who here still thinks we weren't lied to about entering iraq

[blu]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

 

[DiveCon]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

 

[rdean]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

That's one.

Next?

 

[blu]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

do things like this change your mind:

Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq memo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

specifically the parts about going no matter if there were WMDs or not? and do you really think our intel was that bad that it got hte 9/11 link and WMDs wrong? it sounds just like the vietnam war justification (lie) that people still believe

 

[Si modo]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

Right.

 

[DiveCon]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

do things like this change your mind:

Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq memo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

specifically the parts about going no matter if there were WMDs or not? and do you really think our intel was that bad that it got hte 9/11 link and WMDs wrong? it sounds just like the vietnam war justification (lie) that people still believe

you mean that fake "downing street memo"?

 

[DiveCon]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

That's one.

Next?

thanks for showing you are a fucking idiots once again

 

[RadiomanATL]

Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.

So were we lied to? No.

Deceived? Yup.

 

[rdean]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

Right.

Two?

 

[rdean]

Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.

So were we lied to? No.

Deceived? Yup.

Three?

 

[Si modo]

For anyone who is interested:

....

The War

Al Qaeda was the classic failure for the CIA. Al Qaeda was not a national government but a small, apparently eccentric, collection of Islamists. This was already outside of the CIA's sweet spot. The Sept. 11 attacks were completely outside the paradigm that the CIA -- and others, including STRATFOR -- was working with. The model of terrorism they had studied for a generation did not include an attack of this order. Therefore, since the CIA was dealing with a non-state group and with a historical discontinuity, the agency continued its record for getting it wrong.

The problem the CIA has is that it also failed in what was supposed to be its sweet spot -- covert gathering of intelligence from senior state officials in Iraq concerning a war that had been going on, in effect, since 1990. There were no surprises here, no discontinuities, no funky, off-the-wall groups. This was mainline intelligence-gathering.

It was here that the CIA made the core mistakes:

1. It did not tell either Presidents Bill Clinton or George W. Bush that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It told both of them that it did.
2. It did not understand Saddam Hussein's war plan and did not warn Bush that the fall of Baghdad would trigger an organized guerrilla war. Warning of unrest is absolutely not the same as warning of a war plan.
3. It did not provide clear intelligence on the status of the Shia in Iraq and the degree of organization that had been achieved by Iranian intelligence.

....

The Crisis in the CIA

 

[DiveCon]

Being lied to and deceived are not necessarily the same thing.

So were we lied to? No.

Deceived? Yup.

Three?

keep proving me right for calling you a moron

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

While I agree with your post Dive, I also think that former President Bush would have gone in regardless. As you know, he is big on the idea of spreading Democracy and being the world police.

 

[DiveCon]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

While I agree with your post Dive, I also think that former President Bush would have gone in regardless. As you know, he is big on the idea of spreading Democracy and being the world police.

this is true
he was
but we have no proof he lied, we know that a lot of the intel was severely wrong.

i supported going in, only wished it had been 12 years sooner when we had 500,000 troops already there and were already half way to Baghdad

 

[rubberhead]

I was wondering who were still thinks the American people were given factual information before invading Iraq or that Bush wasn't going to start a war no matter what the results of WMD searches were? If you think factual information was given regarding WMDS, iraq-9/11 link, or anything else please list it.

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

That's one.

Next?

I think that the Bush admin. has all but admitted that they lied to us. There is only a lunatic fringe who still believes that the original intelligence was not at least incorrect, at worst deliberately manipulated.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

how about no one was lied to, just we had piss poor intel on the issue

While I agree with your post Dive, I also think that former President Bush would have gone in regardless. As you know, he is big on the idea of spreading Democracy and being the world police.

this is true
he was
but we have no proof he lied, we know that a lot of the intel was severely wrong.

i supported going in, only wished it had been 12 years sooner when we had 500,000 troops already there and were already half way to Baghdad

I don't buy into the Bush lied and people died mantra. I didn't agree with going in as you know. I disagreed with former President Bush on a lot of points. In the area of foreign policy, I will give him credit for being consistent even though I disagreed with him.

