If there was undeniable evidence that there were WMD in Iraq in 2002-3, would liberals still have opposed the Iraq War?

Question

I'm not saying that Saddam did not want to restart the WMD program (it's not that hard to imagine that he would do that), but it's a fact that there were NO WMDs.

About supporting terrorists, and the human rights abuses, and the dictatorship, that's a different story...

Answer 1

Bush just wanted a believable excuse to invade, so if everyone had known there were no wmds, he would have used another excuse, which he actually did. When Bush was making speeches about Iraq, he said that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, thus making a lot of americans believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which was blatantly untrue.



On the subject of wmds, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq made it quite clear in his report before the invasion that Iraq did not possess weapons. He and his team had visited every site in Iraq, so for Bush to claim otherwise was nonsense and just a pretext to invade.

Answer 2

Huh??? Liberals supported the war as it was, especially in the Senate. 29 out of the 50 Democratic Senators voted for the Resolution.



Edit: This includes the heavy hitters like Clinton, Biden, Feinsten, Edwards, Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, Reid, Schumer

Answer 3

Yes. Some did oppose it before we knew there were no WMDs. But Democrats in Congress voted for the use of force.



Like Hillary.

Answer 4

yes- Everyone who opposes war is irrelvant in the US- we aren't counted in foreign policy.

Just like environmental concerns can't be involved in transit policy- or energy policy-- I can't count.



The best way to get America on the way to war faster is if people like me oppose it.



If you give WMD's as party favors, then the party is a war.

We hated spewing leftists opposed arming Saddam, too- HOW STUIPID AND NAIVE ARE WE??



Before 2003, 2004 we opposed setting things up for your war!



We liberals never count in America LALALALALA - you can't HEAR ME!! LALALALA!!



I am so sorry for our rapid loss of the ecosystem- We should have kept our hated liberal spew holes SHUT!



I am sorry for the endless wars. We should never tell you you are wrong- it causes you to kill FASTER!

Answer 5

2003, chemical weapons dumped into the lake turning it red, multiple us casualties destroying chemical dumps, even today, ISIS has unburied chemicals left behind in the sand, not to mention all the delivery systems found and well documented that they weren't suppose to have or things like the Migs that were buried in and around the airports that they weren't suppose to have. They were old chemicals or whatever, they still had them, they were still denying the inspectors in, the intelligence agencies from around the world believed they had them. Bush did it so it was wrong. Obama moved the war to where it was suppose to be, as he ran on, in Afghanistan and has had more soldiers injured and has mucked that one up too.

Answer 6

I opposed the war on conservative grounds. The mere existence of "wmd"s, in and of itself, would not have been grounds for invading and regime changing another country. The role of the military is to protect our country, not try to perfect foreigners and police the world. This is jewish neoconservative imperial philosophy/progressive democracy spreading. There is nothing conservative about it whatsoever. It is big government run amok.

Answer 7

There was, libs begged for a 32nd vote cuz people wanted the war, & true to form, libs turned right against the war soon after they voted for it.



And the yDID find nuke material.. News didn't report it.



And another thing. Saddam gassed 50,000 kurds to death. A wmd if ever there was one.

Answer 8

They didn't oppose it.

There was bipartisan support for the war.



"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."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

Answer 9

It wasn't really the war they opposed. They opposed George Bush and the Republicans. It's that simple. They are an unprincipled lot. So to answer your question....yes.



Or to put it another way, if it was Obama instead of Bush that went after Hussein they would have stood behind his decision.

Answer 10

OK the whole WMD “lie” has been debunked over and over. And here is the latest to further debunk the lie:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=2&assetType=nyt_now

But yeah, keep up with whatever the DNC feeds you, since you obviously can't be bothered to find out the TRUTH for yourself.

Answer 11

It is NOT a fact there wasn't any WMD's. Traces of sarin gas were found in the Euphrates, zero SCUDS recovered. Saddam's own military said he had them. Where did they go?

Answer 12

Bernie Sanders did oppose the war. HiLiarY supported the war.



you can take it from there

Answer 13

Yes. Because they hate it when America projects its military might to spread freedom and democracy around the world.

Answer 14

Yes. Most countries have WMDs. The original reason that the Bush administration sold for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was trying to make nuclear weapons.

Answer 15

Sure.



And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its @$$. You can't live your life in "Ifs". Sorry.

Answer 16

yes

Answer 17

Well there was... and they still oposed the war...after originaly supporting it.