Farkel, I'm not sure what your point is with these quotes, but clearly we now know that everyone who believed that there were WMDs was wrong.
There were no WMDs.
And Bush knew that.
HIstory and Bush/Obama
by free2beme 42 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JeffT
He had WMD's in 1988.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm
There is no evidence that they were destroyed after Gulf War I, that I am aware of.
If he had no WMD and no program, why didn't he let the inspectors in? He'd still be happily killing Kurdish babies if he had done that.
-
JeffT
PS, military intelligence work is NEVER cut and dried. The people in charge have to sift through a pile of information and decide what they think is going on. Military people tend to err on the side of caution, i.e. thinking about the worst that can happen.
A couple of examples where they forgot that:
In early December 1941 the War Department, in its official war warning did not include Pearl Harbor as a probable target.
On December 15,1944 Generals Montgomery and Eisenhower had a conversation about an earlier bet. Monty reminded Ike that he (Ike) had bet the war would be over by Christmas. Ike replied that he had two weeks left. The next morning 250,000 German troops attacked the allied forces in the Ardennes.
I think everybody lost count of the number of times we'd supposedly beaten the Vietnamese communists.
When you see the flash of light and the mushroom cloud, it is too late to realize you were wrong.
-
JeffT
PPS
I am not defending the decision to invade Iraq. With 20/20 hindsight, it was a bad idea, although I base that knowing that we screwed the pooch big time. I do not think anybody could have known that at the time.
-
Farkel
bizzy bee,
:Farkel, I'm not sure what your point is with these quotes, but clearly we now know that everyone who believed that there were WMDs was wrong.
What do you mean you don't see what the point is? I posted that in RESPONSE to this crap you wrote:
and many prominent Democrats agreed with the assessment of the situation.
:This is disingenuous, but true.
Why is it disingenuous to point out that those in your party thought the same thing? Why?
:The salient point is that Bush was privy to information not available to those 'prominent Democrats'- facts that would have indicated against an invasion based on the presence of WMDs.
:Portraying Bush's actions as just 'an honest mistake' doesn't wash.
Clinton thought exactly the same thing as Bush did only a year or two earlier and he was President of the United States, and you don't consider the President "prominent" enough for you? Or senate majority leader Tom Daschle wasn't "prominent' enough. Dashle was "prominent"enough for your Obama to nominate him for a Cabinet post. Oh, wait! Daschle had to withdraw because he was caught as a tax cheat, just half of Obama's nominees.
Your transparent hypocrisy is disgusting to honest people.
Farkel
-
BurnTheShips
Clinton thought exactly the same thing as Bush did only a year or two earlier and he was President of the United States, and you don't consider the President "prominent" enough for you? Or senate majority leader Tom Daschle wasn't "prominent' enough. Dashle was "prominent"enough for your Obama to nominate him for a Cabinet post. Oh, wait! Daschle had to withdraw because he was caught as a tax cheat, just half of Obama's nominees.
Don't forget, John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee before the war, and he agreed.
BTS
-
BizzyBee
What do you mean you don't see what the point is? I posted that in RESPONSE to this crap you wrote:
and many prominent Democrats agreed with the assessment of the situation.
:This is disingenuous, but true.
Why is it disingenuous to point out that those in your party thought the same thing? Why?
That Democrats believed there were WMDs was not in dispute and has been acknowledged. It doesn't matter becuase they had incomplete information. Based on the information selectively released by the administration, nearly everyone on the planet believed there were WMDs.
:The salient point is that Bush was privy to information not available to those 'prominent Democrats'- facts that would have indicated against an invasion based on the presence of WMDs.
:Portraying Bush's actions as just 'an honest mistake' doesn't wash.
Clinton thought exactly the same thing as Bush did only a year or two earlier and he was President of the United States, and you don't consider the President "prominent" enough for you? Or senate majority leader Tom Daschle wasn't "prominent' enough.
Acknowledged.
You're arguing Dems against Reps - I'm not. I am saying that Pres. Bush purposely ignored reliable intelligence indicating the absence of WMDs in order to attack Iraq.
Proof is in the pudding - they still have never found them.
-
BurnTheShips
The salient point is that Bush was privy to information not available to those 'prominent Democrats'- facts that would have indicated against an invasion based on the presence of WMDs.
All of Congress was privy to the classified intelligence before voting on the Iraq resolution.
I am saying that Pres. Bush purposely ignored reliable intelligence indicating the absence of WMDs in order to attack Iraq.
Flawed intelligence. Not a deliberate lie.
There were no WMDs.
And Bush knew that.
You have no proof of Bush corrupting intelligence presented to Congress. You have no proof of Bush exerting political pressure to influence the analysis of intelligence or the gathering of it.
http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html
Proof is in the pudding - they still have never found them.
Again, flawed intelligence. Regarding WMDs, here are some scenarios:
BTS
-
BizzyBee
Pure conjecture. With which I respectfully disagree.
-
beksbks
Bush Administration Looked for Reasons to Start War With Iraq
by: Richard Allen Smith
Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 12:52:52 PM EDT
You're surprised I'm sure. But even as President Bush was stating to the American people that "every measure has been taken to avoid war.", his administration had already been planning ways to instigate a war with Iraq as early as December of 2001. Through the Freedom of Information Act, the National Security Archive at George Washington University has obtained notes from a meeting between then-SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld and then-CENTCOM commander General Tommy Franks in which planning for the Iraq war was underway. One of the points discussed was how to start a war with Iraq:
I wish I could say this is shocking, but despite the strongest claims of former Bush Administration officials, history will reflect what as been known for years now: prior to any of the stated reasons for invading Iraq at the cost of over $1 trillion and the lives of over 4,000 military personal, Bush Administration officials had already decided to invade Iraq for no reason other than because they wanted to.
