May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i still fail to see how bush can be held responsible for national intelligence agency reporting.

Because the buck stops with him. I'm not saying he lied. I don't believe he did. But I do think he allowed himself to be convinced that invading Iraq was a good idea because he was inclined to believe it was.

Except that the Downing Street memo ties up with statements from former administration officials who have made quite clear assertions that Bush's first reaction to 9/11 was to look for a justification to go to war with Iraq regardless of Saddams actual involvement..

All the evidence that was put in the public domain to justify it was really superfluous at the end of the day, because Bushco had already decided on a course of action. So my question is again - why did we go to war? Its certainly not for the reasons that were given, the reasons which have been proved to be fictional or greatly exaggerated. It was for someone's very narrow agenda.

We had the barest minimum of public and political debate in the run up to that war. The decision had already been made, and the rhetoric and justifications from the administration were all geared towards supporting a decision that had already been made, regardless of contrary public or political opinion.

lol. great idea! debate publicly to attack another country, give them ample and clear warning!

that there was political debate i don't doubt. and if the administration was so dead set on going after saddam, i have to wonder what they knew. and when they knew it.

Clearly not all that much if they had to make it up....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

lol. great idea! debate publicly to attack another country, give them ample and clear warning!

Clearly it was needed - because a significant number of people in the US and Europe didn't believe that Iraq posed any threat. They believed they were being sold a war on false pretenses, for reasons that were quite different to what was said publicly by politicians.

In any case, if Bush et al knew something that they weren't prepared to reveal to the public, you'd think that releasing it now would alleviate a lot of the controversy. Saying that of course, we do know how very good Bushco are at leaking classified information to the media that serves their purposes, even if it violates the law.

What do you think that whole Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame / Karl Rove fiasco was all about?

Wilson gets sent to Nigeria to verify claims that Saddam sought to buy uranium. He finds no such evidence - yet Bush still includes the claim in his state of the union speech!?

Then when Wilson goes public, the administration retaliates by naming his wife as a covert CIA operative, consequently destroying her career and risking the lives of other undercover agents operating in the middle-east.

Coincidence?

If you want to read about it there's a summary of the whole affair at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Comprises news reports from several different news agencies.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

lol. great idea! debate publicly to attack another country, give them ample and clear warning!

Clearly it was needed - because a significant number of people in the US and Europe didn't believe that Iraq posed any threat. They believed they were being sold a war on false pretenses, for reasons that were quite different to what was said publicly by politicians.

In any case, if Bush et al knew something that they weren't prepared to reveal to the public, you'd think that releasing it now would alleviate a lot of the controversy. Saying that of course, we do know how very good Bushco are at leaking classified information to the media that serves their purposes, even if it violates the law.

What do you think that whole Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame / Karl Rove fiasco was all about?

Wilson gets sent to Nigeria to verify claims that Saddam sought to buy uranium. He finds no such evidence - yet Bush still includes the claim in his state of the union speech!?

Then when Wilson goes public, the administration retaliates by naming his wife as a covert CIA operative, consequently destroying her career and risking the lives of other undercover agents operating in the middle-east.

Coincidence?

If you want to read about it there's a summary of the whole affair at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Comprises news reports from several different news agencies.

and you are absolutely wrong. a public airing of such is not a bright idea. to do so would compromise how the intelligence was gathered, such as its methods and sources. which would then tell all of our adversaries what we can do. not too brilliant at all.

regarding bush leaking classified info. he, by virtue of his office, can declassify such as he sees fit. so what is classified one day, with the stroke of a pen, becomes unclassified the next. although such is not a bright idea, as listed above.

to illustrate how reports become jumbled, i'm reminded of kennedy sending two advisors to vietnam. their stories upon their return was at polar opposites. it was so bad that kennedy asked if they visited the same country. such occurs when you send someone who is not trained in the job off to gather information and make an assessment.

the wikipedia, btw, is not what i'd consider to be 100% accurate. such can be edited by anyone on the internet. however, one gem in that article that you might have missed is this:

"In the years before and for months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. government officials with the support of other countries' intelligence agencies publicly presented evidence that the Iraqi government had reconstituted its WMD program — including chemical and biological weapons — and furthermore that it was actively trying to obtain the capability to develop nuclear weapons."

in your own source, the wikipedia, it does not implicate bush directly. just this advisor, that advisor. i understand, it's bush's fault! they were his advisors and therefore he's to blame!

it would seem to me that if there was any spinning, it was the advisors of bush spinning things to him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

lol. great idea! debate publicly to attack another country, give them ample and clear warning!

