Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

Amen, farmer.

I also agree with you that we have been placed into a no-win situation. Unfortunately, you're right: we can't get out now. Things would be so much worse if we just cut and ran. I don't advocate an unconditional withdrawal. I do blame that half-arsed nitwit in the WH, and his handlers, for having gotten us into this situation. There was absolutely no need for it.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

The problem is that there are a lot of rulers the world would be better of without. How do we decide which ones to remove?

Why, it's not a problem at all. It's simplicity itself, my good man. Someone truly evil and irresponsible who is developing WMD, who seems to be a great risk for actually using them should he amass a stockpile of them, and who cannot be persuaded peacefully to give them up, should be persuaded by force.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

...Saddam was weak, sanctions had worked, he was not a threat to his neighbors never mind America, and he had no WMD....

He had had WMD, and WMD development programs, and, unfortunately, he made it impossible to learn that he no longer had the WMD without invading. We know for a fact they were no longer there only because we did invade. All he had to do was show us a video of them being destroyed and lead us to the remains. Any dictator of Saddam's ilk, absolutely, positively could not be allowed to amass WMD. Furthermore, had we not said, "Destroy the WMD or we'll invade....okay, we really mean it now....okay, we're about to invade..." etc. over and over, he might still have WMD and development programs.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Any dictator of Saddam's ilk, absolutely, positively could not be allowed to amass WMD.

UNLESS, he purchased them for hard currency from the United States of America. God forbid that someone like Saddam would murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians with inferior products manufactured in France, for instance.......

Brandon - the USA SOLD those WMDs to the Hussein regime and stood aside as they were used. HELLO!!! Does that mean that a thousand Kurdish lives are not worth anything if there is money to be made or does it just mean that the USA HAS NEVER HAD A FOREIGN POLICY WORTH JACK-SH!T IN THE LAST 3OO YEARS!!

0 Replies

And here is one from the history books:

Quote:

As early as February 1965, Johnson, in reference to his "Rolling Thunder" air attacks on North Vietnam, said, "Now we're off to bombing these people. We're over that hurdle. I don't think anything is going to be as bad as losing and I don't see any way of winning."

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

I have made the offer before. Anybody who thinks they can do a better job? Run for president. The Job is open to all quaified appicants.

No, it's open to the wealthiest applicants.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

He had had WMD, and WMD development programs, and, unfortunately, he made it impossible to learn that he no longer had the WMD without invading. We know for a fact they were no longer there only because we did invade. All he had to do was show us a video of them being destroyed and lead us to the remains. Any dictator of Saddam's ilk, absolutely, positively could not be allowed to amass WMD. Furthermore, had we not said, "Destroy the WMD or we'll invade....okay, we really mean it now....okay, we're about to invade..." etc. over and over, he might still have WMD and development programs.

As late as early 2001 Powell affirmed that the sanctions were working, that Saddam had "not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction," and that he was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." The UN appointed weapons inspector, Hans Blix, continually affirmed about year later what Powell had earlier contended. Bush and co. inflamed the American public with false propaganda and invaded Iraq anyway.

Furthermore, had we not said, "Destroy the WMD or we'll invade....okay, we really mean it now....okay, we're about to invade..." etc. over and over, he might still have WMD and development programs that he would use, according to Charles Duelfer,
Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence, in his Iraq Survey Group Final Report, against IRAN. Our invasion of Iraq did the greatest service to that other person of the tripartite and triumvirate Axishead of Evil.

The third person of the Axishead of Evil is thinking about reconciling and hooking up with our good ally South Korea.

0 Replies

I would appreciate a rebuttal of these points if someone does not think they are factual.

First of all, the fiction that intelligence was manipulated simply does not stand up when the facts are viewed.

There were fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE(NIE) of 2002, the collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missle programs contrary to UN resolutions.

THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF BRITAIN, GERMANY,RUSSIA CHINA, ISRAEL AND EVEN FRANCE ALL AGREED WITH THIS JUDGMENT.

I am not aware that the CIA or the FBI or any organization in the US could influence the findings of the intelligence agencies of the countries listed above.

Secondly, Hans Blix, head of the UN team of inspectors wrote in his report:

"The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, AT A TIME WHEN IRAQ SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD SUCH MUNITIONS....They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but RATHER POINTS TO THE ISSUE OF SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF CHEMICAL ROCKETS UNACCOUNTED FOR."

Several thousand unaccounted for? That's a lot of unaccounted for chemical rockets!!!!!!

