Algore would have invaded Iraq

[Truthmatters]

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq



BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

 

[Truthmatters]

Think Progress » National Intel Director: Bush Admin. Manipulated Iraq Intel ‘Because They Didn’t Like The Answers’


McConnell decried the “secondary unit” established within the Pentagon to “reinterpret information” prior to the war. An internal Pentagon investigation released in February revealed that former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith utilized the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group within the Pentagon to create and promote false links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Specifically, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz “asked Feith’s analysts to ignore the intelligence community’s belief that the militant Islamist al-Qaida and Saddam’s secular dictatorship were unlikely allies.” Subsequently, Feith “disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship…to senior decision-makers.”

McConnell stated, “The way you do intelligence is all sources considered. You have to factor one issue against the other and balance it.” Four years later, this administration is still reinterpreting intelligence.

 

[DiveCon]

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush Administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq



BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

Blix is doing CYA, nothing more

 

[Truthmatters]

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience


Note the date?


4/30/2004 6:54 AM

Poll: Iraqis out of patience
By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll

 

[Truthmatters]

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Hans Blix before we invaded:
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

 

[Gord]

To actually fight the people who attacked us on 911 instead of having a war for oil in Iraq.

All of your posts to this point have been nothing but dodges. Go back and read my post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iraq/66348-algore-would-have-invaded-iraq.html#post960420

and tell me what your choice would have been...

 

[Truthmatters]

I read the clap trap and answered it .

Hans Blix said the inspections were working , Bush invaded anyway and guess what Hans Blix was right.

Now you want to blame Al Gore for the mess.

You people are the most dishonest people there are.

 

[Truthmatters]

You built your house on sand my friend and your little questions are false because your whole premise is flawed

 

[DiveCon]

I read the clap trap and answered it .

Hans Blix said the inspections were working , Bush invaded anyway and guess what Hans Blix was right.

Now you want to blame Al Gore for the mess.

You people are the most dishonest people there are.

no, moron, no one is blaming AlGore
we are saying he would have had the SAME INTEL

 

[Gord]

You built your house on sand my friend and your little questions are false because your whole premise is flawed

Were you born stupid or do you really have to work at it?

I granted that you could have your way and convinced Bush not to go to war. Natually that brings up the question of what next?

Here are your alternatives of going to war:


1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.


2. Lift the UN sanctions against Iraq and allow Saddam to freely participate in worldwide trade and commerce. This might eventually save hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from certain death brought on by starvation and lack of medicine, depending on whether Saddam diverted money to these problems. But it would not necessarily halt Saddam's mass murdering. It would also allow Saddam to develop his oil fields, bringing in huge profits to be spent as he pleased. Of course this would include building his military, developing his WMD programs, including reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, and resuming his harboring, training and funding of international terrorism. This would most certainly have been seen by other rogue countries and terrorist groups as a complete capitulation by the West, and that America and the West could be defeated.


So now what is your choice? The cost of the war has undoubtedly been high for America in terms of casualties, money and reputation. But what of the costs of the alternatives? Would either alternative have saved casualties, money or America's reputation? 9/11 alone cost America over 3,000 of her citizens and almost two trillion dollars in the financial markets (*11). Would have being branded as paper tigers reduced the likelihood of further terrorist attacks on American soil and throughout the world? Or would it have encouraged even more terrorism, especially with an emboldened Saddam Hussein harboring, training and financing further terrorism, and potentially supplying terrorist groups with WMDs? And what of Iraq's innocent citizens? After the fiasco of the hundreds of thousands mass murdered in Rwanda (*12), and the hundreds of thousands of already needless deaths in Iraq, would you have been willing to turn your back on hundreds of thousands more in Iraq? These were your choices: Invasion with thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and a suffering of America's reputation. Or a retreating America seen as ripe for defeat by emboldened rogue nations and terror groups, likely resulting in increased worldwide terrorism, maybe eventually with Saddam supplied WMDs. No doubt that WMD terror attacks would have spawned new wars and destroyed the worldwide economy if the response to 9/11 is any indication. And would Libya and North Korea have voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons programs? Not likely. Can anyone reasonably argue that the world would be safer and more stable if Saddam had been allowed to continue as ruler of Iraq? (*13)

 

[Truthmatters]

why are those the only choices?


Because your writer is an partisan hack who based this shit on lies.

There were no WMDs or AQ contacts with Sadam and the intell people have stated that.

 

[Truthmatters]

no, moron, no one is blaming AlGore
we are saying he would have had the SAME INTEL

Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man - Americas, World - The Independent



And Bush and team cherry picked the intell which Gore would not have done

 

[DiveCon]

why are those the only choices?


Because your writer is an partisan hack who based this shit on lies.

There were no WMDs or AQ contacts with Sadam and the intell people have stated that.

wrong again, moron

there WERE WMD, just not the stockpiles that were expected

and there were connections to Al Qaeda via the oil for food program

 

[DiveCon]

Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man - Americas, World - The Independent



And Bush and team cherry picked the intell which Gore would not have done

the independent is a rag

 

[Truthmatters]

It was broadcast on 60 minutes you fool.

 

[Truthmatters]

wrong again, moron

there WERE WMD, just not the stockpiles that were expected

and there were connections to Al Qaeda via the oil for food program

There were no viable WMDs and to pretend their was is just insanity.

Go get the proof of what you claim.

 

[Truthmatters]

Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

The Bush team altered the intell results

 

[DiveCon]

It was broadcast on 60 minutes you fool.

same thing you moron

 

[Truthmatters]

If Al Gore had been president then 911 may have been stopped instead of allowed to happen.

 

[DiveCon]

Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

The Bush team altered the intell results

and now the puffington post
LOL
what a fucking moronic clown you are