|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 4, 2014 10:59:20 GMT
So far you've only posted sources that could have had knowledge from prior to the Gulf War in 1991. Do you have any sources from a person that was actually involved in or had direct knowledge of the movement of the WMD's from 2002 or 2003?
That was the problem with much of the Bush "intelligence" because it was related to the Gulf War or 1980's when we knew that Iraq had WMD's. The only current intelligence with any accuracy and relevance was coming from the UN Weapons Inspectors in 2002 and 2003 and it turned out to be 100% accurate.
It looks as if you want only that information (some might say propaganda) set forth by "UN Weapons Inspectors," such as Hans Blix & Company...
"Propaganda" is usually the presentation of a half-truth with the intent to deceive but what we know from history is that Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspectors investigations and reports were 100% accurate when it came to WMD's in Iraq. It's hard to claim that a report that is 100% accurate is propaganda.
Of course I'm not limiting information to just the UN Weapon Inspector reports but do insist that it must have some relevance to 2002-2003 as opposed to being information about Iraq's WMD programs of the 1980's.
The problem is that the Bush Adminstration wasn't presenting any contemporary information about Iraq as virtually everything I read at the time and since the invasion related to the 1980's. Today even the CIA admits that it was duped predominately by expatriated Iraqis that wanted Saddam overthrown and that were willing to lie and deceive the CIA to achieve that. I've read that chief among those that intentionally deceived the US was Nouri al-Maliki that lead the misinformation campaign of feeding false intelligence to the Bush Adminstration.
I don't know why it is apparently hard for some to understand that a bunch of Shia Iraqi expatriates that wanted Saddam removed from power so that they could take over the Iraqi government would intentionally deceive the Bush Adminstration. What was amazing to me was that no one in the Bush Adminstration or Congress seemed to question the veracity of these Iraqi expatriates that we knew had an ulterior motive for getting the US to go to war against Saddam.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 4, 2014 20:42:01 GMT
It looks as if you want only that information (some might say propaganda) set forth by "UN Weapons Inspectors," such as Hans Blix & Company...
"Propaganda" is usually the presentation of a half-truth with the intent to deceive but what we know from history is that Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspectors investigations and reports were 100% accurate when it came to WMD's in Iraq. It's hard to claim that a report that is 100% accurate is propaganda.
Of course I'm not limiting information to just the UN Weapon Inspector reports but do insist that it must have some relevance to 2002-2003 as opposed to being information about Iraq's WMD programs of the 1980's.
The problem is that the Bush Adminstration wasn't presenting any contemporary information about Iraq as virtually everything I read at the time and since the invasion related to the 1980's. Today even the CIA admits that it was duped predominately by expatriated Iraqis that wanted Saddam overthrown and that were willing to lie and deceive the CIA to achieve that. I've read that chief among those that intentionally deceived the US was Nouri al-Maliki that lead the misinformation campaign of feeding false intelligence to the Bush Adminstration.
I don't know why it is apparently hard for some to understand that a bunch of Shia Iraqi expatriates that wanted Saddam removed from power so that they could take over the Iraqi government would intentionally deceive the Bush Adminstration. What was amazing to me was that no one in the Bush Adminstration or Congress seemed to question the veracity of these Iraqi expatriates that we knew had an ulterior motive for getting the US to go to war against Saddam.
Your jaundiced view--that all Iraqi expatriates conspired to "lie" and "intentionally deceive" the US government, as they had "ulterior motives" for desiring war--is cynical in the extreme. And it is not born out by any of the news reports I have seen. And neither is your conclusion that Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspectors were just as pure as the driven snow... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2014 4:08:59 GMT
"Propaganda" is usually the presentation of a half-truth with the intent to deceive but what we know from history is that Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspectors investigations and reports were 100% accurate when it came to WMD's in Iraq. It's hard to claim that a report that is 100% accurate is propaganda.
Of course I'm not limiting information to just the UN Weapon Inspector reports but do insist that it must have some relevance to 2002-2003 as opposed to being information about Iraq's WMD programs of the 1980's.
The problem is that the Bush Adminstration wasn't presenting any contemporary information about Iraq as virtually everything I read at the time and since the invasion related to the 1980's. Today even the CIA admits that it was duped predominately by expatriated Iraqis that wanted Saddam overthrown and that were willing to lie and deceive the CIA to achieve that. I've read that chief among those that intentionally deceived the US was Nouri al-Maliki that lead the misinformation campaign of feeding false intelligence to the Bush Adminstration.
