We are all wrong about terrorists!!

[Dr.Worthless]

Seriously Monte.. How many times am I going to have to spell it out to you for you to grasp this concept.

 

Put yourself in these shoes.

 

You're the CEO of a large company, lets say Wal-Mart. You're marketing department presents to you a presentation on how marketing your product alongside White horses would provide HUGE publicity. See, these White Horses are a coming cultural hit and all the market studies, both domestic and foreign, show that they are a coming fad. Furthermore, Marketing departments in your foreign departments concur.

 

You decide to jump on the bandwagon and market your new product with these horses, of course you would do this because your acclaimed marketing department has collected all the data that points toward them becoming a hit. You're new commercial comes out with and is a TOTAL FLOP. Contrary to what your marketing department presented to you, White Horses are NOT a fad, infact, popular culture makes white horses out to be a sign of virginity, and !@#$%^&*it virginity just isn't cool.

 

So.. You, being the CEO of this company, are you a liar for saying that the white horse commercial was going to be a big success? Nope, you're a victim of Faulty Intelligence.

 

NOW, Apply the above theory to the situation the President was faced with Intelligence on WMD's. Then raise the stakes 10000x.

 

Yes.. AFTER the fact some investigations have shown that the intelligence was somewhat faulty, and on "stockpiles of wmds" it was flat out WRONG. But how can you accuse the President of the United States of being a liar when he was following said intelligence? Mind you, not just US intelligence either, MULTIPLE COUNTRIES all provided intelligence pointing toward Saddam having WMD's.

 

Simple, You can't.

 

Now, after the fact, no WMD's being found, the intelligence was very faulty, but how could the President, or ANYONE for that matter, have known that was going to happen?

 

Simple, He couldn't.

 

Eager to hear your reply.

 

Worthless

[MonteZuma]

The weapons inspectors said that they did not think that there were stockpiles of weapons in Iraq. They thought that Iraq had largely been disarmed. There was a process in place to deal with Iraq.

 

The difference between your analogy and the situation in Iraq is that you think Bush was mistaken about the threat level. I think the evidence suggests that he was manipulative and dishonest.

[Dr.Worthless]

The weapons inspectors said that they did not think that there were stockpiles of weapons in Iraq. They thought that Iraq had largely been disarmed. There was a process in place to deal with Iraq.

 

The difference between your analogy and the situation in Iraq is that you think Bush was mistaken about the threat level. I think the evidence suggests that he was manipulative and dishonest.

 

I dont understand how following intelligence is dishonest.

 

Inspectors had been in the country for years, and yet the intelligence still said what it said. Its not as if the inspectors in Iraq at the time of our invasion was something new and revolutionary. How many times should we have allowed Saddam to kick inspectors out then let them back in before we considered changing our approach to him?

 

What evidence suggests he was manipulative and dishonest. Point to any information that would have been known at the time the decision was made that should have altered the decision.

 

There had been a process in place to deal with Iraq for over a decade, and time after time Saddam told the world to !@#$%^&* off. How many years of failed inspections and resolutions was needed to justify a different approach? Lets not even talk about actually enforcing all of the resolutions already in place...

[Vile Requiem]

First. You have to believe that a democracy in the middle east would help stabilize the region. If you don't believe that then obviously you dont agree with this whole war. I of course believe it. -*BAD WORD*-' date=' Its for sure better than what WAS going on in the middle east, which we all know basically breed terrorism.[/quote']

 

Another democracy in the Middle East?

 

One is bad enough! (Isreal), two isn't going to stabilize the region much

[Bacchus]

Good one Vile

 

If i'm not mistaken (i'd have to confirm the sources and i'll do it if asked), multiple UN inspectors said that Irak didn't maintain a stockpile of WMD, that is has no capablities to produce them for any lenght of time and that if they did, they would have to be helped. In all cases, UN and particularly the USA have all the technological means to scan the country for trace gases and radioactivity.

 

Furthermore, said WMD have relatively short "lifespans". the most dangerous, VX gas (spl, i'm translating) has a 5 years limit, after that it becomes unstable and hardly a threat to an organized military force.

 

I remember a Scott Ritter, war vet from Desert Storm and weapon engineer i think. Republican also. oh, and UN chief inspector from 91 to 98 (if my memory isn't playing tricks on me).

 

I can't remember the book's -*BAD WORD*-le, but here's a link to one of Ritter's article:

 

Ritter's article

 

I just made a search out of curiosity

 

Ritter again

 

here'S another one because i don't know anything about salon.com, consequently i'm more trustful of the BBC

 

the BBC on Ritter

 

i think those are interesting articles.

[white_0men]

An overstated threat?

 

Why is it that everyone -*BAD WORD*-foots around calling it what it is? A major !@#$%^&*up.

 

Although it does beg the question, does anyone know that they didn't overstate it for personal reasons? *Fans the flames harder*

 

---

 

Cheney goes to Langley

 

I had found the original newsweek post, but page 2 and 3 are down, so I link to this site, which has a link to the newsweek post.

 

Cheney began collecting intelligence on the threat anywhere he could find it. Along with Libby, his chief of staff, the vice president began showing up at the CIA and DIA for briefings. Cheney would ask probing questions from different analysts in various agencies and then, later with his staff, connect the dots. Such an aggressive national-security role by a vice president was unusual. So was the sheer size of Cheney’s staff—about 60 people, much larger than the size of Al Gore’s. The threat from germ warfare was a particular concern of Cheney’s.

 

Know how many previous vice presidents visited C.I.A. headquarters? None.

 

There, I think that's a big enough flame for now. Enjoy the heat.

