Study: False Statements Preceded War

Onceler said:
"He had a view, supported it and made the call. The fact that he turned out to be wrong does not mean he "cherry picked" data."

The view which he presented to the public was based on cherrypicked data. THAT is the point. You keep bringing in Kerry, and Clinton, & Democrats. Much of the testimony, if Congress ever puts this thing together for investigation, as they have promised to do, will come from people INSIDE the administration. The intel was FIXED around the policy.

In other words, there was all kinds of intel, some more definitive than others, and in the biggest decision of all - TAKING THE NATION TO WAR, which, again, was the President's, as you readily admit - was supported by evidence that was picked specifically because it supported that case for war. He lied about Curveball in his SOU speech; his office told Colin Powell to make a case for the U.N. out of a "chinese menu" of intel.

This is not an administration that took the intel, and tried to decide whether it warranted invading. This was an admin that made the decision to go to war, and then looked for whatever they could that would make the best case for that decision. That is indisputable.

Do you get that? You may not call it lying, but I do, and the people who did it are no better than common criminals, imo. Saying the war was "ill-timed" is not exactly damning criticism, Superfreak. The war was a friggin' disaster; I was right about it, you & Bush were wrong, but unfortunately, all 3 of us have to live with the consequences of his lies & your stupidity for the rest of our lives.
Click to expand...


The very fact that you cannot see the relevance to the inclusion of the Kerry and Clinton comments is what confuses me. You act as if they did not have access to the same intel. The 13 page document that dungheap posted goes over very clearly the intel they are privy to. (at least to the intel committees that is)

The part where I said ill-timed is my personal belief that it was inevitable for the reasons I stated many times in the past and again on this thread.

The part where I said....

"3) Bush completely mismanaged critical aspects of this war that resulted in a nightmare scenario, that while recently seeing improvements, still remains a long way from being resolved"

was intended to equate to Bush fucked this war up. I am sorry that seemed to escape you.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep they have the ability to request briefings, but did they on all the intel ?
Cheney spent a lot of time with the intel folks.
Click to expand...

1) If they did not request more details, is that Bush's fault? If you were a Dem and the situation was war... would you not request it?

2) Cheney's time with the intel people has nothing to do with their ability to spend time with the intel people.
 
Desh said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html

The congress was not given the same Intel Bush had access to.

Bush lied to them also.



Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A23

A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
Click to expand...


they did not get the same intell Bush had.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Yes, that's been SF's contention now, ever since the war he supported turned into an unmitigated disaster. SF still supports invading Iraq, but evidently it should have been done "at a different time".

And since there's no WMD, this little freudian slip, shows that SF wanted to invade Iraq for reasons other than WMD and imminent threats: in fact, I believe SF is on record for wanting to invade Iraq because Saddam was thumbing his nose at us, and skimming money off the oil for food program.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes - "thumbing his nose." Forgot about that one.

We have certainly alerted the world that no more nose-thumbing will be allowed, at least on Bush's watch. Nose-thumbing is a terrible threat to our national security.

Personally, I rarely, if ever, thumb my nose...
 
Onceler said:
Ah, yes - "thumbing his nose." Forgot about that one.

We have certainly alerted the world that no more nose-thumbing will be allowed, at least on Bush's watch. Nose-thumbing is a terrible threat to our national security.

Personally, I rarely, if ever, thumb my nose...
Click to expand...

Ah, listening to the resident idiot Cypress again. How quaint. Right, my whole argument equates to Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN.

You are above falling for Cypress's idiocy Lorax.
 
Desh said:
Yes they were Guilty of trusting Bush.

they have and will pay for it the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

No Desh, they are guilty of being in possession of the same intel and stating very similiar things to what Bush did.

Their difference with Bush was on how long to wait on the UN. Not on the WMDs.

Coincidentally.... when exactly did Saddam allow the UN back in? Oh yeah, after we had begun the troop escalation in the mid east and he realized Bush was serious about coming in.
 
Superfreak said:
Ah, listening to the resident idiot Cypress again. How quaint. Right, my whole argument equates to Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN.

You are above falling for Cypress's idiocy Lorax.
Click to expand...

Well, since Saddam had no WMD's, and represented no imminent threat whatsoever to American national security...

How, again, was this disaster of a war (and I fail to see how it ever would have NOT been a disaster, if only it were better timed), "inevitable"?
 
14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
 
Onceler said:
Well, since Saddam had no WMD's, and represented no imminent threat whatsoever to American national security...

How, again, was this disaster of a war (and I fail to see how it ever would have NOT been a disaster, if only it were better timed), "inevitable"?
Click to expand...

Well, Sadam had been thumbing his nose at the UN.

Side Note:

For the last 5 years I've never gotten over how War Apologists use the UN as a grounds for going in, but when it comes to the UN not supporting a US invasion, suddenly the UN is conveniently irrelevent.
 
Onceler said:
Well, since Saddam had no WMD's, and represented no imminent threat whatsoever to American national security...

How, again, was this disaster of a war (and I fail to see how it ever would have NOT been a disaster, if only it were better timed), "inevitable"?
Click to expand...

For the thousandth time...

1) Stating that it was ill-timed does not change the fact that it was managed to complete FUBAR. As long as the war was managed in the same fashion, timing would not have mattered. Do you believe that it would have turned out the exact same way no matter how it was managed? Equating the two is simply a hack job by you. I have never stated that simply starting the war at a later date would ensure success.

2) Again, for 12 years the UN failed. Without the troop buildup Saddam would not have let the UN back in. The UNs job was to verify that he had destroyed the WMDs he had.... then lift sanctions. For 12 years they failed to do this. But I know, we were supposed to keep Saddam "contained" until he and his sons and the Baath leadership were all dead. No matter what the sanctions were doing to the Iraqi people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top