Americans initially supported the war in Iraq because ???

[mzmolly]

Poll question: Americans initially supported the war in Iraq because ???

Please choose ONE answer that BEST describes why aprox. 60-70% of Americans - initially supported the War in Iraq.

Keep in mind I'm talking about what we were "sold" as a people, not whether or not we should have been convinced.

BTW, I was among the 30% against from the beginning as most DU-ers were.

Thanks :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

1. Other; coz bush lied and tied Iraq to 911.

coz BUSH LIED.

[mzmolly]

2. That's # 2.

;) I'll clarify.

[Redstone]

3. Because a lot of people in this country are really, really stupid.

Redstone

[Bjornsdotter]

4. Yep, that's my answer too n/t

[Redstone]

13. You're Icelandic, aren't you?

Redstone

[Bjornsdotter]

44. It is the Icelandic way with the surname

...but I really am half American and half Swedish.

Skol! :toast:

[Redstone]

47. Sorry. If it had been Icelandic, it would have been "...dottir," not

"...dotter." I'm slipping.

Redstone

[Bjornsdotter]

53. You're right

I didn't want to point that out....but I'm extremely impressed that you knew the difference. You are definitely not slipping. Lol...as it is most people think I'm a man.

Cheers :toast:

[Redstone]

54. What? It's not like the word is all that different between Scandinavian

languages and English. Sheesh. People need to pay better attention.

Redstone

[mzmolly]

5. That would be number 2.

;)

[davhill]

6. Or simply felt the need

to kick someone's butt (anyone's butt) after 9/11. Weakened by years of sanctions Iraq looked like an easy target. Just like after the Beirut Marine barracks we jumped on little Granada.

[loyalsister]

60. I would add Jingoism to that mix

This country went nationalistic after 9\11 with the flag propaganda hitting the streets immediatly.
When you have that fervor heightened and can demonize people who oppose "going after the bad guys." You have the essential ingredients for the Goering formula.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war; but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

[ThoughtCriminal]

7. Because

YEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAWWWW!!!!

[SPKrazy]

8. #2 Without The Al Queda Link

I admit, I supported the war initially. Why? Because the reasoning that if Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD, then why couldn't he prove it?

Later of course, this appeared to be more clear. Saddam was busy writing romance novels, and his top scientists were busy telling him sweet little lies about what they weren't doing, in regards to WMD.

I know that a large percentage of people saw that * was linking the Al Queda and 9/11 together, but that wasn't me. And it wasn't anyone I knew personally that supported the war.

I am adamantly against it now, and want our troops the hell out of the death zone immediately, and to withdraw within the next year.

we don't need to be the peacekeepers in a country bound for civil war.

on edit: I remember that I was opposed to it, and opposed to it, and then right before the invasion I broke and said WTF, if he's got WMD then he needs to go.

I guess that says that I'm "stupid", or "weak minded", or something. But I'm just laying the facts out. I'm not proud of showing support. I also live in a very Red state and perhaps that had some influence? But ultimately it was me.

[mzmolly]

10. Oddly enought Saddam let inspectors in and Bush kicked them out.

But people have been told otherwise, surprise!

Thanks for sharing your story. :hi:

[SPKrazy]

11. Oh, I knew Bush Kicked Them Out

and I thought for sure that Bush pushed the war too quickly, but I wasn't convinced that Saddam didn't have WMD, and thought that the inspectors needed more time.

[mzmolly]

14. The "WMD" thing is so vague. Saddam was allowed to have some

weapons that could be deemed "WMD" - my fear is that they'll find a small amount of X and people will forget the facts.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Not true; Hussein KNEW he had no WMD, that's proven fact.

He knew he had no WMD.

He repeatedly said to bush & Cabal, to the world, publicly, he had no WMD.

The stolen tapes show he knew he had no WMD.

The seized papers show he knew he had no WMD.

He had no WMD and he KNEW he had no WMD and he said he had no WMD.

