• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hubris: Selling The Iraq War

The CIA sends Joseph C. Wilson, a retired US diplomat, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from that country (see February 13, 2002).

Reason behind Request - Former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman will later note that “Wilson was asked to go to Niger for one specific purpose. It was the CIA’s idea to get Cheney off their backs. Cheney would not get off their backs about the yellowcake documents. They couldn’t get Cheney to stop pressing the issue. He insisted that was the proof of reconstitution of [Iraq’s nuclear] program.” [DUBOSE AND BERNSTEIN, 2006, PP. 214]


Context of 'Mid-October 2002: State Department Intelligence Official Questions Authenticity of Niger Documents'

Goodman was not fully informed.:peace
 
But while official investigators have found no evidence that Bush manipulated intelligence, they never took up the question of whether the President and his top aides manipulated the public, something Bush also denies.

In fact, before the war Bush and others often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely. Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time by Pentagon intelligence analysts. The claim later was called a lie by the al Qaeda detainee who originally told it to his US interrogators.

FactCheck.org: Iraq: What Did Congress Know, And When?

"We don't want the smoking gun to be in the shape of a mushroom cloud"
 
I present documentation to back up my claims and I expect you to do the same. I'm not responding to baseless assertions and accusations.

As soon as you present something that supports what you say, I'll be more than glad to respond... Posting a link to 20 or 30 pages of documents just ain't going to cut it Boo.
Posting snippets from a PDF file doesn't "cut it" either, especially when the page numbers are missing.
 
Your statement is factually incorrect. AQ was in Iraq long before Saddam was deposed.

Your ignorance of history is sad.


I'm afraid your saying that doesn't make it so. You'll need to demonstrate it. But you may want to qualify just how much of Iraq you think Saddam controlled?
 
Building momentum for regime change’: Rumsfeld’s secret memos

"Declassified documents show that Bush administration officials wanted Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and were ready to start a war in order to achieve it."

"By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points agenda from the sessions (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

‘Building momentum for regime change’: Rumsfeld’s secret memos
 
No, looks like you're buying into the same old bull that British intelligence was based on those forged documents, when it wasn't.

Then what was it based on? Oh that's right...they won't tell us. Why don't you tell us or don't you know either? And once you figure that out...tell me why should I believe these people over my own people when 2/3 of the MP's don't believe it? We're talking about evidence to be used to justify a war where Americans are going to die. If you are going to give me uncorroborated and disputed evidence from this, to aluminum tubes that aren't what we claimed, and Chem labs that aren't what we claimed, and WMD that we can't prove exist, and then adopt an actual policy of making Saddam prove that he DOESN"T have them. If that isn't the straw that would break the back of any person with even a glimmer of rationality left in their being, then the dumbing down of the country is almost complete. Clearly no case was factually made to justify going to war in Iraq. But they wanted a war so bad that as a last resort it was up to Saddam to prove he didn't have them. You cannot prove a negative. That's what we finally demanded in Powells own words. You can't prove you don't have something. It's like asking you to prove that you aren't cheating on your wife.

If you can't recognize what's going on here by applying fundamental logic, reason and your own rationality to the idea of sending American troops to war based on .....this bowl of mush, then truth may be a value in your mind, but not the most important value. I would say that loyalty to the group ranks higher. When it comes to truth or loyalty to the group, the group will win out, because you have to abandon logic, reason and rationality to buy what they were selling.
 
A: Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guardsmen and women opposed to the war in Iraq?

1. The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen's caskets when they arrive home and refusing to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.
For further reading: Mother Jones | Smart, Fearless Journalism

2. The Iraq war violates international law.
The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.
For further reading:
The Avalon Project : Charter of the International Military Tribunal
WEST POINT GRADUATES AGAINST THE WAR

3. Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower's farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue...
For further reading:
Advocates of War Now Profit From Iraq's Reconstruction
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/

4. Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone.For further reading:
nomorevictims.org - Working for Peace, One Child at a Time
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study | World news | The Guardian
THE REACH OF WAR - CASUALTIES - Number of Civilian Deaths Highest in July, Iraqis Say - NYTimes.com

5. Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.
For further reading:
GI Rights Hotline: Military Discharges and Military Counseling

6. Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence.
Many of our troops have already been deployed to Iraq for two, three, and even four tours of duty averaging eleven months each. Combat stress, exhaustion, and bearing witness to the horrors of war contribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a serious set of symptoms that can lead to depression, illness, violent behavior, and even suicide. Additionally, depleted uranium, Lariam, insufficient body armor, and infectious diseases are just a few of the health risks which accompany an immorally planned and incompetently executed war. Finally, upon a soldier's release, the Veterans Administration is far too under-funded to fully deal with the magnitude of veterans in need.
For further reading:
NATIONAL CENTER for PTSD Home
Vets 4 Vets - Peer Support For & By Iraq and Afghanistan-Era Veterans

7. The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart.
The use of stop-loss on active duty troops and the unnecessarily lengthy and repeat active tours by Guard and Reserve troops place enough strain on our military families, even without being forced to sacrifice their loved ones for this ongoing political experiment in the Middle East.
For further reading: Military.com

8. The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.
$10.3 billion per month is spent on a war which could have aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, gone to impoverished schools, the construction of hospitals and health care systems, tax cut initiatives, and a host of domestic programs that have all been gutted in the wake of the war in Iraq.
For further reading:
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

9. The war dehumanizes Iraqis and denies them their right to self-determination.
Iraqis are subjected to humiliating and violent checkpoints, searches, and home raids on a daily basis. The current Iraqi government is in place solely because of the U.S. military occupation. The Iraqi government doesn’t have the popular support of the Iraqi people, nor does it have power or authority. For many Iraqis the current government is seen as a puppet regime for the U.S. occupation. It is undemocratic and in violation of Iraq’s own right to self-governance.

10. Our military is being exhausted by repeated deployments, involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve and National Guard.
The majority of troops in Iraq right now are there for at least their second tour. Deployments to Iraq are becoming longer and many of our service members are facing involuntary extensions and recalls to active duty. Longstanding policies to limit the duration and frequency of deployments for our part-time National Guard troops are now being overturned to allow for repeated, back-to-back tours in Iraq. These repeated, extended combat tours are taking a huge toll on our troops, their families, and their communities."
For further reading:
2nd tours are ahead for Guard, Reserve - Los Angeles Times

http://www.ivaw.org/about/why-we-are-against-wars
 
In fact, before the war Bush and others often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program.

Every agency concluded that since 1998 when inspectors were kicked out, Iraq began reconstituting it's nuclear weapons program. Every agency that is, except of the State Department... Which did say however, that they believed Saddam continued wanting nuclear weapons, and based on the evidence had continued pursuing a least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon related capabilities.

Here's the Intelligence score card on Iraq's nuclear weapons program:

1. CIA - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
2. DIA - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
3. NGIC - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
4. DOE - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
5. INR - Acquiring/Maintaining nuclear weapons related capabilities


Sorry Boo, but I'm not seeing the doubts from the intelligence community on Iraq's nuclear program...



They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely.

The 2002 NIE stated that if desperate, Saddam might reach out to a terrorist group like al qaida to carry out an attack against the US homeland. Hell, you don't need an intelligence report to tell you that, just some simple common sense tells you that's a possibility.

Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time by Pentagon intelligence analysts. The claim later was called a lie by the al Qaeda detainee who originally told it to his US interrogators.

Well obviously Tenant and the Intelligence Community overruled the Pentagon analyst, because they concluded the following in the September 2002 report "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" (page 329 Senate report)

alqaida_training1.jpg

George Tenant also testified on that subject 2 different times before the invasion:

alqaida_training_tenant.jpg

It seems pretty clear that that information was being portrayed in the published reports and based on what George Tenant said, as solid and reliable intelligence. The final say so on all intelligence reports comes from DCI George Tenant. All intelligence reports/disputes go through him and he makes a determination, then decides what information is delivered to the White House.

That's the way intelligence information had always been handled since the 1940's Boo. So claiming any doubts about any of the intelligence ever reached President Bush, requires direct proof that either he, or members in his cabinet were informed of them, and then you would still need George Tenant to verify that he concurred on those doubts, rather than telling the president they were unfounded... Based on the 2002 NIE, what Tenant has said, the Senate Investigation and the Robb Silberman report, I have yet to see as much as one case where those doubts every reached the White House.

Now if you have specific allegations, You're going to need to post some documentation... That Factcheck.org article was a whole lot of opinion that was obviously based on many incomplete facts.
 
I'm afraid your saying that doesn't make it so. You'll need to demonstrate it.
I already did demonstrate it waaaaay back in post #211 after which the OP had to finally admit that AQ was in Iraq.

