New York Times Bias

[pbrauer]

This New York Times article claims that Ahmad Chalabi helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq is techically true, however it lets President Bush off the hook. Bush was already convinced to invade Iraq, he brought Chalabi here to do the lying to Congress for him. Bush needed their votes.

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who from exile helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and then unsuccessfully tried to attain power as his country was nearly torn apart by sectarian violence, died on Tuesday at his home in Baghdad. He was 71.

The cause was heart failure, Iraqi officials said.

Mr. Chalabi was the Iraqi perhaps most associated with President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and topple its longtime dictator, Saddam Hussein. A mathematician with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, Mr. Chalabi, the son of a prominent Shiite family, cultivated close ties with journalists in Washington and London; American lawmakers; the neoconservative advisers who helped shape Mr. Bush’s foreign policy; and a wide network of Iraqi exiles, many of whom were paid for intelligence about Mr. Hussein’s government.

snip

Ahmad Chalabi, Iraqi Politician Who Pushed for U.S. Invasion, Dies at 71
​

 

[betuadollar]

Wait: Are you saying you actually read the NY Times? And it wasn't the science section?

 

[OrphanSlug]

This New York Times article claims that Ahmad Chalabi helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq is techically true, however it lets President Bush off the hook. Bush was already convinced to invade Iraq, he brought Chalabi here to do the lying to Congress for him. Bush needed their votes.

Wait... you are concerned about "bias in the media" yet what they printed was "technically true?"

So you are concerned all the qualifiers to your standards were not printed as well, and that makes them bias? You sure that is the standard you want to go with given your attitude related to the usual sources you agree with?

 

[pbrauer]

Wait... you are concerned about "bias in the media" yet what they printed was "technically true?"

So you are concerned all the qualifiers to your standards were not printed as well, and that makes them bias? You sure that is the standard you want to go with given your attitude related to the usual sources you agree with?

I am trying to say Bush didn't need Chalabi to convince him to invade beause he had his mind already made up. He needed Chalabi to convince Congress.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am trying to say Bush didn't need Chalabi to convince him to invade beause he had his mind already made up. He needed Chalabi to convince Congress.

Opinion or fact?

 

[KLATTU]

Chalabi lied to Congress?

 

[pbrauer]

Opinion or fact?

Of what?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Opinion or fact?

You need to ask?

 

[OrphanSlug]

You need to ask?

Of course, there seems to be a good bit of speculation on what Bush 43 did and did not do and most importantly his motivations for doing so. If we are going to discuss "bias in the media" given the OP's interpretation it makes sense to explore the OP's reasons for believing something to be so.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This New York Times article claims that Ahmad Chalabi helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq is techically true, however it lets President Bush off the hook. Bush was already convinced to invade Iraq, he brought Chalabi here to do the lying to Congress for him. Bush needed their votes.

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who from exile helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and then unsuccessfully tried to attain power as his country was nearly torn apart by sectarian violence, died on Tuesday at his home in Baghdad. He was 71.

The cause was heart failure, Iraqi officials said.

Mr. Chalabi was the Iraqi perhaps most associated with President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and topple its longtime dictator, Saddam Hussein. A mathematician with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, Mr. Chalabi, the son of a prominent Shiite family, cultivated close ties with journalists in Washington and London; American lawmakers; the neoconservative advisers who helped shape Mr. Bush’s foreign policy; and a wide network of Iraqi exiles, many of whom were paid for intelligence about Mr. Hussein’s government.

snip

Ahmad Chalabi, Iraqi Politician Who Pushed for U.S. Invasion, Dies at 71
​

I agree that the NY Times is a biased publication. However, Pete, it is in no way, shape, or form, a publication that shows a bias toward supporting Republicans, and damned sure not a bias in favor of George W. Bush.

In fact, by equivocating with the "technically true" bull****, they are showing their bias AGAINST Bush. Seriously, Pete. Either facts are true or they are not. If they are technically true, then they are TRUE. It may be uncomfortable for the NY Times to admit the truth, and obviously even more uncomfortable for you to read it, but the truth is just that... the TRUTH.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Of course, there seems to be a good bit of speculation on what Bush 43 did and did not do and most importantly his motivations for doing so. If we are going to discuss "bias in the media" given the OP's interpretation it makes sense to explore the OP's reasons for believing something to be so.

