Why really did George Bush jr. attack Iraq when there were no Weapons of mass destruction?

Question

When his father in the first Iraq war had proof of WMD's (Scuds fired at Isreal), and he did not remove the Dictator Hussein ? I believe the terrorist orchestrated the war by bating Bush ( a trigger happy clint eastwood )with 9-11, which really was not meant to collapse buildings, but just cause alot of casualties.

Some say Bush, being a serious Christian felt it was his duty to eraticate the monster Hussein who was also tortureing his citizens, and preventing WW III.

Also some say he was preventing world economic collapse by protecting the oil? Also Prescott Bush his grandfather was proported to have financed Hitler before WWII and Prescott also was part of the New World Order Military Industrial Complex,in which the Rockefellers are a member.

The Bush family also all went to Yale and were a involved in the secret society there Please Help me understand?

Answer 1

to save your booty!!youll appreacate it one day!!

Answer 2

Does anyone make a big deal when George Bush has given money to Africa,Indonesia,etc... for humanitarian reasons. No! We are a nation of givers and are The Guardians of Peace of oppression. In 10 years people will be eating their words because Iraq will be stabilized and flourish as a nation. I have seen the changes and although I have lost many brothers I believe we have done the right thing. If we only look at the negatives in life then that is sad.

Answer 3

We could not trust Saddam. He threatend to invade another country that had oil reserves and to use gas against the americans. But all that started a another war. one that is a ongoing conflict.

Answer 4

IMO to clean up the mess left behind by Bush 1 and Schwartzkoph,  when they called the Gulf War off too early.

Read the book.   THE GENERALS WAR.   It will explain the whole thing.  

Answer 5

Are you nuts, apparently you dont read the news. what about the 500 tons of uranium we recently shiped out of Iraq to the US?

And at the begining of the war what do you think was on the Iraqi convoys enroute to Syria that we were not able to stop and inspect.

What about the Sarin gas Arty shells used in IED's that have been found and used agains US troops in Iraq.

With your question and comments I can tell you have never served in the military and have most certainly never been to Iraq. However it is your right to free speach to make statements that you apparently know nothing about and have no expierence in.

Check out the news articles below, however if you dont believe, join the military and go over there and see for your self.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.ur...

http://www.mygtv.net/?p=6496

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1201...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1202...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

Answer 6

Bush is not the greatest president ever I'll agree with that but they aren't corrupt either. You people believe in too much conspiracies and not enough of the truth. We have satellite readings showing WMD. As far as when we and the UN began searching they were gone what they did with them are beyond me. It's not a useless war it's almost done so no use in crying about it anymore.

Answer 7

Democrats on WMD"s

(United States weapons inspector Charles Duelfer released his extensive report last week, and confirmed that Saddam Hussein had shut down Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs following the first Iraq war in 1991. His report also showed that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs after that year. With that said, it is interesting to look back at how the Democrats, like Bush, lied to the American public, and inflated Saddam's supposed threat to our national security. The mendacity was undoubtedly universal. Here are a few of the choice quotes.)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), September 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), September 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), October 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), December 8, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

"If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late." -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

"Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), January 23. 2003

Answer 8

Read this

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=...

Answer 9

Iraq was harboring known terrorist, plus Saddam needed to be booted from control anyways.  

Answer 10

I'm not a big Bush fan myself (voted against both of them, in fact), but here's my take on it.

Bush 1 didn't go in after Hussein for two reasons: 1) The goal of the Kuwait war was to preserve Kuwait's independence and to develop a positive to strong political relationship between the US and Kuwait, a potential ally in an oil-producing world where we don't have all that many friends.  2) He knew that from a tactical perspective, he could not enter and occupy Iraq without a whole lot of consequences.  Not that he probably didn't consider some kind of targeted strike by a special forces or CIA-type of team team that would have taken out Hussein.

I am sure that the 9-11 attacks were partly orchestrated to bait Bush II into attacking the Muslim world in general.  And what's stupid is that we fell for it.  We COULD have had some strong allies in the oil-producing world, especially if we took the high road, but instead of focusing on Afghanistan and going after the folks who attacked us, we went after Hussein and put most of our resources there.  I'm not saying this was wrong, but it was the wrong focus and the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

I am also fairly certain that in the NSA and DOD, there are some folks who just want a war, and are constantly working the odds on the war gaming scenarios to see if there's one we can make up a reason for and justify to the public.  I have no idea whether Iraq falls into this scenario, but I do believe that the reasons for the Iraq war were largely made up by a collaboration between Cheney's inside circle and the war-mongers at the Pentagon (and I do mean specifically JUST the people at the Pentagon who were trying to start a war and then make up a reason -- not the honorable people who do a fantastic job daily of executing their duty to defend US interests).

So you have a situation where you know if you go in, it's not going to be for reasons the public cares about, you need to manufacture evidence to justify what the war-mongers want to do, and you know that Cheney's people are going to rape the country, and WORSE, squander hundreds of billions of dollars on supplies they can't manage to locate but which AREN'T being worn or used by soldiers, and you have the private armies of the Blackwood group shooting at US soldiers.

The rest of your comment about Prescott bush, the Skull-and-Bones society, the Rockefellers / Bilderburgs, and the New World order are part of a conspiracy theory created largely by David Icke.  You may want to google a bit on that.  Personally, I wouldn't put much credence it it.  But you MIGHT want to read the works of James Bamford, specifically, The Puzzle Palace.  I think it will open your eyes.

Good luck!

Answer 11

Whose George Bush, Jr? There's George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush there's no junior