Why could Bush Produce No Evidence of his claims of WMD's in 2003 in Iraq??

Question

Yet in In November of 1962, JFK came before the American people and produced U2 photographs of missle sites in Cuba.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos4.htm

And in November of 1999 the US could find by satellite an imagery of the Musudan-Ri test site for a missile in North Korea. (One site!!)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/nodong.htm

Yet Bush in 2003 could produce no photographic evidence in Iraq of all those piles of nerve gas and drones and missles or manufacturing sites. And if he couldn't, why did we allow him to invade Iraq as the replacement of Saddam wasn't an issue then?

Answer 1

Coming out at Saddam's trial....

Let's see...bullets, car batteries, and jumper cables. Heinous devices of torture and ways to kill people, but hardly WMD's. We never will see any Saddam trial featuring WMDs. Why? Because every WMD in Saddam's arsenal that he used WE sold him. That's why that particular incident of the several he COULD have been tried for was chosen, it's the ONLY one that the U.S. didn't supply the hardware for.



Why did we believe so strongly he had WMDs? Because WE sold them to them. Rumsfeld specifically headed up the program in the early 80's with Bush Sr's blessing. Our buddy buddy relationship with Saddam goes back a long ways. The thing about WMD's though is that they require very expensive facilities to store and have a very short effective shelf life. The ability to store viable quantities is something Saddam hasn't had for about 15-20 years now...something we ALSO knew very well (at least that's what they taught me in Arabic intel analyst school).

Answer 2

If you learn the studies--President Bush and the yankee intelligence corporations as good as the ones western ecu intelligence corporations purchased Saddam Husseins declare that he had WMD's. Hussein himself on interviews mentioned that when the conflict with IRAN adopted by way of his devasating losses in gulf conflict I, he was once deathly afraid IRAN might come around the border because of his navy weak point. The most effective approach they idea they would preserve IRAN from doing that is that if IRAN idea IRAQ had WMD's. They had been so well at this shell sport every body within the west purchased it--Saddam effectively did not consider President Bush and the relaxation of the sector might have the cajones to invade him. After nine-eleven an american president would now not forget about chance evaluation--else they would be castigated for doing not anything in any respect. There were many investigations of this---headquartered at the chance evaluation an intelligence to be had to the wes --each and every investiaging frame has mentioned that at the same time he was once unsuitable within the truth that there have been no WMD''s--due to the fact the chance evaluation and intel--he was once proper in his movement. Liberals hate this--however it's real--it is a lot less difficult to bash President Bush than to truthfully try to realise why matters performed out the best way they did.

Answer 3

They don't really care about that. Facts don't matter. They sent Colin Powell to the UN with some flimsy Powerpoint BS looked like Atari Combat, people bought it hook, line and sinker.



The WMDs are not a concern.



This war is about OPEC's power to impose production limits on oil, limiting supply and raising prices. US oil doesn't mind Iraq (an OPEC member) doing that, it just has to be consistent. Iraq cannot produce more oil for another 10 years minimum, people don't understand this, but it is true...



The takeover is to secure these oil supplies from making too much in the future. We need to regulate this oil. It all is quite funny coming from an administration who always talks about de-regulation and free markets etc. We are fighting a war, killing, to basically maintain US corporate, international, welfare system...

Answer 4

It wasn't only his claim. Quit reading only selective articles about this whole subject. The UN was convinced he had WMD's. At one time Saddam had the ability to kill masses of people at one time and, in fact, it is coming out in his trial. You probably wouldn't have believed that Hitler was killing Jews, had you been alive then, either because there was no evidence. Get a life and study this subject closely. Don't just believe what you read in the main-stream press....they hate Bush and want him out of office.

Answer 5

They were dismantled, moved, buried, and sold to Syria.



I saw actual satellite intelligence photos of this happening while serving in the USN.



The intelligence was reported by some, you can look it up, but not by the extreme left of course.



I have no reason to lie to you because I do not care what anyone believes or doesn't believe. Nobody here even knows who I am and I am not trying to make a name for myself, discredit the government, or enshrine them.



People will always believe what they want to believe and the media will guide them towards their agenda.

Answer 6

because some things are national security and like it or not, you and I are not part of the presidential briefings. The truth is, these things were smuggled off to Syria. They are quite real and do exist. Do people who idly sit back pointing their fingers and yelling complaints and criticisms and pretend to be political experts deserve an answer from Bush? hell no. get out there and fight for your country, be a patriot, and then ask for answers. Those who need to know already do.

Answer 7

Why is it that retard liberals have been able to convince themselves that in his speech outlining the reasons for war in Iraq that WMD's were the ONLY reason given. You assclowns should really try rereading the speech, there were MANY reasons given.



Oh wait ... I forgot, you're LIBERALS. You didn't read the speech to begin with. You listened to what Stuart Smalley told you the speech said.



Stuart Smalley is the great thinker of modern American liberalism. Liberals are hilarious!

Answer 8

I guess Just Will is a real operator now... Sitting in Turkey he knew everything going on south of the Green Line... Obviously not spent much time in Northern Iraq if you think the Kurds let Turks run free in Kurdistan...



http://www.freespeech.com/archives/00266...



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?arti...



http://www.aina.org/news/2006012695410.h...



Update: although the biased media isn't reporting it much, it was announced this week that more WMD's were found in Iraq:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/wl_afp/uscongressiraqweaponschemical_060622103838

Answer 9

We are a society of media drones. People watch the news and however it is politically spun is what they tend to follow.



I also just wanted to say that it's refreshing to hear someone who used to be a member of the military thinking this way. Thank goodness not everyone has turned into sheeple! If you'd be interested in discussing your views more I also have a military support forum with a tight knit group of good people who love to debate. http://eyesoutfront.proboards62.com/index.cgi

Hope to see you soon.

Answer 10

Woah here people, are you suggesting that Mr President is a liar? Shome Mishtake Shorely?

Answer 11

They were buried and shipped to Syria.It's obvious he had something just ask the 1000s of Kurds. It's like trying to find them in the state of Texas if buried.

Answer 12

Seeing as how we know Saddam actually was IN possession of WMD's at one point in time....that they were most likely moved to another country. (Syria would be my guess)

Answer 13

Because he had no evidence - he was lying to the American people and to the world.

Answer 14

Because he was gee miss informed????, thought he could fool all of the people all of the time??? Or WOW maybe because there were none there???

Answer 15

because he jsut started the war to steal oil, can't you see? are you blind? you must be.

Answer 16

BECAUSE HE IS A BIG FUC***G LIAR WITH NO COMMON SENSE



GO DEMOCRATS

Answer 17

cause hes an idiot.

Answer 18

....because there were none?