Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Mudda]

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

 

[mudwhistle]

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

 

[Mudda]

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Thanks for rewriting history, it probably needed an update anyways.

 

[Correll]

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

 

[Correll]

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Possibly (re set up yardstick)

And yes, numerous other reasons. He knows that. He is just being a lying bitch.

 

[Mudda]

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

 

[Campbell]

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Thanks for rewriting history, it probably needed an update anyways.

Typical Republican. They catch it from Faux News. It goes on there 24/7.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

What's your evidence? And why did Hillary call her vote a mistake instead of saying she was deceived? That would be a much better excuse.

Dumbfuck!

Hillary said she was deceived. Now just find out why she felt that way. Go on, you're almost there.

I asked for evidence, not another brainfart.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.

It's always somebody else's fault to the lib. What intel did "the Republicans" have that Democrats didn't?

For example. Bush was given intel that Iraq did not have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Bush told Congress that Iraq DID have the capacity. He also sent a guy who hadn't worked for Saddam's nuclear program since 1991 called "curveball" to the Senate to tell everyone that Saddam DID have nuclear weapons capabilities. The guy hadn't even been in Iraq since 1994.

The Senate Report on Pre-War intelligence basically tells all that is needed, more or less

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

So the NIE itself was stuff that's made up, invented, twisted, whatever, to suit the needs of the govt. Then Bush went as ignored the NIE anyway.

Press | Intelligence Committee

"“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”"

"
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added. "

This is the US govt saying this.....

I could make a water tight case, it's not hard, just would take time. You should really know this stuff yourself. You elect these people, you should know what crap they're getting up to.

Democrats got the same intelligence, the difference is you hold only the Republicans accountable. I hold them both accountable

Democrats got the same intelligence as Bush? Really? You think all Congressmen got all intelligence? I don't think so.

Read up on the Senate intelligence committee , Holmes

And Democrats were in the White House 8 of the 9 years before the buildup to the war began.

Both parties did that fiasco hand in hand. The wingnut Bodeca reads that statement and says OMG, I just blame Democrats She's not the sharpest sock in the toolshed

Read up on the Senate intelligence committee? You mean the one I've been sourcing. Why, in your view, do I need to read up on it? This is rather boring. If you just write simply sentences with nothing to back it up with, I have nothing to reply to.

So Democrats were in the White House before. So what? What does this have to do with anything?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.

LOL, you're not a Democrat, that's funny.

That intelligence came from W, it also came from Clinton, Kerry and the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee. The two parties did that fiasco hand in hand, Holmes

Funny? I'm glad you're amused. I'm still not a Democrat. The fact is the US government has released reports on the intel of the pre-war period and found that Bush lied out of his arse so often the whole of Washington stank of his shit.

Intelligence isn't freely available you know. It's not like every Congressman gets all intelligence the CIA has. Bush gets access to most of it. Bush was given an NIE report which said they didn't know about biological weapons and knew he didn't have nuclear capabilities. Yet still stuck a guy in front of the Senate to say they basically had nuclear capabilities.
They still twisted everything that came forwards.

I'm not defending the Democrats. They should have done more research, they shouldn't have believed everything. But they did. And they voted based on false intelligence. That is a fact.

Why do you keep repeating Democrat lies if you aren't one?. And you're not "defending them?" What the fuck?

What lies do you think I'm repeating? I don't remember repeating any lies.

I'm not defending Democrats because I'm a Democrat. Jeez, your view of the world is "you're either a democrat or a republic". If I find stuff I don't like I'll gladly expose the Democrats. However this is about BUSH.

Bush happens not to be a Democrat. So why the hell do I need to attack the Democrats? Yes, they voted for war when they shouldn't have. Okay, there? DO you see? I FUCKING ATTACKED THEM. Are you happy now?

Jeez this is fucking pathetic.

Dude, you keep repeating the lies of the Democrats that they were lied to. They did it with the Republicans. Are you not following this? You want me to send you a Playbill?

Dude, I asked you what lies. You don't tell me. So... what the hell are you going on about?

 

[Mudda]

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

What's your evidence? And why did Hillary call her vote a mistake instead of saying she was deceived? That would be a much better excuse.

Dumbfuck!

Hillary said she was deceived. Now just find out why she felt that way. Go on, you're almost there.

I asked for evidence, not another brainfart.

Do you know why Hillary felt deceived?

 

[kaz]

It's always somebody else's fault to the lib. What intel did "the Republicans" have that Democrats didn't?

For example. Bush was given intel that Iraq did not have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Bush told Congress that Iraq DID have the capacity. He also sent a guy who hadn't worked for Saddam's nuclear program since 1991 called "curveball" to the Senate to tell everyone that Saddam DID have nuclear weapons capabilities. The guy hadn't even been in Iraq since 1994.