Not only was AQ in Iraq before OIF, they even had a WMD facility in Iraq.

Starting in 2001 many AQ militants fled Afghanistan and set up shop in Iraq where they fought against Saddam's Kurdish enemies, the PUK. That is well known history to history buffs such as myself.

But you may want to qualify just how much of Iraq you think Saddam controlled?

How much territory Saddam controlled is irrelevant to the veracity of the statement that AQ was in Iraq before 2003. What is relevant is that AQ controlled territory in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
It's simply not true that every intelligence agency stated Iraq had a wmd program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, who had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, told Bush there's nothing here. Bush did not share this intel with Congress. (The Presidential Daily Brief)

What President, in his right mind, who had conflicting evidence, would take our nation to war?

As far as I'm concerned, Bush has the blood of almost 5,000 of our soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, on his hands.
 
Every agency concluded that since 1998 when inspectors were kicked out, Iraq began reconstituting it's nuclear weapons program. Every agency that is, except of the State Department... Which did say however, that they believed Saddam continued wanting nuclear weapons, and based on the evidence had continued pursuing a least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon related capabilities.

Here's the Intelligence score card on Iraq's nuclear weapons program:

1. CIA - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
2. DIA - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
3. NGIC - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
4. DOE - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
5. INR - Acquiring/Maintaining nuclear weapons related capabilities


Sorry Boo, but I'm not seeing the doubts from the intelligence community on Iraq's nuclear program...





The 2002 NIE stated that if desperate, Saddam might reach out to a terrorist group like al qaida to carry out an attack against the US homeland. Hell, you don't need an intelligence report to tell you that, just some simple common sense tells you that's a possibility.



Well obviously Tenant and the Intelligence Community overruled the Pentagon analyst, because they concluded the following in the September 2002 report "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" (page 329 Senate report)

View attachment 67144307

George Tenant also testified on that subject 2 different times before the invasion:

View attachment 67144308

It seems pretty clear that that information was being portrayed in the published reports and based on what George Tenant said, as solid and reliable intelligence. The final say so on all intelligence reports comes from DCI George Tenant. All intelligence reports/disputes go through him and he makes a determination, then decides what information is delivered to the White House.

That's the way intelligence information had always been handled since the 1940's Boo. So claiming any doubts about any of the intelligence ever reached President Bush, requires direct proof that either he, or members in his cabinet were informed of them, and then you would still need George Tenant to verify that he concurred on those doubts, rather than telling the president they were unfounded... Based on the 2002 NIE, what Tenant has said, the Senate Investigation and the Robb Silberman report, I have yet to see as much as one case where those doubts every reached the White House.

Now if you have specific allegations, You're going to need to post some documentation... That Factcheck.org article was a whole lot of opinion that was obviously based on many incomplete facts.

Grim, there is only one reason why we invaded Iraq and that's because he wanted to invade. Paul O'Neill, Bush's first treasury secretary said Bush spoke about invading Iraq at his first cabinet meeting. Mickey Herskowitz, a former ghost writer remembers Bush saying. “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of [Kuwait] and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Bush got his chance when we were attacked on 911.

You act as though Bush was a victim of poor intelligence and George Tenet, yet he awarded Tenet the Medal of Freedom. Bush and his administration lied to the American people about the supposed threat Iraq was, so he could get his way. He wanted to be a "War President."
 
It's simply not true that every intelligence agency stated Iraq had a wmd program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, who had inspectors on the ground in Iraq, told Bush there's nothing here. Bush did not share this intel with Congress. (The Presidential Daily Brief)

What President, in his right mind, who had conflicting evidence, would take our nation to war?

As far as I'm concerned, Bush has the blood of almost 5,000 of our soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, on his hands.

Well, LBJ escalated the Vietnam war because of phony claims and that stupid war claimed 58,000 of our brave soldiers.

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Every agency concluded that since 1998 when inspectors were kicked out, Iraq began reconstituting it's nuclear weapons program. Every agency that is, except of the State Department... Which did say however, that they believed Saddam continued wanting nuclear weapons, and based on the evidence had continued pursuing a least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon related capabilities.

