New evidence linking Saddam to WMD and al-Qaeda

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha, I like taking pot shots.
But Vulture, GWB, et all know I am just joking with them.

[Ionphore]

Just to reply to the article...

I don't care if they find a nuclear underground facility in Iraq. It still doesen't justify the war. The reasons the administration gave for going to war gave specifics on weapons bunkers, where everything was stored. They made it clear there were wmd's. Its fairly clear we were misled. You were misled, but continue to be misled and want to beleive so badly you are willing to go out of your way to do so. For some information to come almost 2 years after the war started from a news source that may or may not have political leanings doesen't really mean much at all. Sorry to break it to you buddy...

[adios]

Obviously the Bush administration thought they'd find WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Why lie before the war and tell the truth afterward?

[Mano]

Obviously the Bush administration thought they'd find WMD stockpiles in Iraq. Why lie before the war and tell the truth afterward?

I believe that the administration did believe that they would find the WMD's, but they misreperesented what they knew to be true and what they believed to be true. When Colin Powell gave his address, it appeared we knew what they had, how much and where it was. This clearly was not the case.

[wacki]

“No one on this planet was more convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then I was.” General Tommy Franks. Fox interview, 3 Aug 04.




O'REILLY: What happened to Saddam's chemical arsenal? Do you know?

BUSH: No. I don't. We thought we'd have stockpiles. We do know he had the capability of making weapons. And that capability could have been passed on to terrorists, and that was a risk, after 9/11, we could not afford to take.

O'REILLY: No, I understand that. But you, to this day, don't know what happened to his chemical weapons. He didn't tell us...

BUSH: No. Not yet.

O'REILLY: He hasn't given us much, has he?

BUSH: No, well he doesn't have anything to, to gain by giving us much. I mean, he's going to go on trial, and the Iraqis will lay out a case. And, I mean, why would he tell the truth?

Like I said, I can't fault them for that.

[ QUOTE ]
but they misreperesented what they knew to be true and what they believed to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a bold statement. There is a phrase called CYA, or cover your A$$. If you are always in the CYA mode as an intel expert, detective, or a lawyer, nothing gets done.

I haven't seen anything to this date that isn't CYA that makes me think Bush misrepresented. That may change, but I haven't seen anything definitive yet. There was bad intel, yes, but it was comming in from all over the place, and not from just one source.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to reply to the article...

I don't care if they find a nuclear underground facility in Iraq. It still doesen't justify the war. The reasons the administration gave for going to war gave specifics on weapons bunkers, where everything was stored. They made it clear there were wmd's. Its fairly clear we were misled. You were misled, but continue to be misled and want to beleive so badly you are willing to go out of your way to do so. For some information to come almost 2 years after the war started from a news source that may or may not have political leanings doesen't really mean much at all. Sorry to break it to you buddy...


[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is the true liberal opinion in a nutshell. I dont care if Bush et al were right about WMD after all, that the intel was in fact on the right track, it was still wrong! At least one of you finally came clean with how you really feel. Bravo.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to reply to the article...

I don't care if they find a nuclear underground facility in Iraq. It still doesen't justify the war. The reasons the administration gave for going to war gave specifics on weapons bunkers, where everything was stored. They made it clear there were wmd's. Its fairly clear we were misled. You were misled, but continue to be misled and want to beleive so badly you are willing to go out of your way to do so. For some information to come almost 2 years after the war started from a news source that may or may not have political leanings doesen't really mean much at all. Sorry to break it to you buddy...


[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is the true liberal opinion in a nutshell. I dont care if Bush et al were right about WMD after all, that the intel was in fact on the right track, it was still wrong! At least one of you finally came clean with how you really feel. Bravo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, good one vulturesrow, I can't believe I missed that.

Ionphore..... If you want people respecting your posts at all you better start making better posts. I don't know if you could of made a worse post. Your the kind of liberal that gives good liberals a bad bad name. Shame on you.

[andyfox]

"We do know he had the capability of making weapons. And that capability could have been passed on to terrorists, and that was a risk, after 9/11, we could not afford to take."

This statement alone is enough for me to vote for anybody but Bush. We were told he had weapons. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women are put in harm's way because of it. Now, oh well, you know, he had the capability to make weapons. Well of course he did. What country doesn't?

Now it's unclear to me whether Bush meant the "capability" could be passed on to terrorists, or the weapons. Bush says we couldn't take that risk after 9/11. We could take it before 9/11? What weapons did the 9/11 terrorists use? Were we afraid that, after 9/11, Hussein would pass along box cutters and flight schedules to terrorists?

9/11 had nothing to do with WMDs.

Mislead us into thinking he had WMDs and a nuclear capability that, if we didn't act, could lead to a mushroom cloud in America. Then tell us if he didn't have 'em, well he had the capability to have them.

The man deserves to be fired.

[andyfox]

They weren't right about WMDs. All the specifics they gave were either trumped up or wrong. Rice and Powell, before 9/11, both said Hussein was essentially emasculated. Bush had a report on his desk from the I.A.E.A. saying exactly the opposite of what he told us I.A.E.A. reports said about Hussein's nuclear capability.

I'm astounded to the tenacity with which people cling to the delusion that our leaders will give us the straight facts when they're planning to go to war.

[vulturesrow]

And I find it amazing that people equate bad intel with intentional deception. That being said its obvious that no one is going to change their mind on this. I will enjoy watching the wriggling if this story does prove to be true.