So, now White House says that they were missled about WMD in Iraq by bad intelligence.BS!
The most powerfull nation in the World ,with most sophisticated surveillance satellites ,spying on every inch of Iraq 24 hours a day,listening devices planted all over Iraq and with two no flying zones in north and south and they were misled by bad intelligence?What a bunch of crap are they saying! Who they think we are ?
PS. sorry for the rant but after watching TV and reading news papers I just can not comprehend how they can still lie to us, and no one takes any responsibility for the fiasco.In my view, whole Administration should imediatelly stand trial for the treason!!
Hey, don’t ask me. I remember Powell showing me the exact locations and even pictures of the moble labs. 
Yeah, they wish! Err, what was the question?
How come the OP is dated “Today 3:05 AM”?
You know, this is very upsetting to me.
Because I fell for it. I really believed that there were WMDs and Hussein had 'em and he was gonna throw 'em at us. And when we weren’t finding them and Bush and Co. started blaming bad intelligence, I bought that, too. Because I mean, hey, why would Bush lie? My president wouldn’t lie to me about something like this. Lie about sleeping with an intern, fine, but something this important? It doesn’t make any sense.
Then I saw Moore’s F 9/11. And during that movie I had an epiphany. Ohmagod, I said. They lied. They flat out lied!
The whole thing baffles me, I still have a hard time understanding why they lied. Sometimes I find myself thinking that maybe it was just bad intelligence and that Bush is innocent of being a bastard.
These lapses are a lot like being a recovering Catholic. Every now and again when you’re really scared and you want to start praying to God, then you remember you don’t believe in Him.
To quote Friends, “You’re looking for something more sophisticated than ‘to get you into bed?’”
They lied for the same reason any politician lies. To steer the public into backing their position, even though they wouldn’t if they made a rational evaluation of the facts in the matter.
Well, I understand the purpose of a lie. I’m just asking why did they lie? To get cheap oil? To take over the world? To get more business for Bush’s corporate friends (Haliburton, etc.). I suspect the answer to these examples is “yes”. For all these reasons. What’s hard to believe is that Bush and Co. would kill hundreds (going to thousands) of American lives for financial profit. I mean, that is actually evil.
I can’t believe the argument that Bush did it to save the Iraq people or Afgani people because we’re out there slaughtering these innocent people.The argument I could believe was that we were saving ourselves from Hussein’s WMDs. But if they’re not there, and NATO knew they weren’t there and told Dubya not to go to war for this reason, well then all I’m left with is that Bush is doing this for profit for family and friends, and that makes him flat out evil in my book.
BTW, I know I’m using the word “evil” so much only because Dubya started it.
They thought it was the right thing to do. Chew on that one for a minute.
::chew, chew::
Hmmm.
::chew, chew::
Tastes a lot like my cud.
Here is one possibility: If OBL had been taken into custody or killed early in the Afghanistan campaign, Iraq would never have happened.
After 9/11, Bush knew he needed a big foreign policy victory prior to this upcoming election. And when your hammer is the world’s greatest military superpower, you begin looking for nails. And Bush was getting screwed by OBL - the hammer wasn’t working in that context.
Oil, Iraqi liberation, WMD, etc. were simply the excuse to swing the hammer.
McLaughlin (of McLaughlin News Hour) just said that he anticipates an October Surprise of stockpiles od WMD in Iraq.
He’s an old coot who’s been around a bit. Wonder why he thinks that?
If the Iraqis had nuclear, biologicial, or chemical weapons, why the hell didn’t they use them? These are weapons of last resort. When the enemy is bearing down on your capital and you’ve got a trump card, that’s the time to play it.
This is the way I felt. I openly admit I had my doubts about Bush going back to his campaign and voted for Gore. But when he stood there and said there were WMD’s in Iraq I believed him. Partly it was because I figured that was the kind of thing Saddam Hussein would do. But mostly I believed him because I didn’t think an American President would lie about something as important as going to war.
And now I’m doing something the President won’t do. I’ll admit I was wrong.
:dubious: The OP itself sets up a false premise…namely that the US KNEW that SH and Iraq had no WMD, so therefore lied. He’s basically saying that with our god like intellegence capabilities (snort) we know all and see all. This simply isn’t the case. Its impossible to monitor any nation the way he’s saying we monitored Iraq. The ‘lie’, if there was one, was in the fact that Bush et al led us to believe they KNEW there were WMD, when all they were doing was making educated (or not so educated) guesses…and WRONG guesses it looks like, as it turns out.
If you want to seriously debate this, keep it real. If you want an anti-war love fest with plenty of kumbya then take it to the pit or to IMHO or something.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
The ‘lie’, if there was one, was in the fact that Bush et al led us to believe they KNEW there were WMD, when all they were doing was making educated (or not so educated) guesses…and WRONG guesses it looks like, as it turns out.
You’re absolutely right, xtisme. I don’t doubt they had some evidence that Hussein may have some WMDs, and certainly Hussein being all elusive about showing the weapons inspectors the goods wasn’t helping. It just seems that Dubya was just a little too trigger happy. That there must have been an ulterior motive. Like when Clarke (Clark?) came out and told us how after 9/11 Dubya kept asking how Hussein was involved - not really listening to his intelligence, just trying to get them to say what he wanted to hear. Seems he desperately wanted to go to war with Iraq.
Oh, I’m not disputing any of that PussyCow. I think the administration WAS focused on invading Iraq stupidly, reguardless of the evidence, and that they cherry picked the data to find what they wanted to hear about WMD as an EXCUSE to invade…and disreguard what the data that didn’t help their case. And it will probably lose them the election in November…rightfully so in fact.
But thats not what the OP was saying, and everyone seemed to be just bumping along with that. I just wanted to inject a bit of reality into this.
-XT
If he hadn’t known for a fact his arguments were bogus, he never would have kept on with the “He gassed the Kurds, so he has current WMD stockpiles” meme. He wouldn’t have used a childishly forged document as the basis for an allegation in the State of the Union address. He wouldn’t have kept demanding the inspection process be cut short, or that Iraq prove a negative. The very fact that he was using blatant bullshit to bolster his case shows that he’s either batshit insane or he knew he was full of it.
Hey PussyCow - want another epiphany?
Read the archived Iraq section of the “Project for the New American Century” website. Note in particular the members of the group, and the signatories to many of the documents - and then note the dates. Particularly this 1998 letter.
Well, thats certainly one way to look at it, but my own Occams Razor says there is a much simpler explaination. The simplest explaination is that Bush et al wanted to invade Iraq, pretty much ‘knew’ they had WMD (because that was the common belief with both US intellegence and most of the rest of the world that was interested), even if they didn’t know the specific locations, used the fact that SH and his merry men had been toying with the UN resolutions against Iraq for a decade, and decided that they could use the spectre of WMD to get their war. After the fact, they figured they would simply find the things and show them to the world, case closed, Bush is a hero.
Your way however means that Bush KNEW there were no WMD but decided to use it as the center piece of his campaign to invade Iraq, continually harping on the fact (vocally and in public)…KNOWING that after the invasion no WMD would be found and relying on the forgiving nature of the US population. It would be a vast conspiricy which most of the intellegence organs would be in on (i.e., they also would KNOW that there were no WMD), as well as Congress and other civilian branches of the government would have had to be in on, yet have mostly kept quiet about. Sorry…I’m not buying it.
-XT