I don't know why it is apparently hard for some to understand that a bunch of Shia Iraqi expatriates that wanted Saddam removed from power so that they could take over the Iraqi government would intentionally deceive the Bush Adminstration. What was amazing to me was that no one in the Bush Adminstration or Congress seemed to question the veracity of these Iraqi expatriates that we knew had an ulterior motive for getting the US to go to war against Saddam.
Your jaundiced view--that all Iraqi expatriates conspired to "lie" and "intentionally deceive" the US government, as they had "ulterior motives" for desiring war--is cynical in the extreme. And it is not born out by any of the news reports I have seen. And neither is your conclusion that Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspectors were just as pure as the driven snow...
I did not state that "every expatriated" Iraqi lied based upon an ulterior motive but certainly those like al Maliki, that was a key source of "intelligence" for the Bush adminstration, had such a motive. It wasn't widely reported but it certainly was reported albeit probably not on Fox News.
Go back and read the UN Weapons Inspectors' reports and point out the errors you find. I don't claim anything about Hans Blix but instead I refer to the UN reports on WMD's in Iraq from 2002 to early 2003. Show me where the reports were erroneous based upon what we know now.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 5, 2014 23:54:46 GMT
Your jaundiced view--that all Iraqi expatriates conspired to "lie" and "intentionally deceive" the US government, as they had "ulterior motives" for desiring war--is cynical in the extreme. And it is not born out by any of the news reports I have seen. And neither is your conclusion that Hans Blix and the UN Weapons Inspectors were just as pure as the driven snow...
I did not state that "every expatriated" Iraqi lied based upon an ulterior motive but certainly those like al Maliki, that was a key source of "intelligence" for the Bush adminstration, had such a motive. It wasn't widely reported but it certainly was reported albeit probably not on Fox News.
Go back and read the UN Weapons Inspectors' reports and point out the errors you find. I don't claim anything about Hans Blix but instead I refer to the UN reports on WMD's in Iraq from 2002 to early 2003. Show me where the reports were erroneous based upon what we know now.
The fact that a particular person "had...a motive" to lie is hardly tantamount to saying that he did lie. (You might have a "motive," for instance, to rob a bank--the extra money would probably come in handy--but if that is all the evidence that a prosecutor had, as concerning your ostensible guilt, the DA would never present it to a grand jury.) The cheap shot at Fox News is certainly gratuitous; albeit predictable enough, coming from the left. (Perhaps you would prefer the center-left CNN--or even the hard-left MSNBC?) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 6, 2014 11:54:03 GMT
The fact that a particular person "had...a motive" to lie is hardly tantamount to saying that he did lie. (You might have a "motive," for instance, to rob a bank--the extra money would probably come in handy--but if that is all the evidence that a prosecutor had, as concerning your ostensible guilt, the DA would never present it to a grand jury.) The cheap shot at Fox News is certainly gratuitous; albeit predictable enough, coming from the left. (Perhaps you would prefer the center-left CNN--or even the hard-left MSNBC?)
"Means, Motive, and Opportunity" have always provided compelling arguments in circumstantial cases.
One problem we do know that existed was that the White House was not looking for actual intelligence related to WMD's in Iraq but instead was seeking evidence that would support an invasion of Iraq even if that evidence was over 10 years old and long since known to be obsolete.
Yes, it was a cheap shot at Fox News even though it was highly accurate. In fact I don't recall CNN on MSNBC addressing the fact that expatriated Iraqis were intentional in their deception of the Bush Adminstration but instead I gained that information based upon "printed" media and not broadcast news sources if I recall correctly. It can also be noted that those were "opinion" articles but that they did provide compelling arguments for their opinions based upon "Means, Motive, and Opportunity" in establishing a circumstantial case.
You still haven't provided me with any "misinformation" from the UN Weapons Inspector's Reports. I've cited those reports as being 100% accurate and the best intelligence we had at the time and, so far, you've not been able to dispute that at all. You might have disliked Hans Blix for whatever reason but the reports he submitted were highly accurate and he wasn't attempting to deceive anyone from what I've read.
