Iraq Had WMD

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by maslo
ohh sorry i forgot that US didnt invade to iraq because of terrorists but because of invisible WMD ..

And even if this was the topic, how would ww2 nazis living in Berlin be relevant to that discussion?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by maslo
you probably exchanged SH and Bush didnt you ?

Nope, you are just a victim of the anti-US propaganda.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Hortlund


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
So what was the reason for the Invasion of Iraq again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rid the world of Saddam (you DO remember him...right?

Only problem Hort, is that Bush used the WMD card to convince the Congress to authorize sustained military action against Iraq.  Without the WMD, it is unlikely that the Congress would have voted to get rid of Saddam just because he was a bad man...there are a lot of baddies out there and it is just a matter of practicality that the US can't take them all.

Without the WMD, Bush may be guilty of misleading the Congress, which is a felony in this country, especially if testimony from the intel community indicates that Bush did not use reasonable caution when interpreting the evidence (such as the yellow cake comments in the State of the Union) or if the Administration pressured the US intel community to come to pre-determined conclusions.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Only problem Hort, is that Bush used the WMD card to convince the Congress to authorize sustained military action against Iraq.  Without the WMD, it is unlikely that the Congress would have voted to get rid of Saddam just because he was a bad man...there are a lot of baddies out there and it is just a matter of practicality that the US can't take them all.

Without the WMD, Bush may be guilty of misleading the Congress, which is a felony in this country, especially if testimony from the intel community indicates that Bush did not use reasonable caution when interpreting the evidence (such as the yellow cake comments in the State of the Union) or if the Administration pressured the US intel community to come to pre-determined conclusions.

For it to be a felony, you'd still have to show intent. If Bush KNEW that there were no WMD's in Iraq, AND this information was proven false, then and only then would he be guilty of willfully missleading congress.

However, I think you will be hard pressed to make such a case because
a) there are/were WMD's in Iraq,
b) the best US intel at the time said that there were WMDs in Iraq at the time, and
c) good luck proving that the only reason congress authorized war against Iraq was WMD

[Dowding]

there are/were WMD's in Iraq

You can't lump 'are' and 'were' together. We knew there were WMD in Iraq in the past, the question was whether there was any remaining to justify an invasion. At the moment, the answer is no.

[Fishu]

We all know the Bush family deeply hates Saddam and we all should also know it's always someone elses fault when something isn't true and they were misleading the president.

yawn...  getting old & repeative, when does the people learn.
So boringly naive already.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
You can't lump 'are' and 'were' together. We knew there were WMD in Iraq in the past, the question was whether there was any remaining to justify an invasion.

[/b]
The are/were was referring to at the time of the speech to congress. There are WMDs in Iraq now, there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the speech...better?

 At the moment, the answer is no.

No, at the moment, you have no idea whatsoever what the answer is. You like to pretend that you do though...because it fits your agenda.

[Dowding]

Have they found WMD which satisfies the Bush administrations own criteria? Nope. At the moment, and until it is found, the invasion is unjustified... better?

[maslo]

Hort .. may be you should not watch sci-fi movies so often

and clean up your glasses at least once a year please

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
Have they found WMD which satisfies the Bush administrations own criteria? Nope. At the moment, and until it is found, the invasion is unjustified... better?

Not really... It should read something like this:
"In my opinion the invasion is unjustified because they have not found the kind of evidence for WMD's that I was expecting"

[SLO]

Originally posted by Toad
I care.

I doubt I'd be described as a radical leftie or even a leftie at all for that matter.

I'm sorry, but from my point of view the only possible justification for invading another sovereign country..... even one ruled by a despot like Saddam.... is a true threat to US National Security.

Bush and his administration put forward the Iraqi WMD program/stockpiles as the "true threat" that justified sending US combat troops into Iraq to remove said threat.

I admit I accepted their word and their reasoning (I still do accept the reasoning, but the proof is needed.) and supported it.

However, if it turns out they were wrong, there still has to be accountability.

500+ of this nation's finest have given their lives to remove this "true threat".

If it's not there, the buck stops on the CINC's desk. That simple. He's responsible and accountable for this action. He gets the support and adulation if it proves correct, he gets the blame if it was wrong.

Time will tell and it'll be sooner rather than later.

never thought I'd say this....well said Toad:eek:

only 1 thing though....it was considered an 'IMMINENT THREAT'....not a TRUE THREAT

If it was so 'IMMINENT' logic says you would of found them much much sooner.

[ravells]

In which case, Hort, you ought to be saying:

'In my opinion the invasion is justified because there were WMD's [sic] in Iraq just prior to the invasion but these have not yet been found as they are now in Syria'

rather than:

'However, I think you will be hard pressed to make such a case because
a) there are/were WMD's in Iraq'

[maslo]

may be SH sent them to Syria on those meteorogical ballons ...

Do you remember when Mr. Powell showed world SH`s mobile laboratories ?

Sure im just poor vicim of commie antiUS propaganda

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Toad
But until then we have to just accept your unsupported claims?

rolleyesthingie

You dont' have to take my word for anything.
There's plenty of open source information to back up what I say.
But selective reading and tunnel vision won't get you there.

The fact that the CIA sent several reports to the White House about Niger/Iraq has been well documented by governement sources and these sources are available to you. The fact that Bush ignored their recommendation that it was bogus intel is also well documented. Their excuse was to find someone to blame.... now on to other distractions. yet... there's a pattern.

The pattern of intell stove piping and latching on to anything that will justify the Bush Administrations point of view is obvious if you do the math.

Match up what the White House has said and what has been found to be irrefutablely true or false.

Do the math - literally.... Number of True statements and Number of False statements - then follow the patern.

Senior White House officials leaking Wilson's wife's name and breaking the law - Do you believe that happened or not?

Why would an adminsitration with high moral values commit an obvious felony against another American?

As for the Stove Piping of intelligence, do a google you'll find plenty of information. The pattern is there - it's not black helicopter tin hat conspiracy theory... that's nice simplistically thinking.. but that's not what's going on.

It's an agenda, which is well established and well planned.
it's not evil, it's not good... it's just "the" agenda.

It's a matter of which sources you want to believe.

Or just wait until an "official" governement report does all the work comes out and says it.... and then everyone can be reprogrammed with the "new think."

[Lance]

You zany euros!  You need to get your own righteous|illegal toppling of another country.