TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq Had No WMD Stockpiles
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Who was it that supplied Iraq with the money and weapons in the first place?? Oh yeah, that's right, the USA.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX - Yes, there was evidence that Iraq once had WMD. Now, there was NO evidence if they destroyed them, or not. One of the reasons why at the end Germany and France strongly went against a war, was because last minute intelligence, somewhat started to suggest that Saddam MAY have got rid of the weapons, so did the Chief Weapons Inspector, Hanx Blix, who because of that, asked for more time. But Bush administration, blindly believed on a every piece/small evidence given, not even proving it to be right/correct evidence ( Uranium in Africa, all those chemical facilities with supposed Chemical Weapons ) .. and well, all the things he had mentioned on the State of The Union to the American public. Bush administration did not back up, and it was obvious enough, because Bush WANTED Saddam out of power, no matter what. Overall, THIS did not, and still Does not Justify a country to go to war.. the US commited an act of IMPERIALISM, and its a big shame that the US intelligence was SO wrong.. it has lost lots of credibility, although the ones looking dirty are the Bush Administration. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi And what about the drug dealer that wanted to make a quick buck by using you? You don't hide the receipt for the coke under the bed, in fact you have shown many people exactly who you bought the drugs from. So who is worse, the drug users, or the drug traffickers and dealers  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vigilante Who was it that supplied Iraq with the money and weapons in the first place?? Oh yeah, that's right, the USA. |
| quote: |
| I imagine that most drug deals don't involve printed receipts. And I am not entirely sure what you're trying to say, either. I guess you're implying that the U.S. is just as guilty than Iraq (or more guilty) for supplying them with the WMDs? While you may choose to see it this way, it makes no more sense than saying that gun merchants across the USA are responsible for deaths caused by criminals who purchase their weapons. When you supply someone with a weapon, you don't know what they will use it for. Besides which, the USA was only partially responsible for Saddam's government. To imply that they single-handedly put him in power and gave him WMDs is... well... wrong. |
Well at least Saddamn ain't pretenting he's hiding a horde of WMD anymore. The only thing he's trying to hide now is his asshole in prison!
Lol!
[[[smoke]]]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vigilante Who was it that supplied Iraq with the money and weapons in the first place?? Oh yeah, that's right, the USA. |
can't argue with emoticons 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi can't argue with emoticons |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DigiNut
If I am to understand the basis of your post (and believe me, you aren't making it easy with your grammar), you've essentially chosen not to dispute that there was pre-existing evidence for Iraq's possession of WMDs and only a minute amount of evidence to the contrary. You've stated that:
(a) A small amount of evidence had been gathered which suggested that Iraq may have disposed of its WMDs. The USA was told to "hold on a moment." They jumped the gun on it anyway, presumably because they thought it was better to be safe than sorry. Occam's razor here, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one - the USA didn't want to take any chances. Now, this may have been poor judgment on their part, which I don't deny; however, it is totally unfair to accuse Bush and his government "thugs" of having "sinister" intentions in all of this without a good deal of proof, of which I have seen none. The evidence only suggests that Iraq probably doesn't have WMDs - there is no proof of Bush's "imperialistic intentions" in all of this, and it frightens me to hear that kind of talk because it's the same talk that comes out of the mouths of extremists and terrorists.
(b) The USA's intelligence was wrong. Well, yes, although I think it would be more correct to say that their intelligence was incomplete. The evidence they had DID point to the existence of WMDs - they just hadn't gathered enough objective evidence to point AWAY from the existence of WMDs. You have to bear in mind that it's far more difficult to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does. Again, I don't dispute that they failed in their duties, but it would be presumptuous to imply that they had any kind of secret agenda here.
I think everyone should take note of the irony of all these people crucifying Bush and U.S. intelligence without proper evidence to support their claims. You are doing to Bush precisely what you claim he did to Iraq.
