Skip to comments.
Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq
Christian Science Monitor ^
| 4/12/06
| John Hughes
Posted on 04/12/2006 12:01:03 PM PDT by Caleb1411
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-106 next last
1
posted on
04/12/2006 12:01:05 PM PDT
by
Caleb1411
To: Caleb1411
"Bush had good reason to believe there were WMD in Iraq"
There are and there were.
2
posted on
04/12/2006 12:02:46 PM PDT
by
jdm
To: jdm
To: Caleb1411
Why would Bush lie about WMDs to lead us to war? If he had known there weren't really any over there, it wouldn't have made sense to lead us to war on that pretense because he would know none would be found and that his lie would be exposed.
4
posted on
04/12/2006 12:07:45 PM PDT
by
pcottraux
(It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
To: Caleb1411
So far, the only "proof" is that WMDs haven't been found -- yet. What will all these critics say when they are uncovered?
5
posted on
04/12/2006 12:09:27 PM PDT
by
TommyDale
To: jdm
To: pcottraux
grow up people. maybe if we did the president would treat us like adults. we can't handle the truth. requires too much intestinal fortitude and we've just about legislated that out of existence.
7
posted on
04/12/2006 12:10:07 PM PDT
by
kinghorse
To: Caleb1411
In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD... ...any more. I guess he didn't tell his Generals the rest of it: that Putin had helped transport the whole load to Syria for safekeeping. ;)
8
posted on
04/12/2006 12:13:14 PM PDT
by
Mr. Jeeves
("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
To: pcottraux
Why would Bush lie about WMDs to lead us to war? If he had known there weren't really any over there, it wouldn't have made sense to lead us to war on that pretense because he would know none would be found and that his lie would be exposed. You gotta slow down a little; you're going too fast for Democrats, whose already-diminished capacities for following logical arguments have been further vitiated by 8 years of Clinton's baloney.
9
posted on
04/12/2006 12:13:23 PM PDT
by
Caleb1411
("These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G. K. C)
To: jdm
No way this is ChriSci Monitor!!
To: Caleb1411
The thing I don't get is why we did not plant any when we could find none. That would have saved us and the administration a ton of "Bush Lied Kids Died" phooey.
11
posted on
04/12/2006 12:15:25 PM PDT
by
spikeytx86
(Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by there fruity little club.)
To: Caleb1411
12
posted on
04/12/2006 12:19:19 PM PDT
by
ConservativeBamaFan
(Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than Dick Cheney's quail gun.)
To: Caleb1411
In retrospect it is clear that the weapons did not exist,...Then why were the Iraqis modifying SA-2 missiles into surface to surface missiles and why were the Iraqis engaged in ballistic missile manufacturing in violation of U.N. range restrictions?
13
posted on
04/12/2006 12:19:21 PM PDT
by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: Caleb1411
"The Bush critics can argue that the president was too gullible in accepting the conclusion of his intelligence agencies. But the evidence does not suggest that he knowingly lied to the American public about the existence of WMD."
The Clinton administration thought they were there too.
I must say that up to the day of the surgical strike on the neighborhood where we tried to kill Saddam I believed and was saying that we would not mount a full scale invasion without proof of an imminent threat and that appears to have been wrong.
14
posted on
04/12/2006 12:20:41 PM PDT
by
gondramB
(Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
To: pcottraux
I've made that agument from the begining. Why would he intentionally set himself up for failure?
To: jdm
Yup!! W had several good reasons to believe that WMD's were in Iraq.
FYI: Guess what?
On a personal bone-fide'.
We've found them, continue to find them, documented them along with a few tons Saddam regime documents that acknowledge(d) their presence. and the administration/military has ordered their continued removal with the cover up.
What I'd like to know is why?
16
posted on
04/12/2006 12:23:54 PM PDT
by
RSmithOpt
(Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
To: Caleb1411
When the president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had close ties with Hussein, told Vice President Cheney that Hussein did not want war but would use chemical weapons if attacked, Dude, it's cool. I told him, like, you, had, like, chemicals weapons, you know, like you wanted.
17
posted on
04/12/2006 12:24:38 PM PDT
by
Tribune7
To: jveritas
18
posted on
04/12/2006 12:25:40 PM PDT
by
rightinthemiddle
(Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
To: Caleb1411
However the mushroom cloud may not have been the reason Bush went into Iraq. If it was, the troops would be home by now. We know that Iran is of no immediate mushroom threat and we got them in our sights now. We want a presence there. Iraq was a doable start, or so it was reported.
19
posted on
04/12/2006 12:28:21 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
(John 17 - So that they may be one just as we are one.)
To: Caleb1411
......Michael Moore, Kris Matthews, Barbara Streisand, Howie Dean, Ted Kennedy, Rob Reiner, Dan Rather, etc., etc., etc. are lying, NOT Bush.
20
posted on
04/12/2006 12:29:39 PM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(The Fourth-Estate is a Fifth-Column!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-106 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson