The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

***sneaks in***

The thing that always amazed me was that Bush and the Secretary of Defense were willing to send out troops into Baghdad with this big hype of WMD without proper chemical warfare suits!

The GOA did a report for Congress in 10-02 and found that our equipment was inadequate to protect our soldiers against bio and chemical warfare.

Powell's speech before the UN even stated that a single drop of VX gas was fatal...

So why would we ever do this to our American soldiers?

Sorry hun only have about thirty minutes before "D" day/ party time-so all I can say is, that it is way less than a drop that is fatal...and I thought y'all said or implied that WMD's were not present-make up your mind already!:shock:
 
no. It is not. Like I said over and over again.... adversaries meet all the time in this world.... for you to suggest that meetings mean alliances would suggest that the US and the USSR were allies all throughout the cold war

What the governments of the United States and Russia did in the 70's, is of no consequence here, so stop trying to relate it. Official governments of nations, meeting with radical fundamental terror groups, is a frikkin' connection! There is no way to parse that, there is no way to sugar coat that, there is no way to spin that. Saddam's regime was actively engaging alQaeda and others, and met with each other on numerous occasions.

The terror training facilities at Salman Pak were inside the country of Iraq, presided over by President Hussein, and no one else. You can't parse this, you can't sugar coat this, you can't spin this, it is a fact of the matter. All you can do, is infer that Saddam knew nothing about this, which you have ZERO proof of, and is nothing more than your liberal explanation and excuse for what he was doing.

If Saddam had WMD, he would have used them.
Isn't it clear, as most neocons in the Presidents cabinet pointed out, that this was his intent all along. The nuclear facilities, the mobile labs. all those stories...


Why would Saddam be so stupid as to use an ineffective offensive weapon to defend against an attack from the most powerful and prepared military on the planet? Especially when those weapons were the main focus, reason, and justification of the war? You people must think Saddam had the mental capacity of Homer Simpson.

The THREAT he posed, was in continuing to pursue WMD's, in the midst of an area full of corrupt Iraqi's and sneaky alQaeda bastards who very easily could have commandeered some of them and launched offensive attacks on us or our allies with them. We did think that he would try to launch WMD's at our bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the invasion, and we were prepared for that if it happened, but that was not the reason we went to war. The fact that he elected not to do that, and instead, apparently cleaned the house before we arrived, doesn't prove that he was innocent or that the WMD's never existed.

He was fluff and stuff and mostly ego and saber rattling. He wanted all these things, WMDs, it is true, but he never obtained them. The sanctions were limiting how he could spend the money he got, even the under the table money, palaces are expensive and so is security...

Tell the relatives of the 500,000 dead Iraqis in mass graves that Saddam was all "fluff and stuff" and nothing more than ego and sabre rattling. Tell the people of Kuwait that he was just fluff and stuff... Tell the Iranians, or Israel, or Saudi Arabia, that Saddam was unable to attack them.

He did have WMD's, he did obtain them, he did produce them. This is well-documented as well, and regardless of what your pinhead koolaid distributors would have you believe, this is a fact. We know he obtained them and produced them because in 1996, the UN counted them and tagged them! We know that he had intentions of producing more sophisticated WMD's of the binary type, which is a process of production that would eliminate the question of shelf life... we know because his scientists have testified to this under oath. The money he was receiving from the oil for food program, was not going to feed his people or build palaces, it went to the governments of France, Russia, and Germany, and was essentially a bribe to buy their vote in the UN... Again, this is well documented fact.

But you demonstrate the mindset of the typical pinhead koolaid drinker, and this was the point I originally made about the "mistake" of not comprehending that America wasn't capable of comprehending the intricacies of this war. After 9/11, when Bush said we were going after the terrorists, I knew damn well this would happen, I didn't know it would be over Iraq, but I knew that we would reach a point at which the liberal panty-waists would balk at fighting terrorism, and we would be stuck somewhere, trying to beg you people into letting us finish the job. I just knew this would happen, and it did!

