Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Some Colorado Cattle is all. It's pretty tender, cooks real easy.
Study: False Statements Preceded War
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Some Colorado Cattle is all. It's pretty tender, cooks real easy.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
You can't be left with social welfare, and right on foreign issues, or you will be giving all our disposable income to foreign countries. Oh yea--that is happening now under those circumstances--now isn't it?
make up your mind--your either gay or your not---hehe.
kidding man
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
I'm right on economic issues.
By social issues I meant things like drug legalization, no bans on gay marriage, you know. Live and let live.
I'm against government redistribution of wealth if that's where you're headed.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
Ok--I see your point. I agree with live and let live. Social issues mean socialism to me. Sorry man.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This is why they don't impeach. I agree.
And I qualified my statement about Clinton by saying "and lying about it".
The above was kindly repeated for those whose reading comprehension abilities are impaired.
yes, you did, my cut and paste was originally directed at an individual who did not qualify their Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob comment.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and no, that did not say boob, so don't get excited
Socrtease
Verified User
you are right he was impeached for not admitting to getting a blowjob. And aren't you fucking tired of saying that Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's too? He thought that in Nineteen ninety fucking eight. FIVE years before Bush said he had them and went to war. YOU don't fight a war on five year old intel or beliefs. You fight a war based on current intel and if you don't have it you don't go to war. Imagine the ass kicking the allies would have suffered if they invaded Normandy and based their invasion on the defensive positions of the Germans five years earliler. The study says they KNOWINGLY used false information to take this country to war. Sorry if your president lied to you and then you voted for him again but plain and simple that is what he did. He lied or used information he had no proof of. But for you right wing Bush ass munchers that is good enough. I can't believe you people keep defending him like he has done some good thing. Militarily this has been a goat screw since the day the Iraqi's surrendered. YOUR president and his advisors had NO PLAN other than collect flowers and praise from the iraqi people. DID THAT HAPPEN? Fuck NO! In 10 years they will use the time after the Iraqi surrender to teach military leaders what NOT to do after defeating an enemy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yet their STUDY offers up no evidence of their KNOWINGLY using false information. Did you even go to their site? Did you look at the "results" they posted?
No question that he has screwed the pooch militarily from the start. That is not in question. YOUR president and his advisors did indeed make a disaster of the whole thing. But no matter what, to date there has been no evidence that has shown THEY KNEW the info was false. All that has been shown is that there was conflicting viewpoints.
Lastly, enough of the bullshit from the Dems. It was not just in 1998 that the Dem leaders were saying Saddam had WMDs. They were saying it in 2003 as well. The selective memory crap from the left is ridiculous. But yeah, I know, they were all tricked by Bush. Such a convenient excuse.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
"Yet their STUDY offers up no evidence of their KNOWINGLY using false information. Did you even go to their site? Did you look at the "results" they posted?"
Bush got a PDB 2 days before the '03 State of the Union, saying that the ONE source they had for mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq (an informer known as "Curveball") was now deemed not credible or trustworthy. In his State of the Union, he talked about "multiple sources" confirming mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.
British intel said the intelligence was manipulated to fit the policy; Colin Powell's top aide was told to make a case for the U.N. out of a "chinese menu" of bad & good intel.
Stop being so naive. They knew what they were doing. Even Wolfowicz admitted that WMD's were the excuse they decided on to sell the war.
Bush got a PDB 2 days before the '03 State of the Union, saying that the ONE source they had for mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq (an informer known as "Curveball") was now deemed not credible or trustworthy. In his State of the Union, he talked about "multiple sources" confirming mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.
British intel said the intelligence was manipulated to fit the policy; Colin Powell's top aide was told to make a case for the U.N. out of a "chinese menu" of bad & good intel.
Stop being so naive. They knew what they were doing. Even Wolfowicz admitted that WMD's were the excuse they decided on to sell the war.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Also Socrtease, do not confuse reality with my "defending Bush". I have said time and again that he has made a complete disaster out of Iraq. While I do believe the war was inevitable with Saddam, that doesn't change the fact that Bush rushed in at a very bad time and proceeded to make one mistake after another.
That said, I am not going to join the little circus of selective memory lefties who refuse to either provide EVIDENCE that he "lied" or accept the fact that he went off of intel that turned out to be wrong. Intel that BOTH parties and a majority of intel agencies around the world believed to be true. It was not until the very last moment, after the buildup of our military that a rushed UN task force suddenly declared they couldn't find WMDs.
That said, I am not going to join the little circus of selective memory lefties who refuse to either provide EVIDENCE that he "lied" or accept the fact that he went off of intel that turned out to be wrong. Intel that BOTH parties and a majority of intel agencies around the world believed to be true. It was not until the very last moment, after the buildup of our military that a rushed UN task force suddenly declared they couldn't find WMDs.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So tell me Lorax.... if that was the case.... WHY were the Dem leaders saying that Saddam had WMDs? The Senate and House Intel committees have access to the same damn intel that Bush had. Why did they not call him out on it? Why were they proclaiming that Saddam was a threat? Oh yeah, Bush tricked them.
Frankly, I thought he probably had WMD's, too. That was the intel for years. The disagreement was how best to ascertain whether he actually had them.
It IS clear that Bush ignored evidence to the contrary that was starting to come in, and even lied about it, as evidenced by the "Curveball" story. The intel WAS manipulated to make a stronger case for a more imminent threat, and for an urgent need for war.
I don't know how any intelligent person cannot see that at this point: O'Neill, Downing street memo, British intel's report that the intel was fixed around the policy, Wolfowicz, O'Neil, Clark, Powell's aide....the evidence is overwhelming at this point that they cherrypicked intel to make a stronger case for war, which on its face is dishonest.
I can't believe that doesn't bother you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What I am saying is that they used the conventional intel at the time. Was there contrarian intel, yes. There almost always is. But bottom line, BOTH parties were saying the same thing. So that contrarian intel was obviously either not compelling enough or the Dem leadership bowed down to Bush because they didn't want to appear "weak". Because outside of the UN inspection team, at the time I do not recall seeing anyone else contradicting Bush that Saddam had WMDs.
Now this is not to say there were no Dems arguing against the need to go to war at the time. But I do not recall any stating the Saddam had no WMDs. To the contrary, they were stating just the opposite.
I recall Scott Ritter saying they had no WMD. And we should have freakin' listened to that guy. Fox News used to let him come on their shows, and he would shred pro-war hawks to bits. That's when Fox News cancelled ritter's contract.
Based on what I was reading, I was pretty damn certain Iraq didn't have collaborative ties to al qaeda, and he didn't have a nuclear weapons program. I didn't know if he had chem/bio weapons or not - bushco. never provided conclusive evidence - but, the inspectors were on the ground, and I didn't think some mustard gas or sarin posed a strategic threat to the united states.
So, unlike you, I didn't see the need for an invasion, war, and occupation.