Bush accepts responsibility for war "based on faulty intel"

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

right. it means they're exactly the same. opportunistic scumbags who care only for broadening their power base and enriching themselves. different flags, same ass holes.

You just described most of the human race.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

right. it means they're exactly the same. opportunistic scumbags who care only for broadening their power base and enriching themselves. different flags, same ass holes.

You just described most of the human race.

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

You are wrong when you claim Saddam wasn't a threat.

To whom was Saddam a threat?

To many, including the US.

Duelfer Report.

From the Duelfer Report:

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable

Even if, for argument's sake, we accept that as true, that simply means that Saddam was a threat in the future, and only in the event that sanctions were lifted. Nobody, however, was recommending the lifting of sanctions (not even the French), so if Saddam was any kind of threat in 2003, he was merely a potential threat. Is that the kind of threat that we needed to thwart by means of a preemptive strike?

woiyo wrote:

To the region and the World.

What do you call someone who continually shows no respect for the Terms of Surrender signed by the Iraqi Govt?

I call him a threat.

I call him someone who is in violation of a UN-sponsored treaty and various UN resolutions. But when did the UN give the US responsibility for enforcing UN resolutions?

We found that out after we invaded.

Was he a threat pre invasion? Certainly. We found out he was perhaps less of an imminent threat post invasion.

And I believe there is still a question lingering about what happened to all of the WMD we knew Saddam had. What became of them?

Is a potential threat one that needs to be thwarted? Hard to say.

We have a lot of potential threats in the world. Because we had intelligence that indicated he was more than just a potential threat, we took action. Now we don't have the potential threat to deal with down the road.

Was he a threat pre invasion? Certainly. We found out he was perhaps less of an imminent threat post invasion.

Ticomaya wrote:

We found that out after we invaded.

Hey, you brought up the Duelfer Report, not me. If you're going to use the Duelfer Report to back up your claims, then it's your problem if it doesn't fit your argument.

Ticomaya wrote:

Was he a threat pre invasion? Certainly. We found out he was perhaps less of an imminent threat post invasion.

Not even the Duelfer Report suggests that he was a threat prior to the invasion.

Ticomaya wrote:

And I believe there is still a question lingering about what happened to all of the WMD we knew Saddam had. What became of them?

Maybe the inspectors would have discovered them if they had been given a chance. Certainly they couldn't have done a worse job than our troops have done since the invasion.

Ticomaya wrote:

Is a potential threat one that needs to be thwarted? Hard to say.

No, apparently for you, it's relatively easy to say.

Ticomaya wrote:

We have a lot of potential threats in the world. Because we had intelligence that indicated he was more than just a potential threat, we took action. Now we don't have the potential threat to deal with down the road.

And we wouldn't have had that potential threat if we had maintained a regime of sanctions (that's according to the Duelfer Report too). So again, we have to ask: was the invasion necessary? And if it was necessary to stem a threat, what kind of threat?

The whole thing is unravelling fast.

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

Ticomaya wrote:

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

You got the numbers of the turnout already?

"Up to 15 million Iraqis were to choose..."

Friday 16 December 2005, 21:59 Makka Time, 18:59 GMT :
One day after the election, with Iraq still subjected to tough security measures, millions of ballot papers were being counted in the vote for the first full-term government since Saddam Hussein fell from power in 2003.


"The number of whose who took part in the ballot should be between 10 and 11 million voters, according to our first estimates," said electoral official Farid Ayar.

omitting that he and top aides had ignored warnings from midlevel intelligence agents that some of the evidence was suspect

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

Betty Dawisha is a Bush hack who hasn't lived in Iraq for years. You can keep your fake optimism, thanks.

I wasn't referring to the war, however, but the idea that some intel lead us to believe that there was a threat from Iraq. There was no reliable intel that showed that; our main piece of intel was completely faked.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

Tell that to the 10 million Iraqis that voted yesterday.

You got the numbers of the turnout already?
(I've only read about 320,000 Iraqi expatriates who voted abroad.)

Betty Dawisha is a Bush hack who hasn't lived in Iraq for years. You can keep your fake optimism, thanks.

I wasn't referring to the war, however, but the idea that some intel lead us to believe that there was a threat from Iraq. There was no reliable intel that showed that; our main piece of intel was completely faked.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Cycloptichorn