The Senate Report on Pre-War intelligence basically tells all that is needed, more or less

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

So the NIE itself was stuff that's made up, invented, twisted, whatever, to suit the needs of the govt. Then Bush went as ignored the NIE anyway.

Press | Intelligence Committee

"“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”"

"
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added. "

This is the US govt saying this.....

I could make a water tight case, it's not hard, just would take time. You should really know this stuff yourself. You elect these people, you should know what crap they're getting up to.

Democrats got the same intelligence, the difference is you hold only the Republicans accountable. I hold them both accountable

Democrats got the same intelligence as Bush? Really? You think all Congressmen got all intelligence? I don't think so.

Read up on the Senate intelligence committee , Holmes

And Democrats were in the White House 8 of the 9 years before the buildup to the war began.

Both parties did that fiasco hand in hand. The wingnut Bodeca reads that statement and says OMG, I just blame Democrats She's not the sharpest sock in the toolshed

Read up on the Senate intelligence committee? You mean the one I've been sourcing. Why, in your view, do I need to read up on it? This is rather boring. If you just write simply sentences with nothing to back it up with, I have nothing to reply to.

So Democrats were in the White House before. So what? What does this have to do with anything?

Here's a hint how to read up on a conversation, to understand a post, read the post it's responding to.

So tell me what you have from the Senate Intelligence Committee that isn't Monday morning quarterbacking? Did you read Kerry's comments that if you don't believe Saddam is a threat, don't vote for him?

 

[kaz]

LOL, you're not a Democrat, that's funny.

That intelligence came from W, it also came from Clinton, Kerry and the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee. The two parties did that fiasco hand in hand, Holmes

Funny? I'm glad you're amused. I'm still not a Democrat. The fact is the US government has released reports on the intel of the pre-war period and found that Bush lied out of his arse so often the whole of Washington stank of his shit.

Intelligence isn't freely available you know. It's not like every Congressman gets all intelligence the CIA has. Bush gets access to most of it. Bush was given an NIE report which said they didn't know about biological weapons and knew he didn't have nuclear capabilities. Yet still stuck a guy in front of the Senate to say they basically had nuclear capabilities.
They still twisted everything that came forwards.

I'm not defending the Democrats. They should have done more research, they shouldn't have believed everything. But they did. And they voted based on false intelligence. That is a fact.

Why do you keep repeating Democrat lies if you aren't one?. And you're not "defending them?" What the fuck?

What lies do you think I'm repeating? I don't remember repeating any lies.

I'm not defending Democrats because I'm a Democrat. Jeez, your view of the world is "you're either a democrat or a republic". If I find stuff I don't like I'll gladly expose the Democrats. However this is about BUSH.

Bush happens not to be a Democrat. So why the hell do I need to attack the Democrats? Yes, they voted for war when they shouldn't have. Okay, there? DO you see? I FUCKING ATTACKED THEM. Are you happy now?

Jeez this is fucking pathetic.

Dude, you keep repeating the lies of the Democrats that they were lied to. They did it with the Republicans. Are you not following this? You want me to send you a Playbill?

Dude, I asked you what lies. You don't tell me. So... what the hell are you going on about?

Republicans and Democrats said the same thing, in your shrewdness, you realized that Republicans were lying and Democrats were mother Mary virginal. Oh, and you're not a Democrat, LOL...

I actually oppose the war and blame both sides who got us into it. For you, it's just a partisan bickering point to elect Democrats. Entire worlds apart

 

[Correll]

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

 

[rightwinger]

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

 

[Correll]

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

 

[Mudda]

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

If Level 1 never happened, they have no reason to go to war.
As for 2, 3 and 4, you simply can't find a proper answer to satisfy yourself, can you?

 

[Correll]

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

If Level 1 never happened, they have no reason to go to war.
As for 2, 3 and 4, you simply can't find a proper answer to satisfy yourself, can you?

If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war. Stop lying.

2,3,and 4? I'm completely satisfied with the historical record. You're the one playing the game were you try to define reality by what YOU consider valid.

Why are you being such an ass?

 

[SwimExpert]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Nearly 20 years ago, and you haven't found something more interesting to talk about yet?

 

[Mudda]

If you drop WMDs as a reason, what's left?

"The CIA made a mistake."

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

If Level 1 never happened, they have no reason to go to war.
As for 2, 3 and 4, you simply can't find a proper answer to satisfy yourself, can you?

If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war. Stop lying.

2,3,and 4? I'm completely satisfied with the historical record. You're the one playing the game were you try to define reality by what YOU consider valid.

Why are you being such an ass?

I'll ask you again, "If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war." Like what?