It is my observation that since the official pretext for war in Iraq was WMD and that since none have been found to date* that the general conclusion is that “Bush lied.” The “Bush lied” statement is also used to further 9/11 conspiracy theory in two ways. That since Bush lied about Iraq, then the official story is a lie. And that Bush always wanted to go after the oil in Iraq and tried to use 9/11 as an excuse, but had to lie about WMD since the official story says OBL did it.

This starts to sound like a chicken and the egg argument when used as a tool to call for closer inspection of the theory presented. As in, Bush lied about WMD, look what else he lied about. In the end it may prove to be correct but I find it odd.

Patience can not be afforded to find WMD when no solid proof of 9/11 being an inside job can be produced? Many ideas have to accepted on faith that the proof is there somewhere. Yet this can not be extended, why? Would that harm a preconception that 9/11 was an inside job? Objective thought says that it would not. Saddam claimed he had WMD, could that have been the pretext? That Bush believed Saddam’s claim enough to repeat our own faulty intel and go in to find them?

Not trying to say who is right or wrong, but to ask why patience and faith can be asked for when you are trying to prove one thing, but can not be extended when someone else that holds an opposing opinion is trying to prove something else?

*some caches of old WMD have been found as well as possible mobile labs. Bush has said that those were not what he was looking for in WMD.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

24 hours and no one can answer this question:

why patience and faith can be asked for when you are trying to prove one thing, but can not be extended when someone else that holds an opposing opinion is trying to prove something else?

This is my take on the events leading up to September 11, 2001 and into the Iraq War beginning in 2003.

It all began in 1990 when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait. The UN Security Council gave Hussein's forces a certain amount of time to leave Kuwait. Saddam refused so a quick and swift militrary operation later, Hussein's forces fled the country. However, George Bush Sr. wanted to remove Hussein for good (he even urged the citizens of Iraq to revolt against Saddam in his speeches). Since he couldn't get sufficient power or approval from Congress to invade Iraq, Saddam remained in power.

Jump forward one decade later and we have George Bush's son in office.

Now since his dad was P.O.ed that he couldn't invade Iraq in 1991, his son took it upon himself to make that happen. Hence the 9/11 attacks.

Now either these attacks were orchestrated by people WITHIN our government or by sheer coincidence and good timing, George Bush found a way to pin these attacks on Saddam Hussein giving him the excuse to invade Iraq. Today, as we all so well know, Bush claimed there were WMD's in Iraq and it was our sworn duty to get rid of them. That's simply false since no WMD's have been found and now we are in year 5 of this war and it seems none will ever be found.

Now either Bush and his administration planned and coordinated the 9/11 attacks to invade Iraq to disguise a personal vendetta created by Bush Sr. or the terrorist attacks gave Bush the perfect chance to invade Iraq to avenge his father.

It's open for debate but that's my view on the story. Take it as you want.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Dirk Pitt]

Thank you for the many quotes of sources. Some were interesting reading, some were opinions and others were just finger pointing. I used the question of WMD because it is the easiest topic to seperate, but the question applies to some many other topics.

Perhaps rephrasing the question will help...Why can we accept lack of proof if we agree with the idea but apply a different standard if we oppose the idea?

The TV Fakery debate comes to mind. The No Plane Theory comes to mind. The Official Story comes to mind. The shot down or crashed debate of FL93 comes to mind.

Why is latitude given to one side over the other based on personal opinion? Now some people simply just can not engage in open minded debate on some topics because fundimental beliefs like the existance of God or reinforced teachings like "water is blue".

Why is it that personal perspective trumps contrary presentation?

The Whattoknow timeline is a very good find and just became a bookmark. Thank you, whaaa.

They do it because thats how human consciousness operates these days, we all have our belief systems, and we all will support proof that supports our belief, and reject proof that doesnt.

But this debate about WMDs, its a no brainer okay, its not a debate. Finger pointing? What do they have to do for you to understand they are lying to you constantly?

Oh theres no Bilderberg, theres no amnesty bill, theres no cops raiding Ed Browns house, theres no male prostitution in the White House, Al Queda wasnt created by the CIA, 911 was done by arabs who hate freedom, believe it, everybodys doing it, everybodys doing the monster mash....

I mean they get off on lying to you, they do it all the time, and of course they do, cuz it works on most of you!!