If it were fact, he would have included evidence/proof/link. He did not. Actually, what he provided in the OP was evidence to contradict his latter statements. That's why I said what I did. It was obviously opinion given that he had posted a left biased news organization documenting the exact opposite over two different administrations (Clinton and Bush).

 

[pbrauer]

I agree that the NY Times is a biased publication. However, Pete, it is in no way, shape, or form, a publication that shows a bias toward supporting Republicans, and damned sure not a bias in favor of George W. Bush.

They sure did him a favor by publishing WMD bogus information from Scooter Libby on the front of the Sunday Times. Cheney was on MTP that day and Told Tim Russert "see even the [liberal] NYT is saying the same thing. Of course he didn't reveal it was his Chief of Staff that gave them the info.

In fact, by equivocating with the "technically true" bull****, they are showing their bias AGAINST Bush. Seriously, Pete. Either facts are true or they are not. If they are technically true, then they are TRUE. It may be uncomfortable for the NY Times to admit the truth, and obviously even more uncomfortable for you to read it, but the truth is just that... the TRUTH.

I said it was technically true because he wasn't brought to convince the inner circle... they were already on board, he was brought here to convince Congress.

 

[iguanaman]

This New York Times article claims that Ahmad Chalabi helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq is techically true, however it lets President Bush off the hook. Bush was already convinced to invade Iraq, he brought Chalabi here to do the lying to Congress for him. Bush needed their votes.

Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who from exile helped persuade the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and then unsuccessfully tried to attain power as his country was nearly torn apart by sectarian violence, died on Tuesday at his home in Baghdad. He was 71.

The cause was heart failure, Iraqi officials said.

Mr. Chalabi was the Iraqi perhaps most associated with President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and topple its longtime dictator, Saddam Hussein. A mathematician with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, Mr. Chalabi, the son of a prominent Shiite family, cultivated close ties with journalists in Washington and London; American lawmakers; the neoconservative advisers who helped shape Mr. Bush’s foreign policy; and a wide network of Iraqi exiles, many of whom were paid for intelligence about Mr. Hussein’s government.

snip

Ahmad Chalabi, Iraqi Politician Who Pushed for U.S. Invasion, Dies at 71
​

I believe they meant that Chalabi was useful in persuading others to go along with Bush's plan.Bush was a big believer in PAID informants since they would say whatever he wanted to hear. We all know that Bush was planning the invasion before he ever heard of Chalabi. Saddam supposedly put a hit out on his Daddy and that was enough for him. It was a very personal thing and nothing would stand in his way. Even the threats of 9/11 were merely hoaxes meant to undermined his personal quest for "justice". GW was quite a piece of work.

 

[BWWzfc]

I am trying to say Bush didn't need Chalabi to convince him to invade beause he had his mind already made up. He needed Chalabi to convince Congress.

Journalists must always remember to include ample details about Bush when writing an obit piece about somebody else. Otherwise it's bias.

 

[Beaudreaux]

They sure did him a favor by publishing WMD bogus information from Scooter Libby on the front of the Sunday Times. Cheney was on MTP that day and Told Tim Russert "see even the [liberal] NYT is saying the same thing. Of course he didn't reveal it was his Chief of Staff that gave them the info.

I said it was technically true because he wasn't brought to convince the inner circle... they were already on board, he was brought here to convince Congress.

You know all this... how, exactly? Books written by people that were fired or got pissed off and quit? Liberal publications that have an agenda? Or, did you get a classified briefing to inform you of exactly what happened?

You may very well be correct and the decision was a fait accompli. But, you see, I don't know that it was and I don't know that it wasn't? To say such things, Pete, is just showing a bias and hatred that is not pretty on you.

How do we even know that Chalabi lied, or is it that he was not up to date and that Hussein had shipped a lot of his MWD's to Syria and Libya during the time lag from when the Bush Administration started making their case to attack and the long time it took to actually do so? Hussein sent his gas WMD's to Syria and his Yellow Cake to Libya (remember the stash that CNN found that had Iraqi data on the drums)?