I've never figured out why some on the "Right" had the opinion that somehoe Hans Blix was in anyway associated with Saddam and not carrying out the inspections in an impartial manner. From everything I've read Blix had impeccable credentials as a Swedish diplomat,
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 6, 2014 23:35:59 GMT
The fact that a particular person "had...a motive" to lie is hardly tantamount to saying that he did lie. (You might have a "motive," for instance, to rob a bank--the extra money would probably come in handy--but if that is all the evidence that a prosecutor had, as concerning your ostensible guilt, the DA would never present it to a grand jury.) The cheap shot at Fox News is certainly gratuitous; albeit predictable enough, coming from the left. (Perhaps you would prefer the center-left CNN--or even the hard-left MSNBC?)
"Means, Motive, and Opportunity" have always provided compelling arguments in circumstantial cases.
One problem we do know that existed was that the White House was not looking for actual intelligence related to WMD's in Iraq but instead was seeking evidence that would support an invasion of Iraq even if that evidence was over 10 years old and long since known to be obsolete.
Yes, it was a cheap shot at Fox News even though it was highly accurate. In fact I don't recall CNN on MSNBC addressing the fact that expatriated Iraqis were intentional in their deception of the Bush Adminstration but instead I gained that information based upon "printed" media and not broadcast news sources if I recall correctly. It can also be noted that those were "opinion" articles but that they did provide compelling arguments for their opinions based upon "Means, Motive, and Opportunity" in establishing a circumstantial case.
You still haven't provided me with any "misinformation" from the UN Weapons Inspector's Reports. I've cited those reports as being 100% accurate and the best intelligence we had at the time and, so far, you've not been able to dispute that at all. You might have disliked Hans Blix for whatever reason but the reports he submitted were highly accurate and he wasn't attempting to deceive anyone from what I've read.
I've never figured out why some on the "Right" had the opinion that somehoe Hans Blix was in anyway associated with Saddam and not carrying out the inspections in an impartial manner. From everything I've read Blix had impeccable credentials as a Swedish diplomat,
Yes, "Means, Motive, and Opportunity"--all combined--do, indeed, make for a rather compelling case. But motive alone--well, not so much. (Should we pin any recent bank robberies in the Seattle area on you, since--presumably-you had a motive, given that the extra money would certainly have come in handy?) I have never asserted that Hans Blix was "associated" with Saddam. My impression of him, however, was that he was a peace-at-any-price sort of guy, who thought he was serving some "greater good" by claiming that no evidence of WMD in Iraq existed. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2014 9:47:57 GMT
Yes, "Means, Motive, and Opportunity"--all combined--do, indeed, make for a rather compelling case. But motive alone--well, not so much. (Should we pin any recent bank robberies in the Seattle area on you, since--presumably-you had a motive, given that the extra money would certainly have come in handy?) I have never asserted that Hans Blix was "associated" with Saddam. My impression of him, however, was that he was a peace-at-any-price sort of guy, who thought he was serving some "greater good" by claiming that no evidence of WMD in Iraq existed.
The Iraqi expatriates, that unquestionably had "motive" in wanting Saddam removed from power, also had the "means" by providing mis-information (i.e. half-truths) to the Bush adminstration as well as the "opportunity" because the Bush administration was not looking for actual "intelligence" but instead was looking for "evidence" regardless of how tainted that evidence might be as the focus was to rationalize an invasion. Hell, the Bush adminstration even claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Nigeria after knowing full well that the "documents" they referred to were forgeries.
Hans Blix never claimed that Iraq didn't have any WMD's but instead stated bluntly that based upon literally hundreds of unrestricted inspections of Iraqi sites, often selected by US and other intelligence sources, that no traces of current WMD's or WMD programs had been found using the most highly sophisticated test equipment in the world. He also stated that based upon the current (at the time) number of investigations that were being performed that virtually all possible sites could be investigated in a matter of a few months. All Hans Blix was asking for was the time to complete the inspections necessary to ensure that Iraq didn't have any WMD's or to uncover them if they did exist.
You and others seem to believe that Blix was "cooking the books" by ignoring evidence of WMD's in Iraq but that was never the case. His reports were honest and straightforward. Yes, he did verbally condemn the Bush adminstration for it's illogical insistanceon wanting to go to war when no evidence had been found at the time to indicate Iraq had any WMD's. He was unquestionably in the best position to know about whether Iraq had any WMD's and his advice and criticism was well founded based upon what we've learned since.