BYW, how do you prove a negative? If I say YOU have WMD hidden somewhere in America, how would you PROVE you don't?

We're not "peacekeepers"; we are invaders and occupiers.

Glad you're opposed to this illegal war of aggression now. :)

[SPKrazy]

22. Well, Glad You Gave Me Some Kudos At The End Of Your Post

you can't prove a negative

but he also wasn't able to produce any evidence that he had destroyed any WMD's as I recall.

One thing that I believed about Saddam was that he was one who would have had records of everything, especially his WMD programs. It still is amazing to me that there were no records that I know of that showed his having disposed of the WMD's.

I also know that any WMD he had in the 80's were sold to him by Donald Rumsfield and Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush.

A Nurse, who was a medic in Iraq for 3 years with the Special Forces recently told me this (I don't believe it) that he believed there were in fact WMD and that we had confiscated them. He couldn't explain why that hadn't been released as news since it would have saved Bushy's Tushy for the WMD issue. I still haven't figured that one out.

anyway, we are peacekeepers, invaders, and occupiers.

We are also targets for those who want to attack our soldiers over there.

We need to retreat to the perimeter, regroup, reduce, and get out in the course of a years time.


Edited to add: I certainly didn't believe, and don't believe much of what Saddam would have to say about anything.

[LynnTheDem]

35. You deserve kudos for your change of opinion.

He did actually show the UN inspectors a lot of proof, only the US "media" didn't bother telling you that.

Here's the problem; Iraq destroyed their chems in 1992. Iraq showed the UN teams where the chems had been destroyed. The UN teams did soil samples & verified large amounts of chems had been destroyed. But they could not prove exactly X amount, and that is what they had to prove in order to close the books; that was the way bushCabal had the Resolution drawn up. In other words, it was always gonna be impossible for Iraq to prove exact amounts.

If I demanded you prove to me how many choccie bars you ate last week, perhaps you could show me a receipt that shows you had bought 5 choccie bars. Now PROVE to me that you actually ate all 5. I can do a tummy content analyses on ya...but that proves only that you ate some choccie, even "a lot" of choccie. But no way in hell can you or I prove you ate ALL 5. Perhaps you have 1 hidden; perhaps you gave 2 to a friend. You cannot prove exact quantities, and until & unless you can, the books stay open.

Now as for this "WMD" bullshit; Iraq has never in its entire history had true "WMD"...nukes. Not ever.

Chems and bios have shelf lives; less than 5 years for the very best quality (that Iraq never had.)

Any chems & bios Iraq had hanging around from even the year 2000 were SALAD DRESSING by 2003.

If Iraq had an olympic-size swimming pool full of chems or bios, it would not be "wmd". They never had a delivery system. This was all public knowledge at the time, which is why the very vast majority of the entire world said HELL NO to bush's war of aggression against the people of Iraq.

But the US "media" never bothered telling you that, either.

Saddam Hussein told the TRUTH.

george w. bush LIED.

The Iraqi people have a legal right to attack our troops in Iraq.

We need to get out yesterday; we never should have been in.

[SPKrazy]

63. Okay, Here's How It Went For Me

1. totally against the war as early as spring 2002, as it was written on the walls.
2. totally against it, couldn't believe that congress went along with the IWR
3. totally against it during the build up of troops
4. somehow in the weeks before the invasion, I swung briefly to the side of thinking that hmmmmm, how come Saddam hasn't "proven the negative" (as you stated)
5. then when Bush pulled the trigger, I was once again against the invasion.
6. have remained firmly against the invasion from day one.
7. would have only supported military action if the UN and a true alliance were behind us.
8. my "support" wasn't support, but real questioning about what was going on there.

So, I don't guess I really changed my opinion too much. And I certainly had no vote in whether to attack or not. I certainly never supported anything going down the way it did. If the UN and a multinational force had been in agreement to do this I would have been a supporter, I think.