Why did I know? Because it has happened countless times in our history... WWII, the liberals convinced us to not take out Russia... Korea and Vietnam, the liberals convinced us to just get the hell out of it, and let it go... The Cold War... you idiots fought Ronald Reagan every step of the way, as he built up our military and weapons arsenal, you screamed bloody murder, insisted he was going to start WWIII, and thank GOD he didn't give in, thank GOD he stuck to it and eventually caused the Soviets to fold their hand! Liberals have never let us down when it comes to war, they will talk the talk all day long, but when it comes to having to walk the walk, they are nowhere to be found.
 
Salman Pak was used to train Iraqis and to train arab nationalists from other countries. It was never used to train wahabbists....and if you continue to say there is no difference between palestinian nationalist terrorists and wahabbist al qaeda terrorists, then you continue to exhibit your ignorance and bigotry.....

The fact remains.... enemies communicate all the time.... communications and contact do not equate to alliances. You have previously admitted that it would have been suicidal for Saddam to give (mythical) WMD's to AQ.... why do you insist on flip flopping?
 
Salman Pak was used to train Iraqis and to train arab nationalists from other countries. It was never used to train wahabbists....

Salman Pak was used to train radical terrorists, including Zarqawi and other members of alQaeda. It was complete with an airplane fuselage, to practice hijacking commercial airliners. This facility was inside the nation of Iraq, who's president was Saddam Hussein. Now, I am really sorry about that, I know how much of a Saddam fan you were, but the man was funding terrorists and providing training facilities for them, and there isn't any excuse or explanation you can give me that would justify that.

and if you continue to say there is no difference between palestinian nationalist terrorists and wahabbist al qaeda terrorists, then you continue to exhibit your ignorance and bigotry

Maine, let me clear this up for you, because you apparently don't understand my position. I am opposed to terrorism, period. When ANY group decides it's in their best interests to start inhumanely blowing up and killing innocent women and children with nail-filled bombs, I am against it. I don't make exceptions for this group or that group, I don't say that it's okay to kill innocents this way under certain conditions or caveats, I am consistently against terrorist acts across the board. This doesn't mean that I hate all Muslim people, and I am sorry you are interpreting it that way, it's clearly not what I have ever said.

The fact remains.... enemies communicate all the time....

Sure, enemy governments do communicate sometime. This doesn't excuse Saddam's regime from meeting with alQaeda or other radical terrorist groups.

You have previously admitted that it would have been suicidal for Saddam to give (mythical) WMD's to AQ.... why do you insist on flip flopping?

No, this was YOUR assertion, not mine. I can envision a scenario in which Saddam would have been willing to work out a protection deal with the thugs of alQaeda in exchange for technology, and I haven't seen this refuted in any way. I allowed you to make your points about Saddam's secular regime and alQaeda being diametrically opposed, and agreed that he probably wouldn't have gladly established an open diplomatic trade agreement with alQaeda for WMD's. I understand they were not mutual allies, I understand the nature of the two parties made it difficult for them to work together, but as you said, enemies communicate all the time.
 
What's amazing to me is, I spent over an hour composing a fairly objective admission of mistakes made by the Bush administration regarding Iraq. I didn't make excuses, I hardly praised Bush, and I think I made relatively legitimate points across the board. The first responder, Prissy, simply dismissed what I had to say, and informed everyone that there was no need to even bother reading what I posted, that all I essentially said was that America was too stupid to understand Bush's war. Then comes the usual suspects to chime in and pat him on the back, and take the opportunity to lob shit bombs at me personally. Maineman reposts his same old tired arguments again, Beefy posts his same old idiotic perception of reality, and not one word of substance has been spoken on topic.

