It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why were WMD's not planted????

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by The real world order

EXTREMELY strong words, huh? i have mentioned this to ppl after i saw that and no one else recalls such a statement being made by him. the only reason that i know that i heard correctly was that my (now ex) husband was watching w/ me and even though he (at the time) supported the war was just as shocked by the answer as i was.

i have since searched everywhere for the interview and can't find it. i have looked through quotes of his (just want to prove that we really did see and hear this to others... not to myself mind you as i know it happened, but i understand others needing verification), and although i have not found the quote or interview, some of his other quotes are just as

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
-- George W Bush, in his "war whoop" speech to Congress, September 20, 2001, quoted from Matthew Rothschild,

I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right.
-- George W Bush, visiting Rome, July 22, 2001,

George W. Bush:
Whether or not it needed to happen, I'm still convinced it needed to happen. [explaining why he sent U.S. troops into Iraq, Dec. 12, 2005]

George W. Bush:
Should any Iraqi officer or soldier receive an order from Saddam Hussein.... don't follow that order. Because if you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal. (and yet............ )

George W. Bush:
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"I can look you in the eye and tell you I feel I've tried to solve the problem diplomatically to the max, and would have committed troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq knowing what I know today." --George W. Bush, Irvine, Calif., April 24, 2006

"I aim to be a competitive nation." --George W. Bush, San Jose, Calif., April 21, 2006

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

"People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." --George W. Bush, on the deal to hand over U.S. port security to a company operated by the United Arab Emirates, Washington, D.C., Feb. 23, 2006

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one." --George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006

"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --George W. Bush, talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

the man isn't as dumb or careless as ppl make him out to be. yes, he is open about the control issues he has but this, i suspect, would be bc very little has been done to stop him. i see him as
in our face and in the face of the world (although, i don't see him as being solely responsible...... i do believe there are those behind the curtains, but bc he knows, he can display arrogance. yes i could be wrong, but what if i'm not?)

[edit on 17-7-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by The real world order

wmd's were found in iraq.

thats why they didnt have to plant them..

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by DaleGribble

Hahaha im glad we cleared that one up some degraded mustard gas degraded meaning no good to anyone and the rest is all bumph

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by The real world order

haha your self if you read the report you would know that they quality of the agents was not known and could still be dangrous. the weapons that carried them were degraded

[edit on 15pmu102007 by DaleGribble]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by DaleGribble

yeah the contents are not knowen could be dangerous or it could not its 50/50 the contents of a bleach bottle could be dangerous if you drink it everything depends on how you look at it

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by The real world order

the state of the weapons isnt even relivent. your question was "why were none planted".

to answer that. they didnt have to plant any. they found some.

this is just a thought of mine, i willing to bet the whole report hasnt been declassified yet. im willing to admit i could be wrong, but its very possible..

edit to add:
you could be right the weapons could be harmless. but you could be just as wrong. sadam had a habit of using chemical weapons and apparently he still had a few hundred tucked away. if they were completly harmless i think he would have gotten rid of them before we came snooping around. that just makes since to me though. i dont expect you to undersand that or think the same way...

[edit on 15pmu102007 by DaleGribble]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by justamomma

Very strong words and i belive you about him saying it but whats just as bad is the reporter not pressing the matter when given that kinda responce how can anyone call themself a reporter setteling for an answer like that he should be made to answer for his actions not in any court of law or anything bad like that but to the reporters to the public to the world you cant be responsible for ending human lives and not account for your actions the only people in the world who do that are dictators

it's gona be one of two things with bush either someone is pulling his strings or he really is running the country...both optins are equilly scary

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by DaleGribble

ok ok i may have been a little arrogant in replying to your responce
and i see what you mean but some degraded shells would not have been ready to go in 72 hours and as for him hiding it all before we turned up that really make's no sence surely if he knows were about to invade then that would be the best time to use all these wepons your ment to have why have them if you not gona use them a war is going to be the time to brake the seals on the boxes?????
think about it

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by The real world order

im gonna respectfully disagree. and here is why.

he knew we were going to invade. and he knew why, WMD's we all know that by now.

this is just my oppinon.

i think he felt this war was going to be like the first one. we beat his army up a little, he lets us do a few inspections and its all over. so why would he use these weapons. it would have just proved to the world that Bush was right and made him a hero in the eyes of the world.

this is why i felt he didnt use the weapons. however i think he held onto them as an ace in the hole. i dont think he knew that his army would have been run over so fast and us keep the fight going until we captured him. i bet he thought he could squrim his way out of this like he did in the first gulf war. i think he went into this thinking he could use them in a last resort. after all the weapons report was released in 2003 but that doesnt mean thats when they were found.

just a few of my thoughts. i wish i was better at typing. i never feel like i get my point across with a keyboard quite as good as i can talking. sorry if you need me to go into more detail just ask...

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by DaleGribble

No its cool i get where you coming from
see i dont think he would of seen it that way at all he knew he was stuffed this time america had continued to drop bombs on iraq almost every month after the first gulf war right up untill the second gulf war
he saw what was going on in afganistan and he knew he was next on the list bush had already said on record that he was gona finish the job his daddy started
He knew he would be hung for war crimes there is no way he get out of that leaving him no other alternative but to brake out the big guns all well and good if you have them in the first place
i think if he had them he would of used them somehow in a final ditch attempt

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by The real world order

this is a valid point.

although we have diffrent views. i respect your thoughts on this and i will take some time to reflect on them and see if any of this changes my mind.

although i doubt it cause im stuborn and hard headed.

sorry for derailing the topic. back on subject...