In truth, from a historical standpoint, we know that Blix had absolute integrity in both his actions and his statements and it was the Bush adminstration that lacked integrity in their actions and statements at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 7, 2014 22:44:31 GMT
Yes, "Means, Motive, and Opportunity"--all combined--do, indeed, make for a rather compelling case. But motive alone--well, not so much. (Should we pin any recent bank robberies in the Seattle area on you, since--presumably-you had a motive, given that the extra money would certainly have come in handy?) I have never asserted that Hans Blix was "associated" with Saddam. My impression of him, however, was that he was a peace-at-any-price sort of guy, who thought he was serving some "greater good" by claiming that no evidence of WMD in Iraq existed.
The Iraqi expatriates, that unquestionably had "motive" in wanting Saddam removed from power, also had the "means" by providing mis-information (i.e. half-truths) to the Bush adminstration as well as the "opportunity" because the Bush administration was not looking for actual "intelligence" but instead was looking for "evidence" regardless of how tainted that evidence might be as the focus was to rationalize an invasion. Hell, the Bush adminstration even claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Nigeria after knowing full well that the "documents" they referred to were forgeries.
Hans Blix never claimed that Iraq didn't have any WMD's but instead stated bluntly that based upon literally hundreds of unrestricted inspections of Iraqi sites, often selected by US and other intelligence sources, that no traces of current WMD's or WMD programs had been found using the most highly sophisticated test equipment in the world. He also stated that based upon the current (at the time) number of investigations that were being performed that virtually all possible sites could be investigated in a matter of a few months. All Hans Blix was asking for was the time to complete the inspections necessary to ensure that Iraq didn't have any WMD's or to uncover them if they did exist.
You and others seem to believe that Blix was "cooking the books" by ignoring evidence of WMD's in Iraq but that was never the case. His reports were honest and straightforward. Yes, he did verbally condemn the Bush adminstration for it's illogical insistanceon wanting to go to war when no evidence had been found at the time to indicate Iraq had any WMD's. He was unquestionably in the best position to know about whether Iraq had any WMD's and his advice and criticism was well founded based upon what we've learned since.
In truth, from a historical standpoint, we know that Blix had absolute integrity in both his actions and his statements and it was the Bush adminstration that lacked integrity in their actions and statements at the time.
Your assessment--that Hans Blix "had absolute integrity in both his actions and his statements," and that President George W. Bush was "not looking for actual 'intelligence,'" but merely wished to "rationalize" a pre-determined desire to go to war with Iraq--speaks volumes: Blix, in your worldview, was imbued with a halo atop his head, whereas Bush was a drooling psychopath, complete with horns and a pointed tail... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2014 9:59:40 GMT
Your assessment--that Hans Blix "had absolute integrity in both his actions and his statements," and that President George W. Bush was "not looking for actual 'intelligence,'" but merely wished to "rationalize" a pre-determined desire to go to war with Iraq--speaks volumes: Blix, in your worldview, was imbued with a halo atop his head, whereas Bush was a drooling psychopath, complete with horns and a pointed tail...
Blix was in Iraq to find out the truth about possible WMD's while the Bush adminstration was intent upon going to war with Iraq regardless of the truth.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war
The Bush admisntration wanted to go to war against Iraq and was seeking propaganda, not actual intelligence, to gain public and Congressional support for that war. I've read, although I can't verify, that President Bush called upon his cabinet to find a reason to go to war against Iraq within weeks of taking office in 2001. I won't try to paint Blix as a saint but at least he was trying to find out the truth about possible WMD's in Iraq while the truth had no meaning for the Bush administration if it stood in the way of going to war against Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 8, 2014 17:03:41 GMT
Your assessment--that Hans Blix "had absolute integrity in both his actions and his statements," and that President George W. Bush was "not looking for actual 'intelligence,'" but merely wished to "rationalize" a pre-determined desire to go to war with Iraq--speaks volumes: Blix, in your worldview, was imbued with a halo atop his head, whereas Bush was a drooling psychopath, complete with horns and a pointed tail...
