I chose #3 - with the exception to fault. They believed faulty information in the same way other people swallow gossip and propaganda....
Please vote in the poll above. You can vote multiple times and the results are public.
Did the Bush Administration deliberately deceive Americans into supporting the 2003 war against Iraq?
A March 6, 2003, Presidential press conference where President Bush outlines justification for war:
Yes, Iraq Definitely Had WMD, Vast Majority Of Polled Republicans Insist
Typical of lefies, always rehashing yesterdays battles instead of looking forward.
There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to use those reasons in their rationale. Instead they chose to sell the war and so used a reason they thought could be best sold to Americans: the very showy and scary threat of weapons of mass destruction being used on Americans. I think they expected to find WMDs but lied about the evidence for it.
There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to use those reasons in their rationale. Instead they chose to sell the war and so used a reason they thought could be best sold to Americans: the very showy and scary threat of weapons of mass destruction being used on Americans. I think they expected to find WMDs but lied about the evidence for it.
Typical of lefies, always rehashing yesterdays battles instead of looking forward.
There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to use those reasons in their rationale. Instead they chose to sell the war and so used a reason they thought could be best sold to Americans: the very showy and scary threat of weapons of mass destruction being used on Americans. I think they expected to find WMDs but lied about the evidence for it.
List the good reasons. I hope they are consistent with international law.
There were plenty of good reasons to invade Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to use those reasons in their rationale. Instead they chose to sell the war and so used a reason they thought could be best sold to Americans: the very showy and scary threat of weapons of mass destruction being used on Americans. I think they expected to find WMDs but lied about the evidence for it.
The invasion of Iran - against international law
The invasion of Kuwait - against international law
Genocide - against international law
In fact, I was wrong when I said the Bush administration didn't use good reasons to invade Iraq. WMDs were what they used to sell the war to the public, but because the war itself was against international law they used the legal argument that they were enforcing international law (including non-proliferation) because the UN was unwilling to do so (hence the Coalition of the Willing).
Personally, I have no respect for international law precisely for this very reason. I don't give a flying **** if you hope the reasons for invasion are consistent with international law. International law is a joke. Conveniently though, they are consistent with the law. International law exists to give the powerful excuses to act if they want to. It is conveniently ignored when powerful states don't want to act. Under international law, Saddam Hussein should have been overthrown decades before he was.
So if I understand some votes here, some of you believe this was just a mistake based on bad intel along the lines of:
Oops, we thought you had WMDs when we invaded your country, but as it turns out, you never had any.
So now that we realize that we invaded and occupied your country despite the fact that your government met all conditions for lifting economic sanctions years ago, told the truth in a pre-war declaration and cooperated with UN weapon inspectors, we are just going help ourselves to your oil and other resources. Also don't expect an apology or a statement of remorse for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and seizing control of your oil resources. Be thankful we replaced your dictator with a puppet.
Seriously?
Of course international law is a joke and if we we're serious about it's application the USA would have been legally bombed into the dark ages shortly after the ink dried on the articles. So was there any reason to invade, occupy and destroy old Iraq? Excluding invasion and genocide which are widely accepted as "worth the price" and popularly applied by the NATO Axis. I wonder if you might consider the massive reserves of hydro carbons lying about as a possible er reason? Or is that just silly?
So if I understand some votes here, some of you believe this was just a mistake based on bad intel along the lines of:
Oops, we thought you had WMDs when we invaded your country, but as it turns out, you never had any.
So now that we realize that we invaded and occupied your country despite the fact that your government met all conditions for lifting economic sanctions years ago, told the truth in a pre-war declaration and cooperated with UN weapon inspectors, we are just going help ourselves to your oil and other resources. Also don't expect an apology or a statement of remorse for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Be thankful we replaced your dictator with a puppet.
Seriously? Does that about summarize some opinions here?
C, your reasons justify an invasion of Iraq back in the late 1980's, but have little bearing on why the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
Oh please. You should know better than this.In 2003 Iraq was peaceful. The only Iraqis suffering in 2003 before the invasion were a direct consequence of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq
I never said that Iraq was more urgent than the Congo.If genocide in the 1980's was the reason for invading Iraq 15-20 years later, then would it also be reasonable to assume that at some point in the future the US is going to invade and occupy the Democracratic Republioc of Congo, which experienced a genocidal civil war from 1998-2003 which killed 3 million people.
Please explain why a historic genocide in Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Kurds was a more urgent problem than the ongoing genocidal war in the DRC which was killing millions????