You are correct about delivery systems. The fact that they had no delivery systems was well known.
Would Saddam had liked to have had WMD? Who the hell knows. Do I or would I ever trust Saddam?
No more than I would ever trust shrubco or his minions, zip, nada.

So the real dilemma in the world, is who the hell do you ever trust in government?

[LynnTheDem]

64. "who the hell do you ever trust in government?" Answer; NO ONE.

So said the Founding Fathers. That is why the US gov was set up the way it was.

Unfortunately, far too many Americans grew fat & lazy and happily handed over their PATRIOTIC DUTY to question and watch every single thing the gov did, and took the easy way out; sit back & let the US gov do whatever they wanted, happily swallowing the spoonfed bullshit.

That's moral TREASON.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

--Theodore Roosevelt
Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

[BuyingThyme]

9. Because it had already begun. It was rally time.

Before the invasion, Americans trusted the UN over Bush with making decisions about going to war.

[DireStrike]

12. I was 18 and I thought the government was responsible and wouldnt lie

Lol... 2003 was shocking and 2004 was depressing. Now... just trying to keep my head up in case WWIII starts and I need to run somewhere.

[mzmolly]

18. Well, you were young and idealistic.

:D Perhaps we'll be able to return to the days where government doesn't lie about matters of life/death?

[Redstone]

19. Then you're forgiven becausse of your youth. There's no excuse for

the adults to have been suckered by ANY of the government's bullshit. It didn't take but an IQ over 60, and a couple hours of paying attention per week to know that the government was full of shit on this subject.

Redstone

[SPKrazy]

29. Well Thanks , Glad You Are So Sure Of Yourself

As someone who has an IQ well above 60, and who spent lots and lots of time studying the issue, I still ended up being snookered into thinking that maybe, just maybe he did have WMD and that sometime force would be necessary. Now I don't think that kicking the inspectors out and attacking because you want to have your war before the sandstorms start is sufficient reason to have made that move. I do think that more time would have either put other nations on our side, or the truth would have come out. I couldn't get past the fact that Saddam had no records of having destroyed WMD's that he was known to have in he early 90's. I have no idea what happened to them. I guess they were destroyed without records.

But I really am appalled that someone would be so...., well whatever you want to call it to say what you said in your post. Who gave you the right to sit in any kind of judgment.

I'm on your side now. I've always voted Democratic in elections since I was 18 and voted for Jimmy Carter. I do not like war of any kind. I am against the war, and have been since the reality of seeing the first bombs being dropped. But I'll have to say, I was willing to wait and see, and if it had shaken out that it were the case that he had WMD I'd have been there 100%. As it was, it has just been one lie after another.

[Redstone]

34. You probably didn't live through Viet Nam. If you had, you might have

understood that war is NEVER justified unless you are attacked.

We're talking about people DYING. Those of us who have seen that happen first-hand may have a better perspective, so perhaps I should not have been so blunt.

"Maybe, just maybe he did have WMD" is not worth killing or dying for. Good that you admit to having been snookered, but I do believe that you would not have been snookered if you had understood the consequences.

And that, I think, is the source of my contention. It's easy for people to send others off to be maimed or killed if they don't know what that really means.

Consigning others to death or a lifetime of pleading for death because of crippling wounds is NOT someting that should be done because of "maybe, just maybe."

It's not.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing this, but that's no excuse. Not unless you're willing to put yourself on the line.

Redstone

[SPKrazy]

62. Thanks For The Lesson

I wasn't in Vietnam, I was a child at that time.

I don't believe in putting others lives in danger without just cause.

The fact that Saddam hadn't explained where the WMD's went was a sticking point for me I'll admit.

I was ambivalent right to the end because it seemed to be such a full court press. But I'll admit I supported it initially, but really didn't imagine that it would come to fruition at the time it did. When it did happen, I almost immediately cried foul because Bush hadn't done anything except put an ultimatum that apparently couldn't be answered in the time frame.

But, at long last I have to say that I don't need you or anyone else lecturing me about this thank you very much.