 

[rdean]

Come on people. Get real.

George Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq because he understood the cost of "nation building". Does anyone think he never discussed it with his son? Never?

Bush Jr. on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity to "bring democracy" to the Middle East. His "talking to God", his use of the word "Crusade". This guy lived a privileged life. He never understood how the world works. He was tricked into the invasion by neocons who were blinded by oil and dollar signs.

Iraq had gone through two huge disasters. They lost most of a generation from an eight year war with Iran and most of their military was destroyed by us driving them out of Kuwait.

They had no industry and no manufacturing. They had oil and dates.

The "evidence" from the CIA was manufactured because of pressure from the Bush administration.

No Proof Connects Iraq to 9/11, Bush Says - Los Angeles Times

Bush had no connection, ever, between Saddam and Bin Laden. Especially funny is that Bin Laden referred to Saddam as a "socialist". Isn't that funny?

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34715.pdf

Bush saw himself as the "great decider". He saw this opportunity and took it. If he had understood the difference between Sunni and Shiite and understood the complexities, he might have actually succeeded - in Afghanistan, simply because he had the entire world behind him.

Iraq was under sanctions. Every single weapon was purchased from western and eastern countries, including us.

Iraq was composed of Kurds (a sect of Sunni), Sunni, Christian and Shiite. It was controlled by an iron hand. Saddam never denied weapons because he never believed Bush would invade (his father didn't) and if he showed weakness, his people might revolt.

Saddam killed members of his own family to stay in power. He would never invite a threat to his power, Bin Laden, into his country. That's crazy.

The press knew all of this and could have reported it at any time, but they were so afraid if this administration (you are with us, or with the terrorists), they didn't.

My feeling is that it's hard to point blame. America voted Bush into office. He was under qualified for the job. It was way over his head. The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. Anti education. Anti science. This was the "perfect storm". Can it really be someone's "fault" if they were stupid to begin with?

 

[Modbert]

Things never really change:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c]YouTube - George Carlin - We Like War[/ame]

Sometimes during that rant, one could swear he is referring to 2003/today.

As to why we shouldn't of gone into Iraq, I'll let this man explain:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

....

The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. ... Anti science. ....

Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

....

The Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right wing. ... Anti science. ....

Without addressing the rest of the bullshit in your post, stop playing at knowing what you are talking about:

Here is a summary of the federal expenditures for scientific research and development during the time that president was in office*:

Eisenhower [R] –-- 177% increase in federal expenditures for scientific R&D

Kennedy [D] (during his tragically short time in office) –-- 25.9% increase

Johnson [D] –-- 18.9% increase

Nixon [R] –-- 17.1% decrease

Ford [R] –-- 1.41% increase

Carter [D] –-- 9.90% increase

Reagan [R] –-- 43.1% increase

GHW Bush [R] –-- 11.2% decrease

Clinton [D] –-- 5.82% decrease

GW Bush [R] –-- 23.8% increase

So, it appears that, regardless of the party in office, some cuts occurred and some fabulous increases occurred. No matter how much one may want to vilify one party, it doesn’t appear as if the facts will support it. My apologies for any dashed hopes of making this a partisan issue.




* Data obtained from here: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbri...17/figure3.xls

There's more.

2004 R&D Expenditures (to academia, for example; in millions of dollars)

DHHS --- 14,083.356
NSF --- 3,231.597
DoD --- 2,477.556
NASA --- 1,098.480
DOE --- 940.268
USDA --- 760.970

2005

DHHS --- 15,869.380
NSF --- 3,553.672
DoD --- 2,614.734
NASA --- 1,130.168
DOE --- 1,055.302
USDA --- 814.067

2006

DHHS --- 17,052.404
NSF --- 3,567.011
DoD --- 2,718.166
DOE --- 1,118.454
NASA --- 1,046.891
USDA --- 868.891

nsf.gov - SRS Federal R&D Funding Down in FY 2007 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

This is the post-doubling period, too. There is plenty of data available from the NSF. There is not much partisan about the spending trends in the sciences.

You have a lot of nerve posting such rational and objective data. How dare you.