Should we have invaded Iraq? No. Do I like or have I ever liked Dick Cheney? No. Do I like or have I ever liked Rumsfeld? Hell no. As a member of the military that served under both Cheney and Rumsfeld, what is my opinion of their military strategy? Chaotic, unrealistic, and a Pollyannic view that Special Forces, Air Power, and small Wet Teams can win any war on any front in any theater of operation. In other words, I have no respect for them and although I have a lot of respect for President Bush (41 and 43), I questioned 43's pick of Cheney and got sick to my stomach when he appointed Rumsfeld SecDef.

However, none of that makes me believe the crap that the NYT spews, ever. Nor will it change the facts, or the lack of facts that surround Chalabi, since what is not discussed so far that I have seen here, is that the British, French, Israeli, Jordanian and German intelligence agencies agreed with the CIA and DIA, and using their own independent analysis came to the conclusion, that Iraq had WMD's and would use them. Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld nor even President Bush could make all those countries intelligence agencies come to a similar conclusion.

 

[vesper]

You know all this... how, exactly? Books written by people that were fired or got pissed off and quit? Liberal publications that have an agenda? Or, did you get a classified briefing to inform you of exactly what happened?

You may very well be correct and the decision was a fait accompli. But, you see, I don't know that it was and I don't know that it wasn't? To say such things, Pete, is just showing a bias and hatred that is not pretty on you.

How do we even know that Chalabi lied, or is it that he was not up to date and that Hussein had shipped a lot of his MWD's to Syria and Libya during the time lag from when the Bush Administration started making their case to attack and the long time it took to actually do so? Hussein sent his gas WMD's to Syria and his Yellow Cake to Libya (remember the stash that CNN found that had Iraqi data on the drums)?

Should we have invaded Iraq? No. Do I like or have I ever liked Dick Cheney? No. Do I like or have I ever liked Rumsfeld? Hell no. As a member of the military that served under both Cheney and Rumsfeld, what is my opinion of their military strategy? Chaotic, unrealistic, and a Pollyannic view that Special Forces, Air Power, and small Wet Teams can win any war on any front in any theater of operation. In other words, I have no respect for them and although I have a lot of respect for President Bush (41 and 43), I questioned 43's pick of Cheney and got sick to my stomach when he appointed Rumsfeld SecDef.

However, none of that makes me believe the crap that the NYT spews, ever. Nor will it change the facts, or the lack of facts that surround Chalabi, since what is not discussed so far that I have seen here, is that the British, French, Israeli, Jordanian and German intelligence agencies agreed with the CIA and DIA, and using their own independent analysis came to the conclusion, that Iraq had WMD's and would use them. Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld nor even President Bush could make all those countries intelligence agencies come to a similar conclusion.

Do you remember the FBI agent Piro who interviewed/debriefed Saddam after he was captured? There are videotapes of these sessions. Piro later wrote a book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to the Next Attack,” Piro described the debriefings, which had never been previously revealed. In those debriefings Saddam confessed that he was seeking nuclear weapons and was about a year away from reaching that goal. There is plenty of evidence he was violating UN regulations and producing a missile that could deliver them. For years he refused to let the UN inspectors in and when he did he gave them the run around.

Though Saddam's chemical weapons program had been greatly thwarted in the 90's, there was still enough of the stuff hanging around that there were a number of our servicemen getting sick from the gases seeping from them.

No matter what you think of Cheney or Rumsfeld, Saddam was working on a nuclear warhead. And that's a fact.

Do you recall the numerous number of semis rolling out of Iraq into Syria during the weeks leading up to the invasion into Iraq? I do. It was documented on our satellite coverage. How many weeks did the Bush administration give Saddam before he actually invaded, taking the case to Congress and then to the UN? He had a lot of time to hide remove and bury things.

As President Obama drew the curtain on the Iraq war, liberal commentators were declaring the war pointless. The mainstream media largely ignored Saddam’s admitted plans to pursue nuclear weapons. But, contrary to the view of liberal commentators, Americans can be proud of what we achieved in Iraq and grateful to Bush and the military for taking him out

In his speech on ending the war, Obama seemed to have this slanted dishonest concept of what the war achieved. His administration decries Arizona’s effort to arrest illegal immigrants as human rights violations while ignoring the fact that Saddam killed 300,000 people, used chemical weapons, and tortured his own people while secretly obtaining nuclear weaponry that would have been a threat to many in the world.

