Did US and Britiish Intelligence both think that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
927376
Back, when Jimmy Carter was President, Irananians, who overthrew the Shah,  took our embassy staff hostage.  That is because the Shah was a cruel dictator and the U. S. had kept him propped up for a long time.\n\nSome time later, Sadam decided to go to war with Iran.  Now Iraq was our friend.  The U. S. government supplied Sadam with all manner of potions with which to torment the Iranians, because we didn't like the Iranians because they overthrew our Shah, and held our embassy staff prisoner for a long time.\n\nNow, when Sadam stopped behaving, we knew what we had given him and had every reason to expect to find it there, maybe even new and improved.  After all, a lot of his scientists were educated in major universities right here in the U. S.  Besides which, we had a devil of a time trying to fight the war in Afghanistan.  We needed space for some bases in the middle east, and then, there was that oil....so, what excuse could we come up with???   Oh! Oh! I got it...remember that anthrax we gave him?\n\nUnfortunately, by the time we got there, the cupboard was bare and noone knows what happened to it.  Most folks say Syria.  I wouldn't doubt it.
1014405
Especially Michael Moore and his false documentary. For those that don't know:\n\nIraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth. \n\nSource(s):\nGoogle it:\n\nSaddam, WMD, Spetsnaz\n\nhttp://www.wmdthefilm.com/mambo/index.ph...
302567
We went to Iraq based on the belief that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and the belief that Saddam was a terrorist.\n\nSo far there has been no sign of weapons of Mass destruction.  Some believe there never were any, others believe they were mobile and were moved out of the country before the U.S. came in.\n\nCurrently the United States is rebuilding Iraq's government and entire infrastucture because they came in a tore it down.  They are training police, and military men.  They have helped the Iraqis write a constitution, and have had nation wide elections.  They are currently waiting for the elected officials to ratify the constitution.\n\nGeorge Bush and his followers try to focus most of the attention on the forward movement of Iraq and what progress is being made for the Iraqi people and how the world is better for it.  Others beleive we are waisting our time and our military men and women's lives over in Iraq.\n\nI tried to be as unbiased as I could be.  That is my belief of the current situation.
721061
You are a smart cookie!  Our fiasco in Iraq has given Iran the guts they needed to challenge the US.  After seeing how we're getting our asses kicked by a ragtag bunch of jihadists, they figured it was time to kick some sand in the bully's face.  And yes, anybody who's been paying attention knows that Saddam didn't want to admit he didn't have WMDs because he didn't want to appear weak to the Iranians.  Just another example of how stupid and self-absorbed some Americans can be.  We stumble into areas of the world where we don't have the first clue what's going on.
850254
Gees, I could have sworn it was Bush who stood on the Kuwaitt Border telling the Iraqi's to overthrow their government! And we gave Saddam the gas!\n\nWonder what would happen in the US if we tried to overthrow the government and how many would be killed! But that's ok! Right?\n\nWe didn't say a damn thing when he used it on Iran, in fact we effectively kept the UN from sanctioning him by using our veto powers!\n\nIt's ok for us! Just no one else!
40017
First of all if you did a little research no one ever said Iraq had nuclear weapons.  They had weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons and so on).  Democrats and Republicans said this.  And yes westerners are naive.  They think we can just leave these evil terror groups alone and nothing will happen to us.  Politicians are crafty because they have to get things done and make decisions that the naive people can't do.  They have to protect this country while people like far left freaks cry and think we shouldn't confront evil.
1055257
I believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
609664
I am guessing both are more than likely trained along the same lines. The US and British military seem to work together well, so that's what made me say that.
322843
If you believe him, then I sure you believe that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
847571
if by we, you mean us and uk, then yes.\nsaw a very disturbing documentary about depleated uranium shells which were supposedly not used during first gulf war.\nguy using a giga-counter (?) actually recieved a pre-programmed audible warning to leave the area immediately. that was while examining a destroyed tank on which children were playing. many birth defects / still births in the same area and around the country.\nthe victors write the history books.\n\nworlds fked up.\n\nalso bradley is not only vehicle that uses dep uranium - a10 aircraft too. have gun is fool.
79901
I don't doubt it, however you must look at the date of the tapes and the context of the tapes. They might be from the 80's when elements of the USA gave him some of those wmd's.
412373
yeah it was Russia. or technologically USA supplying everyone with weapons. \np.s. they still supply the IRA a TERRORIST group. hypocites!
832158
Simply put... NO.\n\nFirst off, the British method is "divide and rule."  We definitely don't want to stay in Iraq any longer than we have to.  Sure Bush's buddies at the oil companies are getting rich and Cheney's Halliburton is getting a kings ransom in defense contracts, but even they have limits to their greed.  \n\nI don't think that the the American military was sophisticated enough to distinguish between Sunni and Shiite.  They have people that could, but I doubt they listened to them.  We don't want to touch Iran because we have not proven ourselves against them.  How could we hit Iran when Iraq is just sitting there ripe for the picking?  Iran is too big of a fish to fry at this point.  If we overwhelming succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq we would have Iran cornered on two sides, then we might think about going after the ayatollahs.  This is not the case, I think we want to get out as soon as possible (which could be never).
109298
yes- in bush's mind.  and we sold weapons to both of them.
612733
The media didn't lie to is about Iraq. That was the present Administration. They manipulated the media to get what they wanted. Especially in the aftermath of 9/11. The U.S. Media reported that there were thousands of people in the square when Saddam's statue was pulled down. But if you look at other media sources, it was only a couple of hundred that had been bused in from Jordan. \n\nThere are too many intel sources this time around for us to ignore Iran. Something a lot of us were clammering about before we inveded Iraq. I've worked closely with the intel community and have several friends that got out of the service because this administration "cooked" intel until it met there purposes. We knew that we were going to invade Iraq a couple days after 9/11. We didn't get requests for any information about Afghanistan until about 10 later. \n\nDon't blame the media. Blame the Bush administration.\n\nThe WMD case was weak at best. There was never any proof that anything got shipped to Syria. We were watching for that. So again, another lie. The supposed mobile WMD labs turned out to be nothing more than hydrogen pumps for weather balloons.
805855
No! He had no evidence for his Ton's of saran gas, or anything else, as Hans Blix told the UN in his report, in which Bush had 8,000 pages removed! Love to see those 8,000 pages!\n\nThe Blockade and Clinton's Operation Desert Fox, plus the UN, did a number on Hussein! He would never admit to other countries he was weak!\n\nThere is plenty of proof they weren't there and proof that Bush lied at the SOU! He knew that the report given by the British regarding nuclear weapons was a forgery, yet lied to America about it!\n\nI have yet te see any proof they were there!
916513
From the Daily Telegraph, 30 Nov. 2006:\n\n" Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'\n\n"Toby Harnden in Washington\n\n"A senior American official has spoken of "the myth of the special relationship" between the United States and Britain, arguing that Tony Blair got "nothing, no payback" for supporting President George W Bush in Iraq.\n \n"Bush and Blair at the G8 summit at St Petersburg when their private conversation was overheard\n\n"Kendall Myers, a leading State Department adviser, suggested that Mr Blair should have been ditched by Labour but the party had lacked the "courage or audacity" to remove him.\n\n"David Cameron, the Conservative leader, was "shrewd, astute" to have distanced himself from America.\n\n"In candid comments that will embarrass Mr Bush and Mr Blair, the veteran official said America "ignored" Britain, and he urged Britain to decouple itself from the US. . . ."