The intel report the Republican congress refused to finish

[evince]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html
Now its fininshed and guess what it says.

The same thing the McClellan book says.

They manipulated the intell to lie us into a war.

 

[Dilloduck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html
Now its fininshed and guess what it says.

The same thing the McClellan book says.

They manipulated the intell to lie us into a war.

Moral of the story--Never vote for someone dumb enough to be manipulated by someone you think is an idiot.

 

[evince]

I never have.

 

[Cancel3]

Moral of the story--Never vote for someone dumb enough to be manipulated by someone you think is an idiot.

Moral of the Story - there is a reason why there is no "Right to Vote" listed in the US Constitution. There are too many people that are too stupid.

 

[cawacko]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501523.html
Now its fininshed and guess what it says.

The same thing the McClellan book says.

They manipulated the intell to lie us into a war.

I know this is an issue that people will never agree upon but I see this intelligence report more as a partisan view of why we went to war than actual fact.

My rememberance of what we were discussing six years ago as we were having this debate. By 2002 we had liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban rule. Since 1998 official U.S. policy toward Iraq had been for regime change. In 2002 U.N. sanctions were still on Iraq but their impact was becoming weaker and weaker. U.S. and British planes patrolling the No Fly Zone's in nothern and southern Iraq were getting fired at on a daily basis. Saddam was exploiting the oil for food program for his personal gain. So there was a serious debate about how to best handle Saddam in the face of a larger war against terrorism.

The biggest concern regarding Saddam was if he laughed off U.N. sanctions and nothing was done to him he would feel even more embolden to act out against his neighbors or in support of terrorist groups. This was what the Bush Administration was facing.

The threat that Saddam presented to the U.S. was not only that he might have the "stockpiles of WMD's" but that an embolden Saddam would restart his program and work in cahoots with a terrorist group who wanted to attack the U.S. again.

These were all legitimate issues and concerns. The failure of the Bush Administration was in how they presented this information to the public. By basing the attack strictly on 'stockpiles of WMD's' they set themselves up for the criticism they have received when they weren't found. The threat Iraq presented was larger than just having stockpiles today but Bush did an extremely poor job of explaining that.

It led to cries of "they manipulated data" and "they lied" etc. because of their failure to communicate.

 

[Bonestorm]

I know this is an issue that people will never agree upon but I see this intelligence report more as a partisan view of why we went to war than actual fact.

My rememberance of what we were discussing six years ago as we were having this debate. By 2002 we had liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban rule. Since 1998 official U.S. policy toward Iraq had been for regime change. In 2002 U.N. sanctions were still on Iraq but their impact was becoming weaker and weaker. U.S. and British planes patrolling the No Fly Zone's in nothern and southern Iraq were getting fired at on a daily basis. Saddam was exploiting the oil for food program for his personal gain. So there was a serious debate about how to best handle Saddam in the face of a larger war against terrorism.

The biggest concern regarding Saddam was if he laughed off U.N. sanctions and nothing was done to him he would feel even more embolden to act out against his neighbors or in support of terrorist groups. This was what the Bush Administration was facing.

The threat that Saddam presented to the U.S. was not only that he might have the "stockpiles of WMD's" but that an embolden Saddam would restart his program and work in cahoots with a terrorist group who wanted to attack the U.S. again.

These were all legitimate issues and concerns. The failure of the Bush Administration was in how they presented this information to the public. By basing the attack strictly on 'stockpiles of WMD's' they set themselves up for the criticism they have received when they weren't found. The threat Iraq presented was larger than just having stockpiles today but Bush did an extremely poor job of explaining that.

It led to cries of "they manipulated data" and "they lied" etc. because they lied and manipulated data.

Fixed the last sentence for you.

Failed to communicate? What a steaming pile of shit. They communicated quite clearly what they intended to communicate. They lied. They misrepresented data. They withheld information.

As for the other stuff in bold above, the threat painted was that he was in possessions of lots of really nasty weapons and was developing nuclear weapons and would give them to Al Qaeda to attack America. None of that shit was true.

They lied, and they lied because that is the only way that they would get public support for the war.

 

[Cancel7]

I know this is an issue that people will never agree upon but I see this intelligence report more as a partisan view of why we went to war than actual fact.

My rememberance of what we were discussing six years ago as we were having this debate. By 2002 we had liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban rule. Since 1998 official U.S. policy toward Iraq had been for regime change. In 2002 U.N. sanctions were still on Iraq but their impact was becoming weaker and weaker. U.S. and British planes patrolling the No Fly Zone's in nothern and southern Iraq were getting fired at on a daily basis. Saddam was exploiting the oil for food program for his personal gain. So there was a serious debate about how to best handle Saddam in the face of a larger war against terrorism.

