I forget. What was the reason Bush told us we had to invade Iraq again? Do you think there was another reason?
825662
The same reasons why the Democrats joined the Republicans in voting to invade Iraq. Your lapse of memory is what will go into some book!
776372
The reason is Bush went to Iraq. Shoot if the radical liberals ever agreed with anything Bush did I'd know it was the second coming. If Bush committed suicide right now Hollywood radicals would be complaining he didn't finish out his term.
1087945
First, Let me ask the intelligent people a question. Why would an oilman that thrives on American Produced oil want to imoprt more oil from the Middle East. It was not for oil. If Bush wanted a profit from Oil Prices, he would have stopped oil from coming from the Middle East, not encouraged oil coming in.\n\nThank you MesquiteGal for this answer to another poster.\n\nNote, this is not my answer, I copied it. Do not vote it best for me.\n\n'Thank God for a president that stood up to the terrorists, and took the war to them, instead of waiting for another 9/11. If Clinton had done his job, there may not have been a 9/11.\n\nCheck out what Clinton and other Democrats said in 1998...\n(Please note the first five entries were made PRIOR to President Bush becoming our president.... and then, we have Hiliary's entry!)\n\n"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." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"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." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." \nSandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[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." \nLetter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"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." \nSen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002'\n\nThank you MesquiteGal for that answer. You did your research and know the facts.
791633
Well...we were telling the truth.\n\nI know, Its hard for you to accept it and your whole ideology is crumbling down before you but the fact is...By invading Iraq we STOPPED saddam from making Nukes.\n\nthere it is in black and white in the old gray lady herself. \n\nNow why dont you come on over to the winning side. Youve been spoon fed lies.
963712
Politically, it obviously wasn't a very good move, but other than that?  People seem to have forgotten the satellite images-they were hauling something...could this have been the WMD that was gone before the war was started?  Aside from that, though, we went in by using the UN resolutions as justification.  These **NUMEROUS** resolutions did not state that we could attack if Iraq has WMD, they put the burden of proof on Saddam-he had to prove that he didn't have WMD; that he had destroyed the KNOWN WMD from the 1st Gulf War.  He couldn't account for the WMD, therefore, we went in to uphold our side of the resolutions.
952762
You opened up a huge can of worms now..\n\nBack during the first Gulf war, Saddam invaded Kuwait.  We went in and crushed him then.  Every since he has been pissed so he screws with us, the UN and anyone else who tries to keep him from killing everyone... including his own people.\n\nWell, enough was enough and then the UN sanctions were not met and he refused to allow inspectors in.  He was given an ultimatum.  He lost. \n\nNow, all the liberals and uniformed are going to say for:\n\n1. revenge.\n2. oil. \n\nThats crap.
973023
well apart from that excuse that saddam had weapons which could blast us brits, what other reason are we going there for? i doubt we're helping the iraqs. we're in it for the money and oil. \n\nnobody likes armed missonarys
893793
If you believe Bush, which I don't, we won the same year we started.  What's going on now is peace and nation building.  What happened in Nam, and I was on active duty during the last three years, I retired at 20 years after Desert Storm, was that the Republicans, Nixon and Ford, caved as a result of public pressure and discontent with the body count.  Since Bush dodged service, I think has no understanding of that, and has set us up for the same result.  I will point out that our troops have done a lot of good for the Iraqis, I think our service people are the best of our best, my own daughter and her husband are on active duty.  Yes, I think a lot of us know the invasion was a mistake, I said so from day one, right now the question is how to fix it, and that is not something we will be able to do in a hurry.  Sad, but fact of life.
836286
... The American soldiers were sent to Iraq based on a lie told by our president,...no!  we did not reach our target as our target was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction which even Bush admits may not exist,... since then ,he has changed the reason for going to war once a year and his supporters now use his most recent example,,fighting terrorist ,although they did not exist in Iraq before we invaded... Giving the fact that Bush has two years left I am sure we will hear two more excuses..the result of our adventure is a split country... a world that hates us and generations of children around the world growing up believing we are an evil people!!!
361855
Poor Job.\n\nNo, we shouldn't have went into Iraq in the first place.
871271
My theory as to why we are in Iraq???  George Bush... that is the only reason.  It sure wasn't that Iraq was any more dangerous to us than Korea or Iran or any number of countries.  no.. we are there because Bush wanted the oil and Daddy said go there...
620781
where have you been the last 5 years? remember the date 9/11? do you really beilieve planned attack? the why didn't President Bush do another attack when his poll numbers fell.mean his poll numbers were highest after the first attack. if he was willing to do it once then why not again.
1154980
Sure go ahead and remind us.\n\nIraq did not do 9-11 -  We know...thanks. Iraq did extend medical aid and safe haven to Al Queda and the Taliban during the Afghanistan war. As our Nation's leaders properly stated... those who support terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves.\n\nNo Iraqi people were on those planes. - Yes, we know this. We don't make this assertion, and never did.\n\nBush lied about the reasons to go to war. Bush lied and troops die. - Bush used world-wide generally accepted intelligence gathered by multi-nations well before taking office. Saddam administration wanted everyone to believe he had WMD and was successful. WMD was a reason given...but certainly not the only reason. The systematic extermination of Kurds was all the reason a civilized world requires to remove Saddam. You say he lied as if his "lies" somehow fooled you into supporting the war. I wager you didn't support it from the start ... and so were not fooled into supporting anything. \n\nIraq was son threat to the USA.- I think you mean "no threat" and you are wrong.  True that now he is no threat.\n\nThe war will be lost just like we lost Vietnam in 1975. The USA will go down in abject defeat and shame.\nNow you are spouting bitter opinion which of course will be discredited in time. I understand you want to be right about this...but you will be wrong.
