Only for people ignorant enough to believe that the war was based solely on flawed intelligence...FinnMacCool said:He admitted his intelligence was flawed
And he said the war was justified.
Is that not a contradiction?
Bush Whitehouse.gov 10/7/02 said:The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence.
The United States came to the United Nations and laid down a clear-cut case for war: it detailed:Bush Whitehouse.gov 3/17/03 said:For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, or at least it wasn't nearly as big as we thought. There have been a token few chemical and biological weapons found, but nothing that constitutes such a threat as was described to us.shuamort said:The coalescence to the fact that there are no WMDs and that the info was faulty would therefore mean that the threat that we went in there for never existed.
LOL! Good point. No, we don't think that. We know it was based on the intentionally flawed use and misrepresentation of intellegence.cnredd said:Only for people ignorant enough to believe that the war was based solely on flawed intelligence...
When you get right down to it, the entire premise that Saddam had WMDs was the fact that he possessed them in the 80s (when the Reagan and Bush administration approved his purchase of them) and that Hussein didn't prove, to our satisfaction, that the weapons were destroyed or non-existent. The Iraqis denied having them, but their statements were not accepted. The only other basis for a believe were statements made by captured prisoners or Iraqi ex-pats, both of whom would have plenty of reason to have bias.shuamort said:“My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power,” the president said.
The reason we went into Iraq was because they failed to disarm their WMDs before the deadline.
The United States came to the United Nations and laid down a clear-cut case for war: it detailed:
* Hiding equipment
* Thwarting inspections
* Access to scientists
* Biological weapons
* Chemical weapons
* Nuclear weapons
* Prohibited arms systems
* Ties to al Qaeda
So, it sure looks like the reason to me was to go in and disarm Saddam from these WMDs that turned up to be non-existant. These WMDs which were the immediate threat to the US. The coalescence to the fact that there are no WMDs and that the info was faulty would therefore mean that the threat that we went in there for never existed.
Well its certainly the one case that the Bush admin was really pushing on the american people. That and its link to terrorism, which was a lie.Only for people ignorant enough to believe that the war was based solely on flawed intelligence...
What is clear is that you want all of these wild accusations to be true so that your party can regain power - the good people of Iraq and our troops be damned. How sad.Binary_Digit said:For me, that "flawed intelligence" is what origionally sold me on the war. I watched Colin Powell tell the UN how much sarin gas Iraq has stockpiled, where the mobile weapons factories are, and how Iraq is "harboring" the al'Qaeda splinter group Ansar al-Islam. I listened to Condi Rice tell about uranium centrifuge tubes that could "pretty much only be used for nuclear enrichment." I listened to the President assert that Iraq has trained al'Qaeda in bomb making and poison gases. It was a strong case for me, and at the time I fully supported the war. But it turns out, none of the above assertions were true at all, and some of our intelligence people at the time were trying to tell the President exactly that.
War was based on the idea that Iraq was a "threat." Intelligence, both then and now, shows that Iraq was not nearly the "threat" it was made out to be. They didn't have "stockpiles" of WMDs, they weren't harboring al'Qaeda, and they didn't have ambitions to commit or help to commit terrorist attacks against the U.S.
Everyone knows Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds 20 years ago. Everyone knows he played shady games with the weapons inspectors for 12 years. Everyone knows he repeatedly violated UN resolutions. If these had been the rationale for war, nobody could argue that the President misled anyone to war. Instead, we got corrupt intelligence from the equally-shady Office of Special Planning, created by Bush specifically to find links between Iraq and terrorism. Is it any wonder why so much intelligence from the OSP turned out to be wrong? Bush took a biased approach on Iraq, so he didn't come to an objective conclusion.
If Hussein's Iraq was part of the broader war on terrorism, that's fine, but I really don't think a good case based on truth has been made.
Really.Iriemon said:LOL! Good point. No, we don't think that. We know it was based on the intentionally flawed use and misrepresentation of intellegence.
Been there done that.M14 Shooter said:So for this to be true, yuou have to show that Bush knew the information he had was wrong, and that he deliberatly disseminated it to the public.
First of all, this list is also published elsewhere, the book just happened to be where I got it from.How the Republicans Stole Christmas said:...but most theologians agree that to qualify as "just" in the eyes of God and man, a war must meet the following tests:
- There must be a just cause for the war. It must be waged only in response to certain, grave, and lasting damage inflicted by an aggressor. Revenge, revolt, or a desire to harm, dominate, or exploit is not sufficient justification for war.
- A just war can be waged only as a last resort. every possible means of peacefully settling the conflict must be exhausted first.
- The ultimate objective of war must be to bring peace. And the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed had the war not been fought.
- There must be serious prospect of success; bloodshed without hope of victory cannot be justified.
- The war must be declared by a legitimate authority; no private individuals or groups can launch a war.
- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. The war must not cause greater evil than the evil to be eliminated.
- Noncombatants must not be intentionally harmed. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
- Prisoners and conquered peoples must be treated justly.