Blix was in Iraq to find out the truth about possible WMD's while the Bush adminstration was intent upon going to war with Iraq regardless of the truth.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war
The Bush admisntration wanted to go to war against Iraq and was seeking propaganda, not actual intelligence, to gain public and Congressional support for that war. I've read, although I can't verify, that President Bush called upon his cabinet to find a reason to go to war against Iraq within weeks of taking office in 2001. I won't try to paint Blix as a saint but at least he was trying to find out the truth about possible WMD's in Iraq while the truth had no meaning for the Bush administration if it stood in the way of going to war against Iraq.
The first paragraph, alone, of the above article, is sufficient to discern its predetermined conclusion. (It speaks, glibly, of how "powerful neoconservative ideologues" were merely "parroting" the accusations against Saddam with "menacingly jingoistic jargon.") It goes on to quote Scott McClellan (whose 2008 book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, is widely viewed as a means of achieving the proverbial 30 pieces of silver). But this should probably be no great surprise, given the leftist tendencies of the UK publication, The Guardian... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 9, 2014 11:58:31 GMT
Blix was in Iraq to find out the truth about possible WMD's while the Bush adminstration was intent upon going to war with Iraq regardless of the truth.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war
The Bush admisntration wanted to go to war against Iraq and was seeking propaganda, not actual intelligence, to gain public and Congressional support for that war. I've read, although I can't verify, that President Bush called upon his cabinet to find a reason to go to war against Iraq within weeks of taking office in 2001. I won't try to paint Blix as a saint but at least he was trying to find out the truth about possible WMD's in Iraq while the truth had no meaning for the Bush administration if it stood in the way of going to war against Iraq.
The first paragraph, alone, of the above article, is sufficient to discern its predetermined conclusion. (It speaks, glibly, of how "powerful neoconservative ideologues" were merely "parroting" the accusations against Saddam with "menacingly jingoistic jargon.") It goes on to quote Scott McClellan (whose 2008 book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, is widely viewed as a means of achieving the proverbial 30 pieces of silver). But this should probably be no great surprise, given the leftist tendencies of the UK publication, The Guardian...
In short don't dispute the facts but instead shoot the messenger.
The Bush White House was citing an Iraqi expatriat that was a known liar ("curveball") in making claims about WMD's in Iraq. The Bush White House made allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium knowing full well that the "intelligence" was false and based upon forged documents.
Can you dispute either of those two facts with evidence to the contrary?
We can also toss in the fact that the Bush White House was making unsupported allegations that commonly used chemicals, such as chlorine used in household bleach, were "precurors to chemical weapons" without any evidence of WMD production taking place in Iraq.
The entire push for war by the Bush White House was based upon a fear campaign using propaganda (i.e. half-truths and false claims) without one iota of actual evidence that Iraq had any WMD's or WMD programs in 2002-2003. The UN Weapons Inspectors reports turned out to be the only actual "intellingence" on Iraq WMD's that was accurate from 2002-2003. That is beyond any dispute today based upon historical facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 10, 2014 1:40:15 GMT
The first paragraph, alone, of the above article, is sufficient to discern its predetermined conclusion. (It speaks, glibly, of how "powerful neoconservative ideologues" were merely "parroting" the accusations against Saddam with "menacingly jingoistic jargon.") It goes on to quote Scott McClellan (whose 2008 book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, is widely viewed as a means of achieving the proverbial 30 pieces of silver). But this should probably be no great surprise, given the leftist tendencies of the UK publication, The Guardian...
In short don't dispute the facts but instead shoot the messenger.
The Bush White House was citing an Iraqi expatriat that was a known liar ("curveball") in making claims about WMD's in Iraq. The Bush White House made allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium knowing full well that the "intelligence" was false and based upon forged documents.
Can you dispute either of those two facts with evidence to the contrary?
We can also toss in the fact that the Bush White House was making unsupported allegations that commonly used chemicals, such as chlorine used in household bleach, were "precurors to chemical weapons" without any evidence of WMD production taking place in Iraq.
The entire push for war by the Bush White House was based upon a fear campaign using propaganda (i.e. half-truths and false claims) without one iota of actual evidence that Iraq had any WMD's or WMD programs in 2002-2003. The UN Weapons Inspectors reports turned out to be the only actual "intellingence" on Iraq WMD's that was accurate from 2002-2003. That is beyond any dispute today based upon historical facts.