You people are not interested in reasoned debate or discussion at all. You want to continue building some myth about Iraq and Bush, and insist you are right about everything and I am wrong about everything. You will sling out the bullshit so fast, you don't even stop to think about it! If all you claimed were true, no one on this planet would have supported Bush in this venture.... NO ONE! Yet, we see the UN passed 1440 unanimously, we see Tony Blair stake his political career on Iraq, we see a coalition of nations who sent soldiers to fight the war, and have assisted in numerous logistic ways. How did Bush pull this off, if there was absolutely NO justification whatsoever for this war?

Free-thinking requires that you leave your conventional partisan thinking at the door, and explore other possibilities. No one is EVER always right or always wrong, and that is the case here as well. Yeah, mistakes have been made regarding Iraq, and we can debate what might have been, had it been handled differently, but what we can't do, is determine what would have been, this is simply unknown to us. Let's say we took a different road, and allowed Saddam to remain defiant of the UN resolutions... who's to say he wouldn't have developed a nuke in time? Who's to say he wouldn't have invaded Saudi Arabia, or attacked Israel with WMD's? These are things we just can't possibly know, because we took a different course of action.

You have this vision inspired by Fahrenheit 911, of a peaceful Iraq with blue skies and kites flying in the desert breeze... and you take this false image and try to argue this is how Iraq would have remained if we hadn't invaded. You don't know this, you can't know this, it's impossible for you to know this. It's not even an accurate snapshot of life in Iraq under Saddam, much less how things might have been if we had allowed Saddam to get away with defying international law. In short, you are trying to prop up a logical fallacy with a mythical image that didn't ever exist, because you are all too intellectually dishonest to admit the truth.
 
-DIXIE: “Salman Pak was used to train radical terrorists, including Zarqawi and other members of alQaeda. It was complete with an airplane fuselage, to practice hijacking commercial airliners!”


US Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Report - Phase 2, Sept. 2006:

“In a response to questions from Committee staff asking if DIA recovered or received information or intelligence, after the raid on Salman Pak in April 2003 that indicated non-Iraqis received terrorist training at the Salman Pak facility, DIA said it has "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."….The facilities included a derelict aircraft and train intended for counterterrorism training.

In response to a question from Committee staff about postwar information recovered at Salman Pak, DIA said is has ”no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa’ida with the former regime.”


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
Last edited:
-DIXIE: "Salman Pak was used to train radical terrorists, including Zarqawi and other members of alQaeda!"


United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2 September 8 2006:

-Conclusion 1: "Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, REFUSING ALL REQUESTS from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support.

-Conclusion 2: "Postwar findings indicate Zarqawi was in Bagdad from May 2002 until late November 2003. Postwar assessment indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfuly to locate and capture Zarqawi and that the regime DID NOT have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. "


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
1) -DIXIE: “Saddam's regime did indeed meet with representatives of alQaeda…"

“Conclusion: Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa’ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa’ida and Iraq.

From: United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2 September 2006*



2) -DIXIE (continued): "….and authorized training camps for them. You can deny this all you like, the evidence is well documented, and irrefutable!"

Conclusion: "Postwar finding indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, REFUSING ALL REQUESTS from Al Qaeda to provide material or operations support.

From: United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation Phase 2 September 2006:*



*http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
Last edited:
-DIXIE: “Saddam's regime did indeed meet with representatives of alQaeda, and authorized training camps for them. You can deny this all you like, the evidence is well documented, and irrefutable!


*Conclusion: “Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa’ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa’ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations. “

From: United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2 September 8 2006:*


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
Prissy, in the first place, the report you continue to cite was anything but "bipartisan" much less conclusive. It is chock full of democrat talking points, because democrats insisted on putting them in there, for the very purpose you are using them now. Read carefully... "found no conclusive evidence..." and "there was no credible reporting" ...These are not statements of definitive fact, they are suppositions based on what politicians in Washington determined. Because Joe Biden couldn't find any evidence, doesn't mean no evidence existed, or it never happened.