And it certainly does nothing to support the idea of ending this war, getting a Democratic congress, and a Democratic President for you to come off on me like you have!

[G2099]

16. Because the American people were stupid, dead, blind, deaf, dumb . . .

Duped, hoodwinked, and bamboozled.

[lonestarnot]

17. No answer for this as I never supported. Don't understand supporters'

thinking.

[LynnTheDem]

20. American majority DID NOT support bush's illegal war of aggression...

not until AFTER Baghdad was burning.

Before bush's illegal war of aggression, the US majority OPPOSED bush's plan to invade.

[mzmolly]

21. From what I recall 70% supported the war pre-invasion?

About half of Dems and the majority of Republicans.

[mzmolly]

24. Here is more info from a couple random polls:

ABC News Poll. March 5-9, 2003. N=1,032 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?"

Favor = 65%
Oppose = 30%
Undecided = 5

"Do you think Iraq does or does not pose a threat to the United States?"

Does = 79%
Does Not 19%
Undecided = 2%

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Oct. 10-11, 2002.
N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Please tell me whether or not you would support the following kinds of U.S. military action against Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. What about organizing an INTERNATIONAL force to remove Saddam Hussein from power and take control of the country? Would you support this kind of military action or not?"

Would Support = 72
Would Not = 21
Don't Know = 7

This question includes an "international force" stipulation - which Bush claims he has. :eyes:

They did a good job snowing the American public with the help of the so called "liberal" media.

Mixed results here depending upon the questions etc. : http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm

[LynnTheDem]

38. Links;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=748663&mesg_id=748663

[mzmolly]

48. See my post #45.

Thanks.

[Nutmegger]

23. TERRA! TERRA! TERRA!

MORE TERRA!

[muntrv]

25. Other,

because the U.S. is not a functunal nation unless it is at war.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. Skeeert. They shy easily.... are gullible... and eager to have

big brother watching out for their well being... WHAT A JOKE ON THEM.

[Bonhomme Richard]

27. Because, as a nation, we are like...................

10 years olds and just felt a need to kick somebody's, anybody's, ass to feel better.

[Generator]

28. Mushroom clouds over Broadway

I wanted to save New York from more horror. Also-anthrax in the nation's water supply. Vivid imaginations in the chimera of fear brought on by seeing yourself by proxy in the tower and wondering if your husband would have come home. Fear, baby, fear. Anybody but ME. We as a species are a primitive people. We as Americans, are no different than anyone, only we are a ridiculously young nation with no real education and we (even after so much, Vietnam to Watergate) trust our government and have myths of our destiny and greatness. Because we were angry. Terrified by our government into BELIEVING. Oh and we haven't lived through the plagues, crusades, inquistions, world wars, and pograms that those more civilized places have. We woke up one morning and realized we all could die. Most of the rest of the planet appears to already know.

In thinking we could die, well at least we could kill them first. I guess that's as primitve as it gets. (and we'd get to liberate them in the process-more PROOF of our greatness as a nation)

I think I scratched the surface of it anyway.

[Peace Patriot]

30. 58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion,

in Feb. 03. That number only dipped once, for a short period of time, while US troops were at maximum risk, then went right back up to nearly 60%, where it stayed throughout the 2004 election. Now it's over that--70% to 80% opposed.

The great majority the American people were never duped--except for that brief period, a matter of weeks--when their feelings were confused. Saying you were against the war, and didn't believe the reasons for the war, WHILE TROOPS WERE IN COMBAT, seemed disloyal to many, so that pushed the pro-war polls up briefly. But that kind of support--moral support of the troops--immediately began to crumble when no WMDs were found.

Please don't call the American people stupid. I firmly believe that the majority of them are not. They did not want Bush's war, and had it shoved down their throats. And they are already seriously demoralized, disempowered, depressed and DISENFRANCHISED.

