Compare and Contrast the CIA Intel Reports and the Rhetoric from White House

[Frogm4n]

When you write a research paper and quote sources you are responsible for their legitimacy. Now if you want to say that the president is less responisble for his actions then a typical college or high school student then go ahead.

[kappa]

There were no terrorist in Iraqi pre-invasion.. Or do you have links Rip?

Mass-graves are urgent?? They are dead.. How much urgency is needed for dead folk?

[Ripsnort]

Funny how human rights abuse only apply to when your political power is in the white house, isn't it kappa?

I might add, I found this article to have some truth about it:

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.

Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.

Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.

The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.

Sending a Message

Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.

Officials deny that Bush was captured by the aggressive views of neo-conservatives. But Bush did agree with some of their thinking.

"We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first at us," conservative commentator Bill Kristol said on ABCNEWS' Nightline in March.

The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.

Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.

But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to. (Remember my post about being a brilliant tactical decision? ) [[/i]

That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril.

Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States.

Source MSN

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Funny how human rights abuse only apply to when your political power is in the white house, isn't it kappa?

china and north korea were violating and NKorea is filling mass graves as we speak. Why dont we invade?
Saddam lost power in his country in 91, and with it were the mass graves and wmds.
You cannot justify the war based on old mass graves while you ignore mass graves being filled at this moment around the world.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
china and north korea were violating and NKorea is filling mass graves as we speak. Why dont we invade?
Saddam lost power in his country in 91, and with it were the mass graves and wmds.
You cannot justify the war based on old mass graves while you ignore mass graves being filled at this moment around the world.

Read the article I just added to my post for your answers.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Read the article I just added to my post for your answers.

heck China has WMD - they have Nukes... human rights abuse are well documented... they are even Communists...

Are they next on the Bush-Powel-Chenney-Rumsfield invasion list?

I thought this Administration - just like Republicans - stood for responsibility and accountability. Integrity in their actions.

You know telling the truth.

Bush said several things to justify this war... now those things are found to be untrue.

And Americans are dead as a result of his decision.

Where is his integrity, responsibility and accountability.

Why is he changing his story day-to-day?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Nakhui
heck China has WMD - they have Nukes... human rights abuse are well documented... they are even Communists...

Are they next on the Bush-Powel-Chenney-Rumsfield invasion list?

I thought this Administration - just like Republicans - stood for responsibility and accountability. Integrity in their actions.

You know telling the truth.

Bush said several things to justify this war... now those things are found to be untrue.

And Americans are dead as a result of his decision.

Where is his integrity, responsibility and accountability.

Why is he changing his story day-to-day?

{Points to previous post }

Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight.

But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to.

Tactically speaking...brillant! Neighborhood block watch programs are quite effective too.

22 December 2003


After months on the defensive because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, conservatives responsible for the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare were quietly jubilant over the weekend following Libya's climb down over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other significant gestures by Iran and Syria.

[Rude]

Man this whole thing is going to ramp up to proportions never seen by mankind in a Presidential election.

The Democrats so hate this man, that the level and rate in which mud will be thrown boggles the mind.

You guys speak of all of this as if it's a simple minded decision like the ones you might make during the course of the day. Many reasons existed for the US actions...add in the wake of 9-11 and that threat fueled a further need for a response.

Listen up....this is the bottom line....if you dislike Bush, he's a liar....if you support him, he did what he had to do.

I still believe he had weapons regardless of what officials tell us....I believe those weapons are either buried or moved.

Was the intel less that what it should be...yup....why? The dems killed the HUMINT back in the Carter days....they were just so taken back by the US forming relationships with bad folks...we got 9-11 along with a decades worth of attacks and no solution offered.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Nakhui
heck China has WMD - they have Nukes... human rights abuse are well documented... they are even Communists...

Are they next on the Bush-Powel-Chenney-Rumsfield invasion list?

I thought this Administration - just like Republicans - stood for responsibility and accountability. Integrity in their actions.

You know telling the truth.

Bush said several things to justify this war... now those things are found to be untrue.

And Americans are dead as a result of his decision.

Where is his integrity, responsibility and accountability.

Why is he changing his story day-to-day?

He's been consistent from day one....and for you to offer up that the US should address China in the same manner as Iraq, shows me either your ignorance of foreign policy or your lack of sincerity.

[Frogm4n]

I still believe he had weapons regardless of what officials tell us....I believe those weapons are either buried or moved.

lol, i bet you believe in chemtrails and that the moon landings are fake.

[10Bears]

Yeah Rip if you take away 534 lives 3,800 causalities 400 billions of dollars, loss of creditability and being made the laughing stock of the entire world, then yes, I’d have to agree, real brilliant.

So when the troops leave and the country breaks out in civil war, Mohammad Sistani becomes the Ayatollah and converts Iraq to fundamental Islam, will you consider the war to be a win or lose?.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by 10Bears
Yeah Rip if you take away 534 lives 3,800 causalities 400 billions of dollars, loss of creditability and being made the laughing stock of the entire world, then yes, I’d have to agree, real brilliant.

So when the troops leave and the country breaks out in civil war, Mohammad Sistani becomes the Ayatollah and converts Iraq to fundamental Islam, will you consider the war to be a win or lose?.

A win, because if your pessimistic approach to the future occurs, then we can tactically nuke them back to the 72 virgins.

[kappa]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Funny how human rights abuse only apply to when your political power is in the white house, isn't it kappa?

I might add, I found this article to have some truth about it:



Source MSN

I'm not sure what the first sentence is suppose to mean.

The article has truth to it but its end ideas are all wrong. Invading Iraqi has not helped control terrorism. This is seen to be easily proven by the fact of no terrorist in Iraqi pre-invasion. It seems that the 'terrorist' are growing by the day now in Iraqi, possibly the world.. So the results we are seeing do not fit the ideas of this article, IMO..

Rude, how you gonna blame this on a former president? Come'on man..
What was the guys name that worked in the Presidents cabinet that said he had all kinds of evidence that Bush wanted to goto war from day 1 in office? So much has surfaced about how Bush destorted the facts and rearranged evidence to suit his agenda. How can all this be thrown along the wayside and blame former presidents? geezz

[kappa]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
A win, because if your pessimistic approach to the future occurs, then we can tactically nuke them back to the 72 virgins.

wow!

So little learned.. Is there an amount of violence so large that would garrantee no retort?? I think not..

[Rude]

Hey...let's have a big ol love in!!!

It's our countries fault that we're hated....we need to change.

VOTE FOR KERRY IN 04!!!!