In fact, the finding of 'nothing conclusive', or the lack of 'any credible reporting', regarding the eight meetings between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, suggests that SOMETHING was being hidden or concealed, otherwise, they would have 'discovered' what the meetings were about. If it were no big deal, as Maine claims, then someone would have provided that information, and we would KNOW what was discussed in those meetings. Instead, we are left with no trace of what those meetings were about, no records to implicate anyone, no documents to connect anyone, and no witnesses to confirm or deny what went on. This is strange, being that Saddam and alQaeda were such 'bitter enemies' according to Maine. What could they have possibly discussed in those eight meetings, which resulted in not one shred of information being discovered after the fact? If they were exchanging cookie recipes, I'm sure that someone would have gladly revealed this information at some point in time, and we would know the details... Saddam was giving them his four-star recipe for chocolate chips, in exchange for Osama's oatmeal and raisin... we would have the fucking info, if there was nothing nefarious going on. The fact that we DON'T have evidence, is the PROOF that something WAS going on!

The fuselage at Salman Pak was not used for counter terrorism, because terrorists do not train themselves in counter terrorism. That is the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard, and they probably obtained that tid-bit from Baghdad Bob, the former defense minister. If there was any counter terror training, it was from the aspect of how to defend themselves against counter terror actions. Many of the terrorists who trained at Salman Pak, were not from Iraq, including Zarqawi himself.

Love the way you parse the reports to show just the bits and pieces to back your absurd claims, and disregard the parts you don't want to acknowledge. Love the way you assume "not finding" means "doesn't exist" when it comes to US Congressmen. I guess their assholes don't really exist either?
 
Salman Pak was used to train Iraqis and to train arab nationalists from other countries. It was never used to train wahabbists....

Salman Pak was used to train radical terrorists, including Zarqawi and other members of alQaeda. It was complete with an airplane fuselage, to practice hijacking commercial airliners. This facility was inside the nation of Iraq, who's president was Saddam Hussein. Now, I am really sorry about that, I know how much of a Saddam fan you were, but the man was funding terrorists and providing training facilities for them, and there isn't any excuse or explanation you can give me that would justify that.

no evidence exists of Saddam training any wahabbists or Al Qaeda at Salman Pak. The republican controlled senate intelligence committee already debunked that.... why must you continue to lie about it?

and if you continue to say there is no difference between palestinian nationalist terrorists and wahabbist al qaeda terrorists, then you continue to exhibit your ignorance and bigotry

Maine, let me clear this up for you, because you apparently don't understand my position. I am opposed to terrorism, period. When ANY group decides it's in their best interests to start inhumanely blowing up and killing innocent women and children with nail-filled bombs, I am against it. I don't make exceptions for this group or that group, I don't say that it's okay to kill innocents this way under certain conditions or caveats, I am consistently against terrorist acts across the board. This doesn't mean that I hate all Muslim people, and I am sorry you are interpreting it that way, it's clearly not what I have ever said.

our fight is against the people who attacked us. If we are going to declare war on anyone who sponsors any sort of terrorist activity around the globe, we need to declare war on the Irish catholics in America who routinely sent money to Sinn Fein for the past century. Confusing arab nationalist terrorism with the brand that attacked us is a clear sign of ignorance and bigotry

The fact remains.... enemies communicate all the time....

Sure, enemy governments do communicate sometime. This doesn't excuse Saddam's regime from meeting with alQaeda or other radical terrorist groups.

excuse? sovereign nations need an excuse to talk with terrorist groups? What say you about American Army personnel holding meetings with insurgent groups in Iraq even now?

You have previously admitted that it would have been suicidal for Saddam to give (mythical) WMD's to AQ.... why do you insist on flip flopping?

No, this was YOUR assertion, not mine. I can envision a scenario in which Saddam would have been willing to work out a protection deal with the thugs of alQaeda in exchange for technology, and I haven't seen this refuted in any way. I allowed you to make your points about Saddam's secular regime and alQaeda being diametrically opposed, and agreed that he probably wouldn't have gladly established an open diplomatic trade agreement with alQaeda for WMD's. I understand they were not mutual allies, I understand the nature of the two parties made it difficult for them to work together, but as you said, enemies communicate all the time.