Give credit where credit is due. 58%! They didn't trust Bush THEN. Some felt they had no choice but to trust him--or say that they did--during the invasion. They immediately saw what a sham it was, what a disaster, what a terrible deception. And they don't trust him NOW.

And when you consult the rest of the issue polls--on torture, for instance, on the deficit, on Social Security, on women's rights--what you find is a big, corroborating, progressive American MAJORITY, over 60% opposed to every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic.

Twenty million more voters voted in the 2004 election than ever voted before. The Democrats had a blowout success in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40. Most of the new voters voted for Kerry--as did most of the independent voters and most of the former Nader voters. So you tell me what happened--with two rightwing Bushite corporations 'counting' 80% of the nation's vote using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, in a new election system devised by the two biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney and their $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle called the "Help American Vote Act."

You trust Bushites to count your votes behind a veil of secrecy?

The American people threw these bastards out of office, and they got stopped by Diebold and ES&S.

-------------

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

If you want your country back.

[mzmolly]

31. Not according to the polls I noted in post # 24 above. Where do you get

your figure? I got mine from pollingreport.com which compiles polls from various sources. I recall the support from the general public as well.

[LynnTheDem]

40. Read the fine-print details of those polls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=748663&mesg_id=748663

US majority OPPOSED bush's war of aggression against the Iraqi people UNLESS the UN approved -the UN said hell no- AND UNLESS a multi-national coalition went in -they didn't.

[mzmolly]

45. I've read them, all of them and most Americans supported action with

or without the UN - (according to various polls) just before we invaded. Further, Bush sold Americans on the "Coalition of the willing," remember?

However, most importantly - I did not mention the UN in my OP. If I had, I'd consider those who supported the war with or without UN support, in favor of the war for the reasons noted above.

Saying they wanted more time for inspections in the September preceding is here nor there. Your quoting polls from September 2002 and polls that were before his lies in the famed state of the union address. I think it's reasonable to say at best - the polls differed.

"Do you think that getting support from the United Nations Security Council is necessary before the United States goes to war with Iraq, or is support from the United Nations Security Council desirable, but not necessary?"

Necessary = 35%
Desirable, but Not Necessary = 56%
Not Desirable = 5%
Undecided = 4%

"As you may know, United Nations inspectors are in Iraq looking for any evidence that Iraq has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Do you think Iraq is or is not cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors?"

Is = 25%
Is Not = 71%
No Opinion = 5%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 26-March 2, 2003. N=1,022 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"The Bush Administration says it will move soon to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, by war if necessary, working with countries that are willing to assist, even without the support of the United Nations. Overall, do you support or oppose this policy?"

Support = 59%
Oppose = 37%
Unsure = 4%

I don't want to piss and moan about the number of Americans who supported the war with or without the UN as different polls suggest different results. My GREATER point was that this war was not solely about WMD's. Again, I did not mention the UN in my op. But, even if I had, I feel that my postion would be supported by various evidence.

I'm also not trying to debate your thread here - okey dokey?

Peace

[LynnTheDem]

56. Not according to all the polls I've posted.

:)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. I think you have to ask yourself....

1. Who was conducting those polls?

2. What segment of the population were they polling?

Polls can say anything you want them to say if you ask certain questions, and question people that you know will answer the way you want them to answer. Don't forget that the U. S. media is heavily complicit in aiding and abetting the NeoCon conspiracy to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[mzmolly]

46. We are getting way off track.

Sheesh. But I agree, different polls will give different results.

:hi:

[Lethe]

32. people already had the preconceived notion that "Saddam was bad"

it was an easy sell. Back in 1990 Bush Sr sold the US the first Iraq war. Of course, saddam did invade another country. We heard non-stop about Saddam's toruring and gassing his own people, he's a bastard, etc, etc. Which was true back in 1990, and still true today.

People already had this notion that Saddam was evil(not saying he isnt). So when Bush Jr. comes around and says Saddam needs to be taken out, nobody really questions it. "Ok, whatever, take him out. WMD, terrorist links, gassing his own people. Bomb that bitch." I think these same people thought the war was going to be just like the first Gulf war. They didnt really take time to look into it.

