>>507777935
A lot of people believed it. It was a different time and "independent media" wasn't really a thing. Not like it is today.
So what the talking heads on the big networks said was often accepted. The news drove the lies into every home.

Beyond that, a LOT of people didn't seem clear on the difference between iraq and the Taliban/Afghanistan/Al-Qaeda. Why invade Iraq? Well 9/11 happened. That wasn't uncommon.

>>507778639
Everyone replying to this post is a dipshit.
Tony Blair in the UK echoed the US and Israel about wmds.

One thing nobody is mentioning, is the testimony of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi who they called "curveball". He gave false information that Sadam was manufacturing chemical weapons, and this was used in conjunction about WMDs to assert iraq needed a good invading. There was another Iraqi guy, Adnan al Haideri, that had supposedly worked at a nuclear development site as well and his account was also used.

I was only a kid back then, but I remember the consensus around me being essentially
>they say he was wmds
>we know for sure he has chemical weapons and he uses them
>it is credible he is developing nukes
>he is a dictator that gasses his own people and the world will be better off if we topple him (lmao)
>9/11 happened and arabs of all stripes and creeds can catch these hands (or missiles)

>it's happening again
sign tappers were right on the money