You are the one who claims that Saddam was so smart. Would YOU "work out a deal" with a bunch of terrorists who were laying seige to your town and were sworn to destropy your way of life? Would YOU give such a gang all of your weapons if they promised to spare YOUR house from their onslaught?
 
-DIXIE: Prissy, in the first place, the report you continue to cite was anything but "bipartisan" much less conclusive. It is chock full of democrat talking points”


U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Postwar Findings on Iraq’s Links to Terrorism.

Committee Report and Conclusions Approved by:

Pat Roberts, Chairman (R-Kansas)
John Rockefeller (D- W. Virgina)
Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)
Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
Olympia Snowe (R- Maine)
Chuck Hagel (R- Georgia)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Diane Feinstein (D-California)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Evan Bayh (D- Indiana)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)
Harry Reid (D-Nevada)
John Warner (R-Virginia)


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
-DIXIE: Prissy, in the first place, the report you continue to cite was anything but "bipartisan" much less conclusive. It is chock full of democrat talking points”


U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Postwar Findings on Iraq’s Links to Terrorism.

Committee Report and Conclusions Approved by:

Pat Roberts, Chairman (R-Kansas)
John Rockefeller (D- W. Virgina)
Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)
Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
Olympia Snowe (R- Maine)
Chuck Hagel (R- Georgia)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Diane Feinstein (D-California)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Evan Bayh (D- Indiana)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)
Harry Reid (D-Nevada)
John Warner (R-Virginia)


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf


I count 8 top republicans and 8 top democrats approving the report which stated Saddam did not aid al qaeda, he did not harbor zarqawi, that Saddam rebufed al qaeda, that saddam offer them no assistance, and that there's no credible evidence saddam provided terrorist training or assistance anywhere in iraq to transnational islamic terrorists.
 
DIXIe: "The fuselage at Salman Pak was not used for counter terrorism, because terrorists do not train themselves in counter terrorism. That is the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard"

This is the conclusion reached by a bipartisan commission, and approved by Bill Frist, and Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)


Do you even know what counter-terrorism is? Iraq was training its security forces, and those of other arab countries, in techniques to fight jihaddist terrorists. That's what the aircraft fuselage was for: to train security forces how to defeat aircract hijackers. Secular nationalist regimes like iraq, and yemen considered the islamic jihaddists a threat. Indeed the jihaddists are trying to overthrow the secular arab nationalist governments.
 
-DIXIE: Prissy, in the first place, the report you continue to cite was anything but "bipartisan" much less conclusive. It is chock full of democrat talking points”


U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Postwar Findings on Iraq’s Links to Terrorism.

Committee Report and Conclusions Approved by:

Pat Roberts, Chairman (R-Kansas)
John Rockefeller (D- W. Virgina)
Orin Hatch (R-Utah)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)
Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
Olympia Snowe (R- Maine)
Chuck Hagel (R- Georgia)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Diane Feinstein (D-California)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Evan Bayh (D- Indiana)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)
Harry Reid (D-Nevada)
John Warner (R-Virginia)


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf

-DIXIE: Prissy, in the first place, the report you continue to cite was anything but "bipartisan"


from the Report: “On August 3, 2006...by a vote of 15-1 the Committee agreed to adopt the findings and conclusions of the report, “Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism”

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Senator Orin Hatch (R-Kansas), Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Senator Chris Bond (R-Missouri) and all other repubicans (except for Trent Lott) voted to affirm the findings and conclusion of the report.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf
 
Last edited:
I count 8 top republicans and 8 top democrats approving the report which stated Saddam did not aid al qaeda, he did not harbor zarqawi...

No, idiot, you count 16 Congressmen who didn't find conclusive proof of something, and you are assuming that means Saddam didn't aid alQaeda or harbor Zarqawi. It's part of your problem, you don't comprehend things very well. When someone states that they couldn't find evidence or proof of something, they are NOT saying it didn't happen! In fact, the very report you are referencing here, makes it clear in the pretext, that finding evidence of a connection to terror is much more difficult than finding WMD's.