0 Replies

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

MUCH does not equal ALL.

There are still the issue of refusal to comply with ALL the terms of surrender from Gulf 1 as well as his ability to circumvent the Oil for Food program provisions that provided Saddam with multiple millions of dollars to rebuild and to once again threaten the region and the World.

I still support GW's decision to remove the regime based only on the aforementioned reasons.

0 Replies

The fact is that Bush says he doesn't pay attention to polls, but all of his most recent comments are obviously designed to improve his poll ratings. And the average American is so ignorant that it's actually working. Of course, the latest poll was released from Fox News, what can I say?

Bush IS an intelligence failure.

0 Replies

What's the deal with the poll results. As I understand the US political system, after 2 terms the president is gone, and can't run again. Why would he care if he's down in the polls?

0 Replies

Soooooooooo presidents are supposed to make decisions based off of what American's and the world thinks is popular.
"what's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular."

0 Replies

Bush is hitting two for two.
He is not popular and he is never right.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

What's the deal with the poll results. As I understand the US political system, after 2 terms the president is gone, and can't run again. Why would he care if he's down in the polls?

Because when a president becomes unpopular the House and the senate try to distance them selves from him. He then can't get any of his policies passed. He becomes a lame duck president. That's what we want, to shut him down so that he can't do more damage before we get a Democratic president to replace him. So poll ratings matter big time!

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

Soooooooooo presidents are supposed to make decisions based off of what American's and the world thinks is popular.

Absolutely, a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Polls one of the best ways that the people have to keep the government in check between elections. And these politicians know that. Heck, most of them conduct their own polls...

What's popular is usually what's best, unless it's unconstitutional!

0 Replies

RE: Faulty intel.

To explain it a little better, let's listen to the President.

(cue video)

Quote:

The United Nations had declared in more than 10 -- I can't remember the exact number of resolutions -- that disclose, or disarm, or face serious consequences. I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I -- concerned.
-- From dictionary.com: ex-ten-u-ate (v.) To lessen or attempt to lessen the magnitude or seriousness of, especially by providing partial excuses. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dec. 12, 2005

Well, then.

There ya go.

Everyone understand now?

0 Replies

For those that may have missed it, or are still a little confused, I will elaborate, again, with the Presidents own words.

(cue second video)

Quote:

WILLIAMS: Do you believe this war was an elective on your part? Or did this have to come out of 9/11?

DUBYA: Hmm, interesting question. Well, first of all, troops don't move unless I give the order. So, from that sense it was elective. I mean, I could have said, no, we'll try to, you know, hope for the best with Saddam Hussein. Remember at the time we didn't know the facts on the ground. We -- everybody thought the guy had weapons of mass destruction. Everybody knew that he'd used weapons of mass destruction and had provided safe haven for terrorists. I mean, those were facts. Whether or not it had to happen is -- it didn't have to happen since a human being made the decision. Whether or not it needed to happen, I'm still convinced it needed to happen.
-- Dubya provides clear justification (at least to him) for going to war in Iraq, Interview with Brian Williams, NBC News, Dec. 12, 2005

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Any dictator of Saddam's ilk, absolutely, positively could not be allowed to amass WMD.

UNLESS, he purchased them for hard currency from the United States of America. God forbid that someone like Saddam would murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians with inferior products manufactured in France, for instance.......

Brandon - the USA SOLD those WMDs to the Hussein regime and stood aside as they were used. HELLO!!! Does that mean that a thousand Kurdish lives are not worth anything if there is money to be made or does it just mean that the USA HAS NEVER HAD A FOREIGN POLICY WORTH JACK-SH!T IN THE LAST 3OO YEARS!!

Sorry to tell you this,but you need to learn (or RELEARN) US History.
This country did not exist 300 years ago,so our foreign policy of 300 years ago never existed.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Sorry to tell you this,but you need to learn (or RELEARN) US History.
This country did not exist 300 years ago,so our foreign policy of 300 years ago never existed.

Actually.... We have only had independence for 230 years. There's a whole 160+ years of American history before our indepencence.

See Timeline

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Sorry to tell you this,but you need to learn (or RELEARN) US History.
This country did not exist 300 years ago,so our foreign policy of 300 years ago never existed.

Actually.... We have only had independence for 230 years. There's a whole 160+ years of American history before our indepencence.

See Timeline

Thats what I said...the COUNTRY (USA) did not exist 300 years ago.
I did not say that there werent people here,or that there was no history before then.

0 Replies

Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know