Here's the Intelligence score card on Iraq's nuclear weapons program:

1. CIA - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
2. DIA - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
3. NGIC - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
4. DOE - Reconstituting nuclear weapons program
5. INR - Acquiring/Maintaining nuclear weapons related capabilities


Sorry Boo, but I'm not seeing the doubts from the intelligence community on Iraq's nuclear program...





The 2002 NIE stated that if desperate, Saddam might reach out to a terrorist group like al qaida to carry out an attack against the US homeland. Hell, you don't need an intelligence report to tell you that, just some simple common sense tells you that's a possibility.



Well obviously Tenant and the Intelligence Community overruled the Pentagon analyst, because they concluded the following in the September 2002 report "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" (page 329 Senate report)

View attachment 67144307

George Tenant also testified on that subject 2 different times before the invasion:

View attachment 67144308

It seems pretty clear that that information was being portrayed in the published reports and based on what George Tenant said, as solid and reliable intelligence. The final say so on all intelligence reports comes from DCI George Tenant. All intelligence reports/disputes go through him and he makes a determination, then decides what information is delivered to the White House.

That's the way intelligence information had always been handled since the 1940's Boo. So claiming any doubts about any of the intelligence ever reached President Bush, requires direct proof that either he, or members in his cabinet were informed of them, and then you would still need George Tenant to verify that he concurred on those doubts, rather than telling the president they were unfounded... Based on the 2002 NIE, what Tenant has said, the Senate Investigation and the Robb Silberman report, I have yet to see as much as one case where those doubts every reached the White House.

Now if you have specific allegations, You're going to need to post some documentation... That Factcheck.org article was a whole lot of opinion that was obviously based on many incomplete facts.

Simply not true, and you're link doesn't quite say what you're claiming. Most believed there were left over wmds, and that he'd lik to restart his programs. To get beyond that, you have to use al Libi (tortured but doubted), Curveball, and Chalibi with HS heros in error.
 
Mr. Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts. Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war.

(Snip)

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi's claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.

"It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," the February 2002 report said. "Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest."

Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing "the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html
 
Let's not forget Judith Miller at the NYT:

Her (Miller) Iraq coverage didn’t just depend on Chalabi. It also relied heavily on his patrons in the Pentagon. Some of these sources, like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, would occasionally talk to her on the record. She relied especially heavily on the Office of Special Plans, an intelligence unit established beneath Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. The office was charged with uncovering evidence of Al Qaeda links to Saddam Hussein that the CIA might have missed. In particular, Miller is said to have depended on a controversial neocon in Feith’s office named Michael Maloof. At one point, in December 2001, Maloof’s security clearance was revoked. In April, Risen reported in the Times, “Several intelligence professionals say he came under scrutiny because of suspicions that he had leaked classified information in the past to the news media, a charge that Mr. Maloof denies.” While Miller might not have intended to march in lockstep with these hawks, she was caught up in an almost irresistible cycle. Because she kept printing the neocon party line, the neocons kept coming to her with huge stories and great quotes, constantly expanding her access.

Judith Miller's WMD reporting - New York Times war reporting - Hunt for WMD
 
I fail to see what this has to do with the Iraq war? Besides, South Vietnam requested our help in combatting agression from the North. No one requested we invade Iraq to stop their aggression against a neighboring country.

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (officially, the Southeast Asia Resolution, Public Law 88-408) was a joint resolution that the United States Congress passed on August 7, 1964, in response to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

It is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist "any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty". This included involving armed forces.
 
Simply not true, and you're link doesn't quite say what you're claiming.

What is simply not true?



Most believed there were left over wmds, and that he'd lik to restart his programs.

Well Boo, 4 of the 5 agencies that examined the nuclear weapons issue, believed that reconstitution of Saddam's nuclear weapons program was underway. Only the INR fell under the catagory of "he'd like to restart his program", but noted he was adding to or maintaining his capabilities in that area.



To get beyond that, you have to use al Libi (tortured but doubted), Curveball, and Chalibi with HS heros in error.

The means by which the conclusions of the many intelligence agencies were rendered on Iraq's nuclear weapons program, is irrelevant to this discussion.
 
Bush and his administration lied to the American people about the supposed threat Iraq was, so he could get his way. He wanted to be a "War President."

That is unsupported partisan nonsense Pete... And explains why I try to avoid conversations with you on this issue.

It's one big circle with you Pete. You start by making baseless claims you can't support. Then you try every angle you can to justify your claims until they have all either been shot down with facts and evidence, or remain unsupported. And in the end, it always leads right back to where we are now... You making the same baseless, unsupported accusations you started with, like no discussion ever took place... It would be funny if it weren't so damned sad.
 