The biggest concern regarding Saddam was if he laughed off U.N. sanctions and nothing was done to him he would feel even more embolden to act out against his neighbors or in support of terrorist groups. This was what the Bush Administration was facing.

The threat that Saddam presented to the U.S. was not only that he might have the "stockpiles of WMD's" but that an embolden Saddam would restart his program and work in cahoots with a terrorist group who wanted to attack the U.S. again.

These were all legitimate issues and concerns. The failure of the Bush Administration was in how they presented this information to the public. By basing the attack strictly on 'stockpiles of WMD's' they set themselves up for the criticism they have received when they weren't found. The threat Iraq presented was larger than just having stockpiles today but Bush did an extremely poor job of explaining that.

It led to cries of "they manipulated data" and "they lied" etc. because of their failure to communicate.

Cawacko, this seems like a very slanted view of history. We were posting on the same board during the time you mention, and all I remember is a lot of talk of smoking guns and mushroom clouds, and red alerts in Penn Station, which I got stuck in, remember? And it was because they put us on high alert only two weeks before we invaded Iraq, over information indicating an “imminent chemical attack in the US”? And I called Bush and his cohors the terrorists when I finally got out of Penn Station, which by the way was closed down due to a fucking sandwich being left on the train!

This country was terrorized into that war. And I know you were there.

 

[cawacko]

Fixed the last sentence for you.

Failed to communicate? What a steaming pile of shit. They communicated quite clearly what they intended to communicate. They lied. They misrepresented data. They withheld information.

As for the other stuff in bold above, the threat painted was that he was in possessions of lots of really nasty weapons and was developing nuclear weapons and would give them to Al Qaeda to attack America. None of that shit was true.

They lied, and they lied because that is the only way that they would get public support for the war.

I appreciate your offer of help but I can fix my own post if I feel something is wrong with it.

You are entitled to believe they lied. That is your right. As I said the concerns were more than just that they had the weapons today although that is what intelligence from across the globe believed. They were wrong. You are free to believe it was a lie. I say Bush poorly stated all the options they were dealing with and when he stated it was strictly on the basis of "stockpiles of WMD's' he lost his credibility when they weren't found. Because wrong is not the same as lying.

 

[Bonestorm]

I appreciate your offer of help but I can fix my own post if I feel something is wrong with it.

You are entitled to believe they lied. That is your right. As I said the concerns were more than just that they had the weapons today although that is what intelligence from across the globe believed. They were wrong. You are free to believe it was a lie. I say Bush poorly stated all the options they were dealing with and when he stated it was strictly on the basis of "stockpiles of WMD's' he lost his credibility when they weren't found. Because wrong is not the same as lying.

Well, I'll just count you among the ranks of the Apologista. They're few and far between these days so I'm sure they'll appreciate a new member.

 

[cawacko]

Well, I'll just count you among the ranks of the Apologista. They're few and far between these days so I'm sure they'll appreciate a new member.

Based off my first post what was your recommendation at the time for dealing with Saddam?

 

[Onceler]

Based off my first post what was your recommendation at the time for dealing with Saddam?

The debate at the time, which was loud & well publicized, had to do with allowing new enforced inspections to continue. As I have written many times here, Hans Blix reported in March of 2003 that they had unfettered access to ALL suspected sites, and that inspections were working.

They would have shown us what we now know, without all of that cash & bloodletting: Saddam had no WMD's, and was no threat whatsoever to our security. We rushed to war; it was a first option, and not a last.

 

[uscitizen]

bush rushed to war because he knew he could not get it going if the inpectors said there were no WMD's. Also other foreign companies were getting ready to move into Iraq to do business If we had waited till that had happened it would complicate the invasion.

 

[cawacko]

bush rushed to war because he knew he could not get it going if the inpectors said there were no WMD's. Also other foreign companies were getting ready to move into Iraq to do business If we had waited till that had happened it would complicate the invasion.

you mean the companies you invested in wanted to rush into Iraq to increase your profits uscitizen? Hey bra, it takes zero brain cells to say 'bush lied people died' and then say it over and over. If you really want to look into it and see what they were thinking at the time and the options available and how they should act i would respect that. Because that would take actual thought. However sir you just like to repeat statements over and over. More power to you citizen. Stay honkey my friend.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

At least I didn't vote for Bush.

 

[uscitizen]

you mean the companies you invested in wanted to rush into Iraq to increase your profits uscitizen? Hey bra, it takes zero brain cells to say 'bush lied people died' and then say it over and over. If you really want to look into it and see what they were thinking at the time and the options available and how they should act i would respect that. Because that would take actual thought. However sir you just like to repeat statements over and over. More power to you citizen. Stay honkey my friend.

I invested in ?

yes I repeat things I feel to be truths.