983935
What was the main reason for bush wanting to invade iraq? to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He didnt find. DO u think that he woudl want to admit that he made a mistake and have other possible motives raised against him. Obviously if he tells that they are failing in iraq, people will start to go agaisnt him. Already alot of since they didnt find anything there.\nSo simple, he has to say they are doing good. Just think of the implications if he said that USA has failed or was wrong going there.
880124
Wow...how generous of you :-)  anyway...When the USS Cole was bombed before 9/11, we knew then who was behind the attack.  We also knew they were planning something against the USA.  So, when 9/11 happened, we had every right to go into Afghanistan and where ever else to get Bin Laden and his terrorists.  Our government had intelligent info about all this and THEY knew Bin Laden did NOT conspire with Saddam.  I agree Saddam is a very evil man, but invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  The Iraq situation is going to turn out worse than Vietnam.  Bush was so concerned with plotting against his daddy's enemy (before 9/11, he already had plans to invade Iraq, he just needed a reason to do so) it seems he has forgotten the real reason our soldiers are in the middle east.\nSo, 5 years later...where is the man responsible for killing our Americans on our soil?
1134813
We had no business being in Iraq in the first place. There are only two reasons why Goerge Bush invaded this sovereign nation: 1) he wanted to 'get even' with Saddam Hussein for humiliating his daddy during Desert Storm; 2) Dick Cheney wants all that oil swimming underneath Iraq's sands.\n\nSo, Cheney and Rumsfeld persuaded Bush to proceed with an illegal, unconstitutional war.\n\n(Check out a new blog - BUSHWACKER! -\nwww.blogger.com\nhttp://al-aback.blogspot.com)\n\nFinding no weapons of mass destruction, Bush is too much of a 'macho man' to back down, so continues his charade by telling Americans that Iraq is part of an "evil empire". Truth be told, the only "evil empire" is that of the United States as it bullies other countries around the world for its own economic benefit. Let's face it: there are all kinds of other despots running regimes around the world, but Bush pays no attention to those dictatorships. Why? Because they have no OIL. So the United States allows the genocide to continue, sometimes even providing financial aid! \n\nBush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are indeed the most evil, corrupt and incompetent people ever to occupy the Oval Office. The sitting U.S. Congress is the most evil, corrupt and incompetent body ever to occupy the Capitol Building. \n\nAll of these people deserve to be impeached, or tried for high treason. If convicted they must face a firing squad. Their crimes against humanity, against the Constitution, and against the American populace are unspeakable. George Bush has murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, not to mention more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers. \n\nBush has no interest in turning Iraq into a democracy (how many other countries is he using these forceful tactics on to change their way of government?). Prediction: NO TROOPS WILL BE WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ UNTIL DICK CHENEY HAS AN IRON-CLAD, ROCK-SOLID AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO ACQUIRE ALL OF IRAQ'S OIL so that he and his friends at Hallaburton and Exxon-Mobil can become even more obscenely wealthy.\n\nShould there be a time table for withdrawal? Of course; since we're already there, it would be chaos if we left immediately. But we should have never been there in the first place. What George Bush did was illegal, evil, and repugnant to most of the civilized world. Bush has put Americans trillions of dollars into debt' he has tarnished our reputation as a global leader; and he has helped spread the terrorist movement because, now, many small countries are terrified of the U.S.A., afraid that they, too will be bullied into accepting democracy or Christianity as their way of life. Nuclear weapons might be their only way of defending themselves against the tyrannical United States.\n\nHistory will certainly record Bush as the stupidest man ever to occupy the White House, to date. If he and his cronies ever get convicted of high crimes, certainly Satan will have a special oil-saturated corner of Hell reserved for them, where then can spend their eternal damnation blaming each other for the mess they made of this Earth.\n\nBush's failed economic policies promises to make us a third-world country within a generation (China will then become the global power). Bush's 'cowboy capitalism' has made us the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. Bush's "tough" actions only shows his true colors: he is nothing more than an impotent, paranoid, insecure psychopath suffering from "little king" syndrome. \n\nWhat Bush has wrought will force Americans to live a lesser quality of life for generations to come. Within 50 years, the USA will be a two-tier social class: a handful of the very, very rich - and (the rest of us) the very, very poor, just like we see in Haiti and the Dominican Republic today.\n\nThe real tragedy is that there is no bright alternative on the horizon. Even if all the Republic maggots get thrown out, they'll only be replace
276742
Exactly. I never understood why we went into Iraq.\n\nBy the way, read these real Bush quotes:\n\n"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." \n--GW Bush, 9/13/01\n\n"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."\n--GW Bush, 3/13/02