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by DaleGribble

Its good to hear other views on it otherwise no point in putting it up
all input on the thread is vaild one way or another
I just cant accept that as a real WMD's i dont think it could of ever really been used
but we both have our opinion on it
anyway tc

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:40 PM
If there was any possible substance to Georges WMD' claims, he would of used it to substantiate his accusations.

bush himself stated Iraq DIDNT have WMD's, and the intel was flawed.

They were not shipped to syria,

They are not buried in the desert.

The mustard shells found were from pre GW1 days, and even then, they were only a dozen or so found buried.

More likely, those particular shells were forgotten about, or not mapped correctly by Saddam's military.

Powell and Rice stated prior to 911 that Saddam had been contained, and WASNT producing or trying to produce, that says it all.

this is what the intellegence actually believed, and it wasnt until 911 when they started ignoring intellegence briefs, un inspectors and other inspectors that Saddam was indeed producing nothing, nor had the means to produce.

After all the laws passed by bush, after the plame affair, after the blatant lies to the media, after the blatant robbery being committed via corporate entites in Iraq... I am dumbfounded that even a single cell organism still believes we went into Iraq based on WMD's......

..... think about this.

Bush would not send 150,000 + troops into a biological/chemical war for no damn reason. Its lunacy...

Especially when Iraq was 'helping' us contain IRAN!

Freedom for Iraqi's was a complete smoke screen, we intended to get in, get out and setup someone pro'western to ensure the oil contracts were given to the corporate buddies, as to ensure oil kept flowing america's way at a cheap price while making a tidy profit.

Thats it, plain and simple!

We're so f'd up right now, because 6yrs later we're still bogged down and getting no where, infact its starting to affect our economy, world standing and world confidence in an extremely negative way.

But you know what?

The powers that be dont care, they got what they wanted.
Corporate oil contracts, and at the same time they managed to tripple oil prices..

Us poor schumcks are still sitting here debating over where the wmd's are.

This is how pathetic western society has become, we deserve to be replaced as the world leaders!

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by The real world order
...why was no get out clause put in place why no back up plan to have WMD's planted in iraq after we invaided if they knew there were none to be found...

Because almost all chemical, biological, and (especially) nuclear weapons can be traced.

You see, say they found this warhead. OOOPS! It's uranium is the same uranium as that produced in oakridge! Now they have some explaining to do. You see, most people have forgotten that we sold Iraq chemical and biological weapons, but they would have a harder time forgetting nuclear.

Did you notice that the "anthrax attacks" suddenly stopped when they were DNA-traced to Fort Detrick?

[edit on 18-7-2008 by sir_chancealot]

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:04 AM
So is the answer to why we went, oil?

Or something much bigger than all of this?:

Never thought about that one.. Maybe ETs took them.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by Snake Plisskin]

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:39 AM
Any conspiracy to use WMD's as an excuse to invade would have included a couple of CIA agents planting evidence, if it didn't exist.

The fact that no WMDs have been found tells me there was no conspiracy. The "Bush lied" mantra was and is false.

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:58 AM
What is a WMD and what is a standard weapon in a 21st century arsenal?

Saddam's "wmd" efforts were reduced to R&D. And there was a "bit" of a meltdown within the Hussein Admin. near the end. They knew we were coming and weren't leaving without Saddam.

Bush screwed up with his wmd sell.

Should've jsut cited 10 years of non-compliance with UN and US cease-fire agreements and the UN debate as a justification.

Or that he was just a bad man and was a contributor to destablization in the ME in general. Saddam picked up the Islamic-Arab-Savior mantle in the late 90's. This was a 360 for a guy who for years had attepted to keep his Global face non-secular for the most part.
It irritated US when he started talking religion and Arab-power stuff.
PArticularly when the seat of Arab power was/is in Saudi Arabia, our pals.
The Saudi Arabians were not Saddam fans. And they have pull.

There would never have been a Saddam as we knew him without the Iranian Revolution. We had to contain that stuff or we would have been there fighting Soviets 25 years ago.

A shame. But these scenarios have been mapped since Game Theory. At least 40 years or so.

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:05 AM
the only reason I doubt conspiracy theories is because of the question raised by the OP.
I'm thinking if CT do exist with the Bush administration then surely they would have found SOMETHING.
How easy would it have been, grab a camera crew take em somewhere and say, wow look we told ya so. case closed, justification, every one loves ya for saving the world from a maniac with WMD, we love the war kill em all. (a million times easier than trying to cover up something like 9/11)
Didn't happen, and the administration and all governments of allied countries have been wearing the brunt of voter dis-satifaction ever since.
Suming up, this is the reason I am very sceptical of CT's.

just my opinion

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by DaleGribble
reply to post by The real world order

wmd's were found in iraq.

thats why they didnt have to plant them..

Reading that report I completely see Bush's propaganda... "still exist, could be, The possibility, Most likely, desire to acquire." the KEY words to justify the invasion... 500 Chemical weapons aren’t really WMD's... unless you drop them in New York... now a Nuke would be a WMD... yet no one found one there... You have to be a really slow to not get why US is in Iraq... why Saddam was removed...
To a question why WMD's weren’t planted... It is a bit hard to make something that wasn’t created in Iraq... they cant just bring couple nukes and drop them in the desert with stickers saying "Made in USA"... they would had to find plant where nukes were made... couple single nukes laying in the desert would of been not good enough... yet I am not sure why this topic has been posted... no point in arguing about something that is past... we should look into the future and make sure no crap like that would ever happen again...

[edit on 18-7-2008 by CTPAX]

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by WarBow

That Yellow Cake is bound for Canada - somehow to use in the nuclear power plants - I don't know how - that is what they said on Global TV one morning.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in