- OMG!. Well, Bush is the chief inspector of the United States. He is to make the most accurate decisions, especially on a WAR, where not only Iraquis lifes, but where American lifes are to be in danger. Its not a game, but sadly, it all seems to me that it was all politicized. Every decision making its upon this president, and his administration, therefore, making him in charge of the decisions DONE to invade Iraq. I just wonder, what proper evidence DO YOU want in order to not blame the president and US intelligence. Yes, we could also blame the foreign intelligence, the UN, and the list could go on.. but the realy problem rely's on how the misinformed information was passed to this administration, and blindingly, without any exceptions, nor more time given, the US president DECLARED war on Iraq, BECAUSE Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destructions, and THERE was concrete evidence of this... Today, all that is BS, who should we blame then? where is the irony?!?!.. but its ok. You are a supporter of his, and you are just a person that believes the war was justified. Understandable, I dont expect 100% of the people to believe that, right?.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by smokeape Well at least Saddamn ain't pretenting he's hiding a horde of WMD anymore. The only thing he's trying to hide now is his asshole in prison! Lol! [[[smoke]]] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO that cant be!!USA is the most peaceful nation on earth,and they want peace for all other countries as well. |
Some Boortz commentary from this morning.
| quote: |
| At this point we all realize that there were some serious problems with the intelligence information being supplied to President Bush prior to the liberation of Iraq. Based on that intelligence information Bush thought that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that could be pressed into service in short order. Not only did George Bush believe this intelligence information, but so did quite a few other people. Do you need some reminders? OK .. here goes. On October 9, 1998 some members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Bill Clinton expressing their concerns about Saddam and his weapons program. That letter contained this paragraph: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry .. three Senators, one a probable Democratic nominee for president, who are now slamming George Bush for acting on the very intelligence they relied on for their 1998 letter to their president, Bill Clinton. Carl Levin is particularly obnoxious. I saw him on some talking head show earlier this week pressing the idea that Bush should have known that the intelligence information he was relying on was faulty. In September of 2002 Levin said "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Levin, it seems, believed the exact same intelligence information that Bush relied on ... and now he's faulting Bush. How about some other names of people who believed that Saddam had a weapons program and a stockpile of WMDs? Let's put Nancy Pelosi on that list, and there's Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Al Gore said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Ted Kennedy said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." How about some more from John Kerry? On October 9th of last year Kerry said "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real grave threat to our security." In January of this year Kerry said "So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Now we are hearing doubts about the quality of that intelligence. Maybe Saddam didn't have the weapons. Maybe he shipped them out to Syria and Iran. Maybe his own scientists were telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. OK .. let me try to create a little scenario for you. Let's say that NASA scientists together with experts from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California suddenly discover that there is a 15-mile-wide asteroid heading for the earth. If that asteroid strikes the earth millions of people will die. The president of the United States orders a very expensive crash program to develop a response. Billions of dollars are poured into an all-out project to develop and launch a dozen nuclear-tipped rockets toward the asteroid to destroy it before it crashes into the earth. To fund the project billions are taken from various social projects. People suffer. The deficit blossoms. A debt is created that our grandchildren will have to pay. The project is successful. The missiles score a direct hit on the asteroid and it is blasted into thousands of smaller fragments. Unfortunately some of those fragments are still large enough to cause severe damage and kill hundreds of people when they crash into the earth. Later, after the danger is past, we discover that the NASA scientists who originally warned of the threat from this asteroid made a little mathematical miscalculation. The asteroid was actually going to pass harmlessly between the moon and the earth. We now know that all of that money was wasted. Not only that, but those people who died when smaller fragments hit the earth would still be alive today if the asteroid had just been left alone. Who do we blame here? Do we blame the president? He was acting on the information available to him at the time. He had no real choice but to trust that information. To ignore the warnings of the impending strike could be to pass a death sentence on millions. You can't condemn the president for acting on information that he, and the rest of the world, thought to be correct. Another quicker example. A surgeon finds a lump in your breast. He wants to do a biopsy. A test of the lump shows it to be benign. Do you condemn the doctor because he didn't know that the growth was benign before he went in there with a scalpel? Now, after Saddam has been deposed and after Iraq has been liberated, we find that some of the intelligence information was faulty. What do we do? Blame Bush for acting on information that was believed to be true at the time action was taken? All of this 20-20 hindsight is wonderful, but when it comes to the defense of our country you can act on what you think might be true in 12 months, you act on what you believe to be true right now. A bloodthirsty dictator has been removed from power. Rape rooms are no longer in operation in Iraq. The torture chambers have been shut down. Mass graves containing hundreds of thousands have been uncovered. Saddam will never again use chemicals to kill tens of thousands of his enemies. And this is somehow bad? |
