocons formed a think tank, dating back to 1992, that ultimately decided that it would be a good thing for the USA to proactively pursue goals though military force. One of the first goals was the conquest of Iraq. See:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
and specifically:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

In this document, written in 2000, this group is calling for radical changes to the US foreign policy, casting us as an aggressor, essentially. They deal with the fact this would be politically difficult, and point out that a "new Pearl Harbor" (pg 51) would be necessary to rapidly effect such changes.

While this first paper is called "Rebuilding America's Defenses", this paper, and the PNAC, is really about switching from a Cold War model of actual defense, to a world in which the USA really has no credible threat, and (in their opinion) ought to move to an offensive posture.

Thing is, building an aggressive military campaign isn't easy, simply because most of us don't want endless war. Thus the call for the "new Pearl Harbor", which we got, in spades, on 11-Sep-2001. They didn't create this, but they certainly ignored all the warnings about the dangers of terrorism passed on by the Clinton Administration. And they used 9/11, and the claim of WMDs, to make it possible to shift the focus tto the non-participant, Iraq.

Why? Well, because it was supposed to be an "easy" and acceptable target. The goal, even back in 2000, was to establish permanent military bases within the Middle East. Iraq was considered the most acceptable initial target -- Saddam Hussein had certainly been neutered by 2002, but he was undeniably a bad guy. If it was just getting him out of power, they could have had that done in 2003. But the real goal was establishing a permanent staging area within the Middle East.

Next target, from the PNAC documents, going back to before the 2000 election, was Iran. Because of the oil, and also because that was considered doable, given the various radicals running that country over the year. And of course, it was next to Iraq.

Answer 3

They needed an excuse to go to war. This war has been incredibly profitable for a number of large companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, Dyncorp, Blackwater etc.

The leadership of these companies are part of the same subculture within America that the senior members of BOTH political parties belong to.

Answer 4

We attacked Iran, k_i_parr? Hmmmmm

Actually, the problem with your question is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It's a rhetorical flaw in your logic. The fact that we did not find the weapons (absence of evidence) does NOT prove that they never existed (evidence of absence). I believe that Iraq did have a WMD program. Perhaps it was further hidden during the two months that the United States pumped its fists and threatened to invade. Whatever happened to the element of surprise?

Answer 5

OIL--
Remember Condaleeza Rice--Former Oil Official
George W. Bush--Owned Oil Company
Dick Cheney--Involved in Oil and Oil Field Repairs (Halliburton)

So, the answer is OIL--Iran owns either 3 or 4 in WORLD OIL RESERVES--By the way--IRAQ is number 5!

We knew North Korea had not only nuclear weapons but also long range delivery systems---but we attacked Iran--why?

OIL

Answer 6

Because they thought they were right, making it not a lie. If it was a lie, then it would have been tracked down to the person. It quietly disappeared because it was an awful mistake. Our government can and does make mistakes. No other scenario for telling that 'lie' makes sense to provide a motive. Combine that with the fact that the Democratic congress is not pursuing it either means either the entire government is corrupt (unlikely for reasons of human nature) or it was a giant mistake.

Answer 7

Guess you wern't reading the paper. It seems that a citizen of Iraq, who worked in one of their Science Labs, started it. I believe he had gotten fired from his job and figured he'd get back at them, so he put false information out on a Web Site. Bill Clinton got wind of it thru our CIA and I believe one of Englands anti-terroists Organizations. It just escalated from there. Everyone goes around blaming Bush, but it started before he ever got in Office. It just continued with him . He believed what he was told. He didn't lie. He was misinformed and led up the garden path just like Clinton was.

Answer 8

B/C americans are gullible and they needed a scapegoat so they could spend millions on a BS war instead of healthcare

Answer 9

Or maybe there is something deeper and more classified and they had to say something to get the prying public to hush.

Answer 10

Because they didn't Find WMD's doesn't mean that there wasn't any before the first strike.

It's been documented that through satellite surveillance there much movement of convoys to Syria.