.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Do you remember the FBI agent Piro who interviewed/debriefed Saddam after he was captured? There are videotapes of these sessions. Piro later wrote a book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to the Next Attack,” Piro described the debriefings, which had never been previously revealed. In those debriefings Saddam confessed that he was seeking nuclear weapons and was about a year away from reaching that goal. There is plenty of evidence he was violating UN regulations and producing a missile that could deliver them. For years he refused to let the UN inspectors in and when he did he gave them the run around.

Though Saddam's chemical weapons program had been greatly thwarted in the 90's, there was still enough of the stuff hanging around that there were a number of our servicemen getting sick from the gases seeping from them.

No matter what you think of Cheney or Rumsfeld, Saddam was working on a nuclear warhead. And that's a fact.

Do you recall the numerous number of semis rolling out of Iraq into Syria during the weeks leading up to the invasion into Iraq? I do. It was documented on our satellite coverage. How many weeks did the Bush administration give Saddam before he actually invaded, taking the case to Congress and then to the UN? He had a lot of time to hide remove and bury things.

As President Obama drew the curtain on the Iraq war, liberal commentators were declaring the war pointless. The mainstream media largely ignored Saddam’s admitted plans to pursue nuclear weapons. But, contrary to the view of liberal commentators, Americans can be proud of what we achieved in Iraq and grateful to Bush and the military for taking him out

In his speech on ending the war, Obama seemed to have this slanted dishonest concept of what the war achieved. His administration decries Arizona’s effort to arrest illegal immigrants as human rights violations while ignoring the fact that Saddam killed 300,000 people, used chemical weapons, and tortured his own people while secretly obtaining nuclear weaponry that would have been a threat to many in the world.

.

Agreed. My only point of asking was it the right thing to go into Iraq, and me saying no, is that we didn't go in with purpose of defeating and killing the enemy. We were more concerned with media and other countries politics, and Rumsfeld was more concerned with trying to prove his theory of a smaller more mobile and specialized force. That put our guys in the position of having to prove a military policy that they had never even heard of, much less trained to perform.

The military is designed and trained to do two things - kill people and blow **** up. We are not community organizers.

You know, that of all the people here, I am probably the most supportive of the military and our guys and gals that serve. I am also a supporter of Bush, as I said in the post you quoted. I supported the war, and still do. I didn't support the SecDef's way of running it, or the delays we took in getting in there before Saddam moved all his WMD's out.

The liberal/progressives will never agree to the truth. They will never accept reality that Bush had Iraq stable and Obama killed any progress we made in Iraq or Afghanistan. And, they will never agree to place the blame for ISIS growing strong and Iran teaming with Russia to support terrorist regimes is all the fault of the Obama Administration.

As a vet, it's painful to listen to the vile and deceitful stories that get told in the media and even on this site by liberal/progressives regarding Bush and the War on Terror. They should be ashamed, and look at their own inept team members before attacking others.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Agreed. My only point of asking was it the right thing to go into Iraq, and me saying no, is that we didn't go in with purpose of defeating and killing the enemy. We were more concerned with media and other countries politics, and Rumsfeld was more concerned with trying to prove his theory of a smaller more mobile and specialized force. That put our guys in the position of having to prove a military policy that they had never even heard of, much less trained to perform.

The military is designed and trained to do two things - kill people and blow **** up. We are not community organizers.

You know, that of all the people here, I am probably the most supportive of the military and our guys and gals that serve. I am also a supporter of Bush, as I said in the post you quoted. I supported the war, and still do. I didn't support the SecDef's way of running it, or the delays we took in getting in there before Saddam moved all his WMD's out.

The liberal/progressives will never agree to the truth. They will never accept reality that Bush had Iraq stable and Obama killed any progress we made in Iraq or Afghanistan. And, they will never agree to place the blame for ISIS growing strong and Iran teaming with Russia to support terrorist regimes is all the fault of the Obama Administration.

As a vet, it's painful to listen to the vile and deceitful stories that get told in the media and even on this site by liberal/progressives regarding Bush and the War on Terror. They should be ashamed, and look at their own inept team members before attacking others.

My criticism of the Iraq war has never been a condemnation of the armed forces.

The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation was based on misguided assumptions held by the Bush Administration.

Iraq was not ready for a democratic system of government; the institutions necessary for nurturing a democratic system in Iraq was non-existant.

The bush administration failed to recognize the Sunni-Shia divide in the country.