It really is not my job to present evidence to try to prove a negative (i.e. that the Bush White House did not "know...full well" that the prevailing intelligence was incorrect). And I do not desire especially to "shoot the messenger"; but merely to ask you to use a more neutral messenger. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 10, 2014 9:41:58 GMT
In short don't dispute the facts but instead shoot the messenger.
The Bush White House was citing an Iraqi expatriat that was a known liar ("curveball") in making claims about WMD's in Iraq. The Bush White House made allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium knowing full well that the "intelligence" was false and based upon forged documents.
Can you dispute either of those two facts with evidence to the contrary?
We can also toss in the fact that the Bush White House was making unsupported allegations that commonly used chemicals, such as chlorine used in household bleach, were "precurors to chemical weapons" without any evidence of WMD production taking place in Iraq.
The entire push for war by the Bush White House was based upon a fear campaign using propaganda (i.e. half-truths and false claims) without one iota of actual evidence that Iraq had any WMD's or WMD programs in 2002-2003. The UN Weapons Inspectors reports turned out to be the only actual "intellingence" on Iraq WMD's that was accurate from 2002-2003. That is beyond any dispute today based upon historical facts.
It really is not my job to present evidence to try to prove a negative (i.e. that the Bush White House did not "know...full well" that the prevailing intelligence was incorrect). And I do not desire especially to "shoot the messenger"; but merely to ask you to use a more neutral messenger.
It is true that you can't prove a negative but we can prove, and it has been proven, that the Bush adminstration made allegations when it had been informed that the source of the information was a "liar" that could not be trusted and where the CIA had told the Bush adminstration three times that the Nigeria uranium claims were based upon forged documents. They knew that the allegations they were making were false because the CIA told the administration the allegations were false or came from known liars.
My "neutral messenger" is history. Every statement made in the UN Weapons Inspector's reports was historically accurate and the CIA itself has stated that the Bush adminstration was knowingly using "false" intelligence as propaganda in rationalizing a war against Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 11, 2014 3:10:59 GMT
It really is not my job to present evidence to try to prove a negative (i.e. that the Bush White House did not "know...full well" that the prevailing intelligence was incorrect). And I do not desire especially to "shoot the messenger"; but merely to ask you to use a more neutral messenger.
It is true that you can't prove a negative but we can prove, and it has been proven, that the Bush adminstration made allegations when it had been informed that the source of the information was a "liar" that could not be trusted and where the CIA had told the Bush adminstration three times that the Nigeria uranium claims were based upon forged documents. They knew that the allegations they were making were false because the CIA told the administration the allegations were false or came from known liars.
My "neutral messenger" is history. Every statement made in the UN Weapons Inspector's reports was historically accurate and the CIA itself has stated that the Bush adminstration was knowingly using "false" intelligence as propaganda in rationalizing a war against Iraq.
Again, you insist that then-President George W. Bush was eager to go to war with Iraq (perhaps out of some personal vendetta, as you have suggested previously). To imagine that any American president (of either party) would be eager to cause death and destruction--including the deaths of some Americans--is simply beyond my comprehension... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 12, 2014 13:19:39 GMT
Again, you insist that then-President George W. Bush was eager to go to war with Iraq (perhaps out of some personal vendetta, as you have suggested previously). To imagine that any American president (of either party) would be eager to cause death and destruction--including the deaths of some Americans--is simply beyond my comprehension...
It is my understanding that former President Bush called upon his cabinet within weeks of taking office to come up with a reason to invade Iraq. He didn't have one at the time but was intent upon invading Iraq and simply wanted a reason to do so.
Did Bush have a personal vendetta? We don't know for sure but he did have a reason for one. Saddam, according to the CIA, had attempted to assassinate Bush's father.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
That could explain why Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq and overthrown Saddam in early 2001. We don't know for sure but it certainly does represent a possible reason why the Bush adminstration was intent upon going to war before the UN Weapons Inspectors could possibly clear Iraq of any WMD possession or production that would have only taken a few more months.
We simply can't explain why Bush was in such a damn rush to invade Iraq when we know that the UN Weapons Inspectors would be able to complete 100% of the inspection necessary to ensure Iraq didn't have WMD's within just a few months. There was no pressing reason to go to war in 2003. Iraq wasn't threatening anyone at the time.
|
|