Saddam wanted his neighbors to believe he had nuclear weapons. Saddam had dreams of being the Grand Caliph of the Middle East. Saddam often told his own "employees" he had a weapons program, so in case they were captured, they would verify Saddam was not to be messed with. The fact remains Bush had intel showing no current wmd programs, but he did not share this intel with Congress because it did not support his case for war.

Bush lied about nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons, the aluminum tubes, yellow cake, and Iraq's ties to Al Queada, and Iraq's ties to the events of 9/11.
 
That is unsupported partisan nonsense Pete... And explains why I try to avoid conversations with you on this issue.

It's one big circle with you Pete. You start by making baseless claims you can't support. Then you try every angle you can to justify your claims until they have all either been shot down with facts and evidence, or remain unsupported. And in the end, it always leads right back to where we are now... You making the same baseless, unsupported accusations you started with, like no discussion ever took place... It would be funny if it weren't so damned sad.
What's sad is that you seem to be one of the last to know, even Jack Hays agrees:


I agree that the war was planned well ahead. I agree that the GWB administration "fixed the intel around the policy." There's no crime in that.
 
What's sad is that you seem to be one of the last to know, even Jack Hays agrees:

I may be wrong, but if I understand him correctly, I also agree with what he said.

1. The war was planned ahead, there's no doubt about that and there is nothing wrong or improper in doing so. Every administration upon taking office, has the Secretary of Defense draw up military attack plans against those nations or organizations who pose the greatest military threat to the country.

2. When he says "fixed" I believe he means "attached", not rigged or manipulated.

3. Based on kicking inspectors out, violating over a dozen UN Resolutions, not abiding by the cease fire agreement, and the intelligence information available at the time, the "policy" was that the administration believed that Saddam needed to neutralized (disarmed or removed from power), so I agree that the intel was fixed around the policy... As it should have been.

And btw Pete, I know all the information... But unlike you, I weigh all the facts and look at all the evidence to come to a logical and reasonable conclusion... You only embrace that which props up your partisan beliefs (including supporting a proven liar and his lies), and you make excuses and dismiss everything else that doesn't fit with your political beliefs/agenda.
 
I may be wrong, but if I understand him correctly, I also agree with what he said.

1. The war was planned ahead, there's no doubt about that and there is nothing wrong or improper in doing so. Every administration upon taking office, has the Secretary of Defense draw up military attack plans against those nations or organizations who pose the greatest military threat to the country.

2. When he says "fixed" I believe he means "attached", not rigged or manipulated.

3. Based on kicking inspectors out, violating over a dozen UN Resolutions, not abiding by the cease fire agreement, and the intelligence information available at the time, the "policy" was that the administration believed that Saddam needed to neutralized (disarmed or removed from power), so I agree that the intel was fixed around the policy... As it should have been.
Your might remember at the time Bush invaded,, there were UN inspectors in the country when Bush invaded. Just think of all the lives that could have been saved if they were allowed to continue. President Bush promised me he would get OBL "Dead or Alive" But he let me down and turned his attention to Saddam instead. I don't know if you remember, but I remember watching CNN after Desert Storm. Saddam's Military was decimated beyond belief. Burning tanks stretched for miles and miles. I Supported Desert Storm, in fact I voted for GHWB in 1988.

And btw Pete, I know all the information... But unlike you, I weigh all the facts and look at all the evidence to come to a logical and reasonable conclusion... You only embrace that which props up your partisan beliefs (including supporting a proven liar and his lies), and you make excuses and dismiss everything else that doesn't fit with your political beliefs/agenda.

You have presented very little in the way of "facts" those bi-partisan committees, commissions, etc don't represent the truth. Just because they "conclude" something that doesn't mean it true. Those are political bodies and that is the worst way to find the true facts. And I said this before there is no dialog in those reports, only a few words obviously taken out of context.
 
You have presented very little in the way of "facts" those bi-partisan committees, commissions, etc don't represent the truth.

But Joe Wilson the self admitted liar does... LMMFAO
 
But Joe Wilson the self admitted liar does... LMMFAO
Like I've said many times before, you are welcome to your opinion. Joesph Wilson is a patriot and has no reason to lie about this.
 
Back
Top Bottom