Informal, unscientific poll....

[hetron]

In a previous thread, I had gotten into an argument with a poster or two over whether or not the Bush administration had gotten involved with Iraq on the basis of only flimsy evidence of WMD's. As one poster stated it;

[ QUOTE ]

...I guess what you're saying is that George Bush didn't care whether there were WMD stockpiles in Iraq or not, was going to push to invade the country to satisfy his agenda, then deal with the possibility that they didn't exist if that's the way it turned out. Doubt if that is remotely close to reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

The poster also stated that believing in such a fantastic idea was something that only those on the leftist political fringe actually believed.

I just want to conduct a little informal, unscientific 2+2 poll regarding this issue. How many people here believe that the Bush administration in some way skewed, altered or embellished the truth about the intel available on Iraqi WMD's and/or the Iraqi government's connection to Al Qaeda in order to justify the war against Iraq and the insane Hussein? Just a simple yes or no response will be fine. You don't have to put your reasons for thinking so (though obviously you can if you want).

Again, no real reason for doing this, just curious what people on here think.

I guess I'll go first.

Answer: Yes

Reason: The fact that no credible evidence that the massive WMD was assembled or being assembled has come out either before or after the invasion took place, leads me to believe that Bush and Co. had an agenda to fulfill in Iraq. The Paul O'Neill book stating that the neo cons in the cabient had this agenda going into the White House pretty much seals it for me. O'Neill might be sore as hell for being fired, but I don't think he would go as far as make up fairy tales in order to get back at the administration.

[Chris Alger]

It isn't even arguable. Among other reasons, the mere fact that Bush falsey characterized UNSCOM's conclusions and can't identify the "intelligence" he used to support his statements shows that he deliberately tried to mislead the public.

What you're dealing here is something that anthropoligists recognize as taboo. Many Americans cannot accept evidence that the President and national leadship are capable of actual evil, no matter who they kill or why. They simply refuse to entertain the possibility.

[bigpooch]

Yes, as soon as Bush Sr. was involved, it was inevitable
regardless of any evidence. Does anyone know whether it was
true that Iraq had Russian intelligence that the British
were already planning to invade Iraq about a year in
advance?

And the hubris of Saddam Hussein: why tangle up with a real
heavyweight like Bush Sr.?

[MMMMMM]

You should change the question from "in some way" to "quite significantly" (re: skewed, altered or embellished). Reason: a little skewing is fairly common, politically speaking--and is vastly different than large-scale alteration or major embellishment.

[MMMMMM]

Pretty bizarre if you consider it to be evil to have removed a regime which actually was evil.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

al

[hetron]

[hetron]

I meant "significantly". Your point is duly noted.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Utah]

. Many Americans cannot accept evidence that the President and national leadship are capable of actual evil

And you cannot accept any evidence that the President and National Leadership are not evil. Just curious, how do you think the national leadership staged that whole phony 9/11 thing? That was a hell of a bambozzle don't you think.