- Thread starter
- #61
Their can be little doubt the decision to wage this war came from the Whitehouse. The lobbying of the congress and the UN was done with the intell that they provided. The president wasted few oppurtunities to spread this deceat, giving four policy speeches in as many months quoting chapter and verse from the erronious intel. He is the president of the United States, he isn't responsible for the words that come out of his mouth, who is?
The lobbying that was done was with intelligence gathered from the CIA, NSA, DIA, US Military, Britain's Joint Intelligence committee, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghan intelligence agency, ISI from Pakistan, German intelligence, and yes - even some from the French. To claim the intel came solely from the White House is simply being uninformed.
I have no emotional investment in GWB one way or the other. Mostly I find him kind of...simple. Simple in his outlook on the world, equally simple in his proposed solutions. For this reason I have no faith in his expensive and extreme policies and would be happy to seem him defeated on '04.
What can be simpler than a bunch of democrats that read intel from at least 11 independent agencies and vote for invasion to remove the problem, only to turn around later and claim they were misled. Making it out to seem as if the White House received data that was confidential to the rest of the governing community is a mistake. Of course, certain portions of the data was highlighted in it's delivery, but I'd hate to think the democrats aren't intelligent enough to formulate their own conclusions.
We're a little far down the road to be blaming Hussein for this, don't you think? He was an idiot, now let's figure out who the idiot was who couldn't figure that out.
The entire world knew Saddam was an idiot. It appears the majority of our government was responsible for relying on what could turn out to be faulty intel, as was Britain's.
There is allready evidence, in the senate intelligence committee. They are going to be putting out a report shortly, at that point I will be more inclined to discuss criminal behavior on the part of the administration.
No, there is speculation. Evidence leads to charges, which there are none of yet, and most likely won't be.
Why are we getting the bill for Iraqi "freedom"? If the world needed to remove this menace, why wouldn't the world act. The reasop is he is hardly the only bloodthirsty maniac to run a third world country. He just had the misfortune to do that atop the second largest oil reserve on the face of the planet.
The majority, yes, but other countries made contributions to the rebuild effort as well, and some gave up Iraqi debt. Tsk, tsk, bringing up that 'ol Oil theory again, huh? LOL I've seen it about 50,000 times now and have yet to see a shred of evidence in support.
What do you stand for, Jim? What would I have to show you to prove to you that we were led down the primrose path by these clowns, and then how far would you be willing to go to see that it did not happen again?
I was hardly led down any path by anyone. I made up my own mind by reading data from all over the world, interviews, resolutions in the UN laid down by various countries, our countries leader, our Senate, our House of Representatives and Iraq's own history of terror. Should solid proof be found that anyone lied at any point, they should immediately be brought up on criminal charges. It won't happen though as we are all being yanked by political mudslinging at this point, when it comes to the Law - nothing of value will be produced (unless you are a conspiracy theorist and rely on information that our court system does not)