- Well Shakka, that article makes a point, but not the right one. It Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq because of how bad Saddam Hussein was, and because he was killing his people ( or killed ), would be different ( still thats not a threat to the US ). If it were for that, why didnt we invade Cuba?? I mean.. people are starving and dying there, or perhaps China..?.. Just excuses for Bush to look for another alternative to justify the invasion.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX - Well Shakka, that article makes a point, but not the right one. It Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq because of how bad Saddam Hussein was, and because he was killing his people ( or killed ), would be different ( still thats not a threat to the US ). If it were for that, why didnt we invade Cuba?? I mean.. people are starving and dying there, or perhaps China..?.. Just excuses for Bush to look for another alternative to justify the invasion. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Looks like you read absolutely nothing in that article except the last paragraph. Try again, and please, try to make your contributions more... comprehensible, for want of a better word. |
| quote: |
| 2001: WH Admits Iraq Contained; Creates Agency to Circumvent Intel Agencies In 2001 and before, intelligence agencies noted that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained after the Gulf War. In fact, former weapons inspector David Kay now admits that the previous policy of containment � including the 1998 bombing of Iraq � destroyed any remaining infrastructure of potential WMD programs. OCTOBER 8, 1997 � IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997�and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98] FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 � COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01] SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 � CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" � a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001] SEPTEMBER 2001 � WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States�The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03] 2002: Intel Agencies Repeatedly Warn White House of Its Weak WMD Case Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored. JANUARY, 2002 � TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] FEBRUARY 6, 2002 � CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NO WMD, AND HAS NOT PROVIDED AL QAEDA WMD: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02] APRIL 15, 2002 � WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz �hit the ceiling� because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02] SUMMER, 2002 � CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03] SEPTEMBER, 2002 � DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is �no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.�" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002] SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 � DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes �are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs� a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02] OCTOBER 2002 � CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03] OCTOBER 2002 � STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department�s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq�s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003] OCTOBER 2002 � AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" � a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03] 2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House�s claims were not well-grounded. LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 � CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was �unremitting,� said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03] JANUARY, 2003 � STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03] FEBRUARY 14, 2003 � UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03] FEBRUARY 15, 2003 � IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03] FEBURARY 24, 2003 � CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE �NO DIRECT EVIDENCE� OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no �direct evidence� that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. �We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,� said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03] MARCH 7, 2003 � IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush�s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03] MAY 30, 2003 � INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ] JUNE 6, 2003 � INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03] January 28, 2004 Updated January 29, 2004 Former weapons inspector David Kay now says Iraq probably did not have WMD before the war, a major blow to the Bush Administration which used the WMD argument as the rationale for war. Unfortunately, Kay and the Administration are now attempting to shift the blame for misleading America onto the intelligence community. But a review of the facts shows the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about the weakness of its case, but was circumvented, overruled, and ignored. The following is year-by-year timeline of those warnings. http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=24889 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX - Well Shakka, that article makes a point, but not the right one. It Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq because of how bad Saddam Hussein was, and because he was killing his people ( or killed ), would be different ( still thats not a threat to the US ). If it were for that, why didnt we invade Cuba?? I mean.. people are starving and dying there, or perhaps China..?.. Just excuses for Bush to look for another alternative to justify the invasion. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka What I glean from the article is just how hypocritical and politically motivated people like Kerry, Levin, et al are being. They all acted on the same intelligence that Bush did, and they took their stance before Bush was even in office to push his plans forward. Make of it what you will, I think you should re-read it though. If you happened to watch Tenet's speech this morning, he also made an excellent rebuttal to a lot of the criticism and revisionist historians out there. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rizen yeah good thing the Kurds captured him. As a reward they should get their own country, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX - Like saying that the intelligence they gather and actions, will never be completely right nor wrong? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider YES. However, the bush administration is still libel for its actions. Despite the fact that there may have been evidence indicating wmds in Iraq, the decision to take a country to a costly war MANDATES a degree of CERTAINTY far greater than the Bush administration provided. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MrSquirrel I think you mean "liable" perchance? Have you been drinking tonight occrider? Your posts seem to be lacking the usual coherence MrS |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I said liable ... I have no idea of what you're talking about |
i am denying all involvment in this affair.
no further comment.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.