The bush administration failed to recognize that political Islam resonated deeply with the young generation of iraqi's.

 

[Beaudreaux]

My criticism of the Iraq war has never been a condemnation of the armed forces.

The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation was based on misguided assumptions held by the Bush Administration.

Iraq was not ready for a democratic system of government; the institutions necessary for nurturing a democratic system in Iraq was non-existant.

The bush administration failed to recognize the Sunni-Shia divide in the country.

The bush administration failed to recognize that political Islam resonated deeply with the young generation of iraqi's.

Many truths in what you say. I agree in part, but not in total. I have too bad a headache tonight to continue rehashing 14 year old political decisions. I don't remember you ever being anti-military, BTW. Anti-Bush, but not anti-military.

One problem that every President of the US has made, is that our form of a constitutional republic would work in other cultures around the world. For the most part, East Asia has done well adapting it into their varied cultures. Europe has done well although they have gone pretty far afield in many cases. Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Middle East seem to do better (more peaceful) when a strong arm type government is in place, even if under the illusion of a republican democracy, such as Russia, Iran, Serbia, Egypt, and so on. When we try to impose our values, on cultures that have values that are not compatible with ours, then our attempts at "nation building" have, are, and will continue to, fail with members of our military and the local population paying the price.

That's more than I wanted to get into right now, but I felt you deserved at least that much of a response from me.

 

[vesper]

Agreed. My only point of asking was it the right thing to go into Iraq, and me saying no, is that we didn't go in with purpose of defeating and killing the enemy. We were more concerned with media and other countries politics, and Rumsfeld was more concerned with trying to prove his theory of a smaller more mobile and specialized force. That put our guys in the position of having to prove a military policy that they had never even heard of, much less trained to perform.

The military is designed and trained to do two things - kill people and blow **** up. We are not community organizers.

You know, that of all the people here, I am probably the most supportive of the military and our guys and gals that serve. I am also a supporter of Bush, as I said in the post you quoted. I supported the war, and still do. I didn't support the SecDef's way of running it, or the delays we took in getting in there before Saddam moved all his WMD's out.

The liberal/progressives will never agree to the truth. They will never accept reality that Bush had Iraq stable and Obama killed any progress we made in Iraq or Afghanistan. And, they will never agree to place the blame for ISIS growing strong and Iran teaming with Russia to support terrorist regimes is all the fault of the Obama Administration.

As a vet, it's painful to listen to the vile and deceitful stories that get told in the media and even on this site by liberal/progressives regarding Bush and the War on Terror. They should be ashamed, and look at their own inept team members before attacking others.

Yes sweetie I agree that it is painful to read day after day revision of current history on this forum and elsewhere. It was painful watching the Democrats after voting to invade Iraq flip flop when it came closer to the next presidential election. In 2003 the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats voted to invade Iraq on the intelligence they had.

You know it is important to point out that during the Clinton years there were a lot of things that happened that did not allow agencies from sharing data with another.

It is important to point out that all 19 terrorists that were involved in bringing down the towers entered this country under the Clinton administration.

It is also important to point out that Bush had a rocky road upon his election being validated because Al Gore was not willing to concede so we had countless weeks of hanging chads. When Bush was finally declared the winner, he was weeks behind setting up a team. It has always been assumed that national security issues were non partisan and Bush kept on much of Clinton's team during his transition.

It is also important to recognize much of the data collected on terrorism that the Congress viewed came from the Clinton team which brought about almost an unanimous vote from the Democratic Congress folks in supporting Bush in his endeavors.

All 19 terrorists that brought down the two buildings in the trade center got into this country under Bill Clinton and his policies. Eight months later Bush had to deal with it.

Look, I was never a big supporter of GWB. I only voted for him because he chose Cheney as VP and the only other choice was an asshole who trashed Vietnam vets. You know my hubby served during Vietnam. He enlisted and gave up a full scholarship to OSU in art. When John Kerry became the candidate for the Democrat party, I never seen my hubby dig in his pockets so deep to fight him. He hated that guy for what he did to Vietnam vets. And that is saying something as he was a registered Democrat.