[Dr.Worthless]

Ok folks, this is all great, but again all of you are guilty of losing scope.

 

1.) You have to have the mindset of the intelligence BEFORE all this !@#$%^&* happened. Inspectors in the country or not.. multiple intelligence agencies still said that they had stockpiles of weapons, even AFTER the inspectors. Besides, The inspectors never got 100% free reign to do their jobs. "No weapons " was at best a guess.

 

2.)You can do all the conspiracy theories you want about higher ups tampering with CIA/FBI intelligence. But what about the Intelligence we got from Britain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, etc, etc, etc. WE didn't go off of just our intelligence, multiple sources all told us the same thing.

 

Dr.Worthless-- Who know he posts in vain.

[Aileron]

Omen, all your sources prove is that somewhere in the world, there are some liberals who know html. You can't use an opinion to support another opinion in place of facts. Cheney meeting with the CIA doesn't prove much for your point either. Talking to a Ford or Firestone Executive doesn't make you responsable for the Explorer fiasco a few years back.

 

Then again, maybe you should be quoting other people's opinions...if you think you just laid the "heat" on me, you probably are in fact better off letting other people argue for you.

 

 

 

Look, you guys are thinking about this the wrong way. Prior to the invasion - there was a reasonable chance Hussein COULD have had WMDs. Maybe he disarmed and maybe he didn't - if he did he would have been the first nation to actually do so under those cir!@#$%^&*stances. In Hussein's place, I would have hid them. Invading Iraq was the only way we could become positive.

 

Prior to 9/11, that wasn't good enough. Why wage war on a possibility? Aftwerwards, the reason becomes clear. If we did nothing, we risked letting Hussein get a sneak attack on us with a WMD. It was risking Iraq's innocence vs. risking our own security. Bush chose correctly.

 

Why do you thing Bush needed proof beyond shadow of doubt? Iraq isn't a citizen, its a country. Countries are man-made concepts that don't have rights of their own. What if we are wrong about Hussein and his lackeys? They clearly deserve death for other reasons, will the world stop turning if the one that finally does them in is not correct? These reasons may be good enough if nothing is at stake in peace, but with weight on the other end of the scale, they aren't good enough.

 

I mean, you can make plenty of nice-sounding words now - but prior to the invasion there was no way one could guarentee our citizens safety. We don't even know if Ritter wasn't threatened to be nice in his reports. It is not the President's job to gamble with American lives. A little more than a thousand soldiers in a small price to pay for the positivity of security of millions.

[white_0men]

A NY Times article that states the CIA Director was telling Bush different things than he told the public is a liberal that knows html?

 

Why do I think Bush needed some evidence to go to war? He's sending American troops. Those troops went over there and died because his intelligence was wrong. You have your beliefs, I have mine. No amount of deaths is ever worth it. Saddam would have to be cracked out to attack the USA, as would any other country, because they know we actually do have stockpiles of WMD's and we aren't hesitant to use them.

 

Were you afraid of Iraq before 9/11? Were you afraid of Iraq after 9/11? Were you afraid of Iraq before/during/after the invasion? I certainly wasn't.

 

And what would you call sending of a thousand troops to die while how ever many more come back injured fighting a war that didn't have to be fought. It hinges on whether or not you believe democracy is the way that they should run their country. Remember, this is a country that tells their women that the only part of their body that can be seen are their eyes and their hands. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't ready for democracy.

[Dr.Worthless]

You are so grossely misinformed Omen that its almost not worth responding to you.

 

Why do I think Bush needed some evidence to go to war?

There's alittle thing called congress that makes the decision on goin to war or not..

 

He's sending American troops. Those troops went over there and died because his intelligence was wrong.

 

And the British, Russians, Israelis, Pakistanis, etc, etc, etc.

 

You have your beliefs, I have mine. No amount of deaths is ever worth it.

Um.. ok. I feel that the 405k americans that lost their lives in world war 2 didn't die in vain. I guess you're right however, that was for sure not worth it..

 

because they know we actually do have stockpiles of WMD's and we aren't hesitant to use them.

 

Huh, we're not? How old are you again dude?

 

And what would you call sending of a thousand troops to die while how ever many more come back injured fighting a war that didn't have to be fought.

English.

 

Remember, this is a country that tells their women that the only part of their body that can be seen are their eyes and their hands.

 

You're kidding right? Iraq already has women parlimentary members. Women gained more civil rights when the US occupied than they ever had in the history of the middle east...

[MonteZuma]

...multiple intelligence agencies still said that they had stockpiles of weapons, even AFTER the inspectors.

Only the intelligence agencies of coalition countries said that. I think that the agencies may have been manipulated or coerced (consciously or unconciously). Perhaps even intelligence analysts will believe anything if their political masters say something often enough? Obviously they also used very poor quality intelligence. Remember the PhD thesis that Blair used? LOL

 

Besides, The inspectors never got 100% free reign to do their jobs. "No weapons " was at best a guess.

That isn't what Hans Blix said. Blix said he could go wherever he wanted, whenever he wanted without alerting the Iraqis. The idea that he couldn't was perpetuated by coalition governments that were intent on invading Iraq regardless of the weapons program. their hidden agenda was regime change. WMDs was the cover.

[Dr.Worthless]

I think that the agencies may have been manipulated or coerced (consciously or unconciously).

 

Oh, you think that the intelligence is lies, sorry I didnt realize that. Obviously then we shouldn't have believed it.

[Aileron]

Yeah, why are we stupid enough to use our intelligence sources when we have that magical-hindsight 20/20 crystal ball of yours?