I can go out and look into the sky and "find no evidence" that the moon exists! Does that mean the moon doesn't exist? Does that mean it never existed and was always a figment of our imagination? Or could that simply mean that I can find no evidence at this time? It's important to note the distinction here, because you keep presenting "no conclusive proof" as some sort of 'fact of the matter'.

Let's take the whole yellowcake thing that Joe Wilson lied his ass off about... Well, it was determined by this very Intelligence Report, that Saddam did indeed seek enriched yellowcake uranium from Africa. It was not conclusive as to what his intent was... maybe he planned to give himself a nuclear enema? We don't fucking know! We DO know that he was seeking enriched yellowcake uranium from Africa. We didn't find plans for building a nuke, and we didn't find plans for a nuclear enema... neither of these things were conclusive. This doesn't mean that Saddam just liked the smell of yellowcake, and had no intentions of doing anything with it, other than smelling it.

When I read "we found no credible reporting" I have to wonder, what kind of reporting was found that was deemed non-credible? Who determined this? Why can't I see the "non-credible" reports and judge for myself if it's credible? Noooo... I'm too stupid to make that determination, I need John Warner and Harry Reid to determine credibility for me. You read "no credible reporting" and determine it means there was no evidence at all, and this translates to complete exoneration and proof of innocence. You've not proven your case, you've essentially shown where your case is not provable, because there is not enough credible information to make a determination one way or the other.
 
Do you even know what counter-terrorism is? Iraq was training its security forces, and those of other arab countries, in techniques to fight jihaddist terrorists. That's what the aircraft fuselage was for: to train security forces how to defeat aircract hijackers.

ROFLMFAO! So... were the alQaeda and Ansar Al Islam terrorists there to merely play the roll of the bad guys? WOW, these terrorists are very caring people to take time out of their busy schedule of suicide bombings to help the counter-terror forces train! That was a nice thing for them to do!

Some people just go BEYOND stupid!
 
“Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism”


And let's discuss this for a moment.... how the fuck do you justify making determinations before the war, based on findings made after the war? Do you assume that Bush knew all of the intelligence was wrong? Do you assume that Bush could see into the future and know confirmation of the facts would be inconclusive? Are you saying the President should just ignore his CIA or assume they don't know what they are talking about?

It seems you want to take a lot of stuff that was determined after the fact, or worse, that couldn't be confirmed after the fact, and make some sort of cobbled together case, for what should have been done before the fact. Things just don't work that way in reality, Prissy! If we had the luxury of hindsight, there would have never been a cum-stained blue dress, Slick would have aimed for the mouth! You simply can't make determinations on actions based on things discovered after the actions, unless you are Miss Cleo!
 
DIXIE: “Well, it was determined by this very Intelligence Report, that Saddam did indeed seek enriched yellowcake uranium from Africa.”

That wasn't the Committe's conclusion after July 2003:


From the report you mention: On June 17, 2003.…CIA produced a memo for the Director of Central Intelligence which said “since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false document earlier this Spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad”.




“Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq”

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf
 
Do you even know what counter-terrorism is? Iraq was training its security forces, and those of other arab countries, in techniques to fight jihaddist terrorists. That's what the aircraft fuselage was for: to train security forces how to defeat aircract hijackers.

ROFLMFAO! So... were the alQaeda and Ansar Al Islam terrorists there to merely play the roll of the bad guys? WOW, these terrorists are very caring people to take time out of their busy schedule of suicide bombings to help the counter-terror forces train! That was a nice thing for them to do!

Some people just go BEYOND stupid!


This is the post-war conclusion of the intelligence community, and the republican-led Senate Select Committe on Intelligence. The conclusions were virtually unaniously adopted by both republicans and democrats, 15-1.
 
Back
Top