I on the other hand was a registered Republican. I wasn't fond of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" BS. That to me was code for Big Government. And I was right. But the trashing of him and his administration through the MSM and the left has been nothing but an assassination over unfounded rhetoric. And in the process they besmirched our military. I have no tolerance for that. None.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I agree that the NY Times is a biased publication. However, Pete, it is in no way, shape, or form, a publication that shows a bias toward supporting Republicans, and damned sure not a bias in favor of George W. Bush.

One name...

Judith Miller.

 

[polgara]

Yes sweetie I agree that it is painful to read day after day revision of current history on this forum and elsewhere. It was painful watching the Democrats after voting to invade Iraq flip flop when it came closer to the next presidential election. In 2003 the OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats voted to invade Iraq on the intelligence they had.

You know it is important to point out that during the Clinton years there were a lot of things that happened that did not allow agencies from sharing data with another.

It is important to point out that all 19 terrorists that were involved in bringing down the towers entered this country under the Clinton administration.

It is also important to point out that Bush had a rocky road upon his election being validated because Al Gore was not willing to concede so we had countless weeks of hanging chads. When Bush was finally declared the winner, he was weeks behind setting up a team. It has always been assumed that national security issues were non partisan and Bush kept on much of Clinton's team during his transition.

It is also important to recognize much of the data collected on terrorism that the Congress viewed came from the Clinton team which brought about almost an unanimous vote from the Democratic Congress folks in supporting Bush in his endeavors.

All 19 terrorists that brought down the two buildings in the trade center got into this country under Bill Clinton and his policies. Eight months later Bush had to deal with it.

Look, I was never a big supporter of GWB. I only voted for him because he chose Cheney as VP and the only other choice was an asshole who trashed Vietnam vets. You know my hubby served during Vietnam. He enlisted and gave up a full scholarship to OSU in art. When John Kerry became the candidate for the Democrat party, I never seen my hubby dig in his pockets so deep to fight him. He hated that guy for what he did to Vietnam vets. And that is saying something as he was a registered Democrat.

I on the other hand was a registered Republican. I wasn't fond of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" BS. That to me was code for Big Government. And I was right. But the trashing of him and his administration through the MSM and the left has been nothing but an assassination over unfounded rhetoric. And in the process they besmirched our military. I have no tolerance for that. None.

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

I don't recall hearing much outrage from the Dems when Obama ordered military action in Libya without Congressional approval, either. Strange how that works....

 

[jet57]

Opinion or fact?

Fact actually. Cheney and Rumsfeld had designs on it from the time Bush took office.

 

[Beaudreaux]

One name...

Judith Miller.

Joe Scarborough

 

[pbrauer]

You know all this... how, exactly? Books written by people that were fired or got pissed off and quit? Liberal publications that have an agenda? Or, did you get a classified briefing to inform you of exactly what happened?

You may very well be correct and the decision was a fait accompli. But, you see, I don't know that it was and I don't know that it wasn't? To say such things, Pete, is just showing a bias and hatred that is not pretty on you.

How do we even know that Chalabi lied, or is it that he was not up to date and that Hussein had shipped a lot of his MWD's to Syria and Libya during the time lag from when the Bush Administration started making their case to attack and the long time it took to actually do so? Hussein sent his gas WMD's to Syria and his Yellow Cake to Libya (remember the stash that CNN found that had Iraqi data on the drums)?

Should we have invaded Iraq? No. Do I like or have I ever liked Dick Cheney? No. Do I like or have I ever liked Rumsfeld? Hell no. As a member of the military that served under both Cheney and Rumsfeld, what is my opinion of their military strategy? Chaotic, unrealistic, and a Pollyannic view that Special Forces, Air Power, and small Wet Teams can win any war on any front in any theater of operation. In other words, I have no respect for them and although I have a lot of respect for President Bush (41 and 43), I questioned 43's pick of Cheney and got sick to my stomach when he appointed Rumsfeld SecDef.

However, none of that makes me believe the crap that the NYT spews, ever. Nor will it change the facts, or the lack of facts that surround Chalabi, since what is not discussed so far that I have seen here, is that the British, French, Israeli, Jordanian and German intelligence agencies agreed with the CIA and DIA, and using their own independent analysis came to the conclusion, that Iraq had WMD's and would use them. Neither Cheney nor Rumsfeld nor even President Bush could make all those countries intelligence agencies come to a similar conclusion.

I've been convinced since I learned about the following two links:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plani


Now go to the following thread:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...der-bush-says-his-son-served-badly-aides.html