Iraq Redux

What ever became of all of those mobile chemical weapons labs Colin Powell showed us?

Actually, I know what became of them. They couldn't go 'poof' because they weren't there to begin with. The question is, why aren't the people who provided us with that 'intelligence' facing charges? With 5000 dead kids, treason is probably too light of a charge.

 

This thread could potentially pull us into some very heavy 'one world government' conspiracy stuff.

 

We gotta start with our own governement before moving onto the world government. Let's face it, the American people were sold a pig in a poke by SOMEBODY.

 

Why would they face charges?

Inaccurate intel is not a crime.

In fact, one could argue that it is more the rule than the exception.

And who are these "5,000 dead kids"?

I would wager than every U.S. soldier killed in Iraq was old enough to vote thus they are an adult by definition.

 

Sure it is. Knowingly providing or receiving. And I'd bet a chimp could prove a pattern.

And only a neocon America-seconder would want to sweep this under a rug.

 

You should blame democrats that agreed and voted to go to war

 

There has not been a shred of evidence of deliberate deception regarding Iraqi intelligence by the Bush Admin.

And if a "chimp could prove a pattern" then why haven't you?

 

Asked and answered. First, Jane Harmon (D-CA) says they were lied to. Second, you can't expect people to make the right decision based on contrived 'facts'.

 

1) There have been hundreds of shreds. 2) I'd be happy to prove a pattern, but I'd need unfettered access to Bushco records. You willing to provide that? I'll start with Cheney's energy task for minutes and take it from there.

 

Here's your chance to prove to us once and for all that your intellect soars above a chimp's.

Prove it.

 

Ah. Asked and answered. You need to be more than a chimp: you need to already have proof in your hands before you can declare that there is proof.

Gotcha.

 

Feel free if you want to waste your time.

Any argument that the administration did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq fall apart on any logical examination.

You are arguing that

1) The Bush Admin. deliberately falsified evidence or accepted questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

2) That they then used that evidence to support an invasion of Iraq.

3) The invasion would inevitably reveal that they lied in the first place.

In short, completely ridiculous.

 

They were lied to? You mean they did not do their Job. If they were lied to Bush was lied to so like democrats Bush is not to blame

 

I guess President Bill Clinton pummeling Iraq for EIGHT years with air strikes was also part of this grand deception on the part of Bush Admin. and the neoconservatives as well.........

Funny how liberals forget about all the bombings of Iraq while Bill was president.

 

On the other hand, the fact that not a single WMD was found after Shock 'n Awe (despite a half million GIs frantically looking for them) would tend to support the argument, would it not? But I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt - I think he left it up to Rummy and Dickie and various and sundry Israeli agents and told them "just don't tell me about it." It was a favorite Reagan ploy.

 

Could you provide a source for that? I looked and couldn't find one.

 

You think.

Let me ask you. And please be honest.

President Clinton seriously considered ordering a U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1998. U.S. News & World Report had a complete cover story on the potential invasion. Command magazine had as one of its feature stories "Back to Iraq" with a detailed order of battle for a possible invasion.

Would you have supported President Clinton invading Iraq in 1998?

Did you support President Clinton bombing Iraq with ever growing intensity for 8 years?

What if President Bush had chosen not to invade? Would you have supported Bush continuing the Clinton policy and bombing Iraq for another 8 years with greater and greater intensity.

 

No, I wouldn't have supported Clinton if he had invaded Iraq. You see, Clinton was doing what they call 'sabre-rattling'. He didn't feel the need for an all-out invasion (assuming he was reading off basically the same sheet of music Bush had) or he would have invaded.

9/11 changed everything (Bush said it) and it gave him additional cover for an invasion that he had wanted since the end of Gulf War I. Unfortunately, 9/11 had next to nothing to do with Iraq. And the invasion had nothing to do with intel.

 

You see, that's the thing with crimes. The crime happens, then you investigate. Just because the crime doesn't come complete with proof doesn't mean you cancel the investigation.

 

The revision of history by the left will not stand as long as we have the exact words from far too many of their heroes and the world on the matter.

Let's review:

I have many many many more.... do you revisionists want them too?

Here is another fantastic article on the subject.

WikiLeaks Vindicate George W. Bush

The attempt to re-write history in the National (Democratic Party) Media and by Liberal drones is insulting to any honest person.

 

You know who also said Iraq had WMD's? Hans Blix

... and a few intelligence agencies like: Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with Hans Blix.

 

No matter.

WMDs were only the most public of reasons to invade Iraq because a Bush Admin. official said they were the easiest to understand and explain.

In my history classes, I teach that there were five primary reasons for the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 

Sounds to me they were all reading from the same sheet of AIPAC-fed music. I haven't seen so many "there is no question", "there is no doubt", and "we all agreed" type statements in one post in my life.

Turns out there really WAS doubt and question because absolutely nothing was found, eh? But I agree, anybody who assisted is the dissemination of that type of intelligence??? to the American public is just as guilty and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. You don't just read somebody else's bogus report and concur and hope to remain out of prison.

 

Ridiculous.

A person goes to the doctor to have a growth examined.

A doctors believes it to be cancer. Another doctor believes it to be cancer. A third doctor believes it to be cancer.

The first doctor operates and removes the growth. Turns out is was not cancer.

No one lied. No one is guilty of anything.

You can do everything right and still be wrong you know.

Why don't you blame Saddam Hussien?

He was apparently actively promoting the idea that he still had WMDs hoping to scare off potential attackers.

A man who is a proven murderer emerges from a building, says he has a gun and will use it.

He starts pulling something from his pocket and the police shoot him dead.

It is not the police's fault when it turns out to have been a cell phone.

 

Let's press on with the analogy. If three doctors say there is no cancer and it turns out they mistook a football-sized tumor for your stomach, they all three gotta pay up.