IRAQ - SADDAM - EASY WAR - PATRIOT MISSILES - WAVE FLAGS


i'm not saying this was the way everyone was thinking. but i do think it did play a part in the minds of a lot of people who didnt actually looking into the arguments for or against the war.

[seabeyond]

33. i dont think it was any of this. i think it was saddam ignoring the u.n.

resolution and then they laying on the nuclear and drones and aluminum tubes. so i didn't check any of them

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. Right. Saddam's to blame for this mess. Yikes.

[seabeyond]

51. saddam wasnt innocent in this mess. no he wasnt and never has been

he isnt a good guy. and i dont support the war. it can be both ways. because i dont ignore the past doesnt mean i agree with bush or fox or anything. to say that saddam had no part of it is off the mark. ultimately, bush sent the troops in, so ultimately bush is responsible for this war. and he did it on lies. even with the fact of saddam not being a good guy the americans didnt support the war. it was bush lies that got that support.

[Redstone]

37. What, specifically, are you saying? I don't understand.

You seem to be be backing up bush's bullshit. Or are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

Redstone

[seabeyond]

52. i am saying that for real, check history, saddam was not

playing by the rules, yes the bushco's were able to use that and it was legitimate. that concerned our democrats, that concerned france and the u.n.. regardless, because saddam wasnt playing by the rules, all these people did not suggest war, they suggested other means to get saddam to follow u.n. resolution and allow the inspectors back in.

still this was not enough to get americans to support war. bush had to LIE to get america to support.

this is not supporting bush line, this is giving the fact of then.

and i am not talking the wmd's whether they were there or not. there were other violations going on. not enough for war. wmd's were not enough to go to war. american people werent going to war for wmd's. so even if they found those, still not good enough. war was sold on nuclear, drones and aluminum tubes.

[mzmolly]

39. The "he ignored the UN" is another faux talking point.

;) We don't have any indication that he ignored the UN, inspectors were in the country - Bush kicked them out. But, you may be speaking about what the "public" thought in this regard?

[seabeyond]

49. dupe

[seabeyond]

50. inspectors were kicked out in 98? by saddam. saddam let them in

when bush started threatening attack and massing troops on kuwait border

fact

saddam then started half heartedly working with inspectors. inspectors themselves said saddam wasnt fully cooperative. oct,.... saddam knew the invasion was going to happen and said he would surrender bush said no, he wanted war and didnt talk to his people. bush then told the inspectors to get out closer to war time

[mzmolly]

55. Saddam let the inspectors search his houses.

All 19 of em'

But there is enough gray where I'll accept your opinion. ;)

[LynnTheDem]

57. WRONG. Saddam Hussein NEVER kicked any UN weapons inspectors

out of Iraq.

NEVER.

Not in 1998.

Not in 2003.

FACT.

RICHARD BUTLER, AMERICAN, ordered the UN out of Iraq in 1998. NOT Saddam Hussein.

FACT.

http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html

Common Myths in Iraq Coverage

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled". The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1127myths.htm

Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123


Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan
http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/exit_UN_%20weapons_%20inspectors_1998.htm


CNN - UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq - November 11, 1998BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) --

Chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/

[LynnTheDem]

41. "ignoring the UN"????

WTF??? :wow:

[bpilgrim]

43. that is the FAUX NEWS version of history

good thing you found DU to get your facts straight.

welcome to DU :toast:

peace

[Skip Intro]

58. The invasion was bs from the start to anyone paying attention.

Those who supported it were just too damned busy or lazy or selfish to be bothered to think about it.

[FatDave]

59. The next Bush lie defense

"I never said Iraq had nuclear weapons. I was very careful to never say that. I said they had nucular weapons."

[gator_in_Ontario]

61. I was never for the war

never buy shit from a tin salesman.

My Congresssman never was either.