Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[Charade]

How do you prove a negative? The 9/11 commission found nothing beyond the most superficial of contacts. If there's no evidence of a working relationship, then there is no working relationship.

However, here's the best evidence that there was no working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. No evidence was ever given by the Bush administration. The Bush administration was not going to take it on the chin if they had clear, convincing, and irrefutable evidence of that relationship. To take it a step further, they even distanced themselves from the rhetoric implying there was a relationship. No one will tell me the Bush administration had evidence and chose to keep it quiet.

Hold on a minute. Isn't the topic of this thread that Bush lied about the intel while all along telling us that they had "slam dunk" evidence? But now you're saying that because they distanced themselves from any Iraq/Al-Queda relationship, it's proof that there wasn't one? Didn't you just prove a negative?

If that's the case, why wouldn't they make up evidence that SH was in bed with Al-Queda (or at least having lunch occasionally)?

Or is it that you believe they could get away with one and not the other (or both at the same time)?

 

[ThAnswr]

If Blair and Bush said it was so, you can bet your bottom dollar that it wasn't
Rich::

Quite honestly, I don't understand Blair's motivation. I actually do understand Bush's. He was surrounded by people who salivated at the idea of getting Saddam Hussein and all of which you can find on the PNAC website.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Opportunity presented itself on 9/11/2001 and they ran with that opportunity.

But Blair? Why?

 

[dcentity2000]

Quite honestly, I don't understand Blair's motivation. I actually do understand Bush's. He was surrounded by people who salivated at the idea of getting Saddam Hussein and all of which you can find on the PNAC website.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Opportunity presented itself on 9/11/2001 and they ran with that opportunity.

But Blair? Why?

I actually don't know. He said that he personally believed that Iraq was a threat at the time, so he may have built up a complex over it - he asked for the dossier to be "sexed-up" which may have been a self-reinforcing act.



Rich::

 

[Rokkitsci]

It seems many have gotten 20/20 hindsight. It's easy to be certain about things after they've been demonstrated. The preponderance of evidence available at the time indicated that Saddam probably still had old WMD lying around. Intel is not an exact science. The vast majority of analysis done on the subject by world intel experts led to the same conclusion Bush came to.

Were there anecdotal exceptions? Sure. There will be on any intelligence matter where first-hand information is virtually impossible to come by. Were there errors in judgment by the administration? Certainly.

But let's look at this objectively. What would the administration have to gain by lying about WMD intel? What could possibly motivate President Bush to lie about something that he knows with absolute certainty will be exposed as a lie when we go in? That makes no sense whatsoever. The only reasonable scenario, IMO, is that the administration honestly believed the WMD would be there.

This is the rock of absolute logic that all the caterwauling in the world will not alter.

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that NO president would go to war based on a KNOWN MIS-STATEMENT OF FACT. There is no arguement that can even dent this massive logical boulder.

The LW fanatics can spew and moan and whimper and pitch fits all day - it is unalterable. No LIES.

It is the LW fanatics who ARE in fact LYING when they continue to spout such obvious nonsense. It only plays to the irreparably ignorant or fanatical anti-American crowds. Unfortunately, there are lots of them.

They can dig up 'eaked' memos, draft forgeries, copy Rolling Stone, cut and paste from Michael Moore and George Soros all they want. People with a brain laugh at them.

 

[dcentity2000]

"LW Fanatics" is poor terminology. Instead use either:

• Left Wing Lunatic (Loony Left)
• Right Wing Nutter (Rabid Right)

Ta!

btw, the Smoking Gun memo in the UK has been verified as true and Mr. Blair admits it



Rich::

 

[ThAnswr]

Hold on a minute. Isn't the topic of this thread that Bush lied about the intel while all along telling us that they had "slam dunk" evidence?

I maybe one of the few on my side of the political aisle who doesn't believe Bush made it all up. I believed he massaged the evidence along, picking and chosing what he wanted to believe, changed a "maybe" to a "definite, etc. Which doesn't for one damned minute excuse what happened.

But now you're saying that because they distanced themselves from any Iraq/Al-Queda relationship, it's proof that there wasn't one? Didn't you just prove a negative?

No, my friend, you've got this all wrong. The Bush administration implied, thereby maintaining plausible deniablity, that there was a relationship hoping the public would make the connection. People like you did. When the truth started to come out, and people started to question, then the Bush administration claimed they had never said it directly. Which they hadn't and people like you were only too happy to carry the water for the administration.

If that's the case, why wouldn't they make up evidence that SH was in bed with Al-Queda (or at least having lunch occasionally)?

Damned if I know. No one's more surprised than me that Bush and crew didn't plant evidence.

Or is it that you believe they could get away with one and not the other (or both at the same time)?

After 9/11, the Bush administration felt they could get away with anything and they were right. Those on your side of the political aisle are living proof.

 

[The DIS Moderator Team]

The name calling is unnecessary. I think this thread has run it's course.