Clearly it was needed - because a significant number of people in the US and Europe didn't believe that Iraq posed any threat. They believed they were being sold a war on false pretenses, for reasons that were quite different to what was said publicly by politicians.

In any case, if Bush et al knew something that they weren't prepared to reveal to the public, you'd think that releasing it now would alleviate a lot of the controversy. Saying that of course, we do know how very good Bushco are at leaking classified information to the media that serves their purposes, even if it violates the law.

What do you think that whole Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame / Karl Rove fiasco was all about?

Wilson gets sent to Nigeria to verify claims that Saddam sought to buy uranium. He finds no such evidence - yet Bush still includes the claim in his state of the union speech!?

Then when Wilson goes public, the administration retaliates by naming his wife as a covert CIA operative, consequently destroying her career and risking the lives of other undercover agents operating in the middle-east.

Coincidence?

If you want to read about it there's a summary of the whole affair at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Comprises news reports from several different news agencies.

and you are absolutely wrong. a public airing of such is not a bright idea. to do so would compromise how the intelligence was gathered, such as its methods and sources. which would then tell all of our adversaries what we can do. not too brilliant at all.

regarding bush leaking classified info. he, by virtue of his office, can declassify such as he sees fit. so what is classified one day, with the stroke of a pen, becomes unclassified the next. although such is not a bright idea, as listed above.

to illustrate how reports become jumbled, i'm reminded of kennedy sending two advisors to vietnam. their stories upon their return was at polar opposites. it was so bad that kennedy asked if they visited the same country. such occurs when you send someone who is not trained in the job off to gather information and make an assessment.

the wikipedia, btw, is not what i'd consider to be 100% accurate. such can be edited by anyone on the internet. however, one gem in that article that you might have missed is this:

"In the years before and for months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. government officials with the support of other countries' intelligence agencies publicly presented evidence that the Iraqi government had reconstituted its WMD program — including chemical and biological weapons — and furthermore that it was actively trying to obtain the capability to develop nuclear weapons."

in your own source, the wikipedia, it does not implicate bush directly. just this advisor, that advisor. i understand, it's bush's fault! they were his advisors and therefore he's to blame!

it would seem to me that if there was any spinning, it was the advisors of bush spinning things to him.

Now you're just nitpicking! I believe I said Bush et al - whether or not it was Bush directly is irrelevant. His advisors are in his employ, they work for him and he is the boss. As POTUS he MUST assume accountability for the actions of his advisors.

As for the Wikipedia article - it directly references a number of stories from a number of different news reporting agencies. The facts are as I stated them: Wilson's wife had her cover illegally blown as a direct result of Wilson publicly contradicting a statement made in George Bush's State of the Union that formed a part of the adminstrations case for war in Iraq.

Deal with the issues, attacking the reliability of the source is a cop-out, with due respect.

Wilson DID go to Iraq, his wife WAS a undercover CIA agent, her cover WAS blown illegally, and it was blown as an act of revenge for her husband contradicting the president and undermining part of his case for war. You might want to read a little further perhaps:

Along with other reasons for war, the U.S. cited British intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa. The original intelligence showed evidence of purchase of the material from Niger as well as a timeline for negotiations for obtaining the material. Shortly after the 2003 State of the Union address, the documents showing Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium were deemed to be false. (The previous sentence is incorrect and misleading. In fact, President Bush's administration knew as early as October 2002 that there was no substance to the claims that Iraq was pursuing the purchase of natural uranium from Africa. The October 2002 NIE concluded that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.") Later investigations (the Butler Report in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 7, 2004) repeated the claim that there was intelligence from multiple sources other than the Niger documents that indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase the material.

The French Government had warned the Bush administration, a year before the State of the Union, that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.[5] But current critics say the French were denying the evidence because of their involvement in the Oil For Food Scandal. [citation needed]

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) asked the U.S. Government for documentation in the Autumn of 2002, and after some delay[citation needed], the U.S. Government sent documents to the IAEA without further comment. The IAEA experts quickly determined that the documents were primitive forgeries. And the Nobel Prize-winning director of IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries, on March 7, 2003.

The IAEA experts, during several months of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the war, found no evidence of any nuclear programme in the country. That was told to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, before the war. The official U.S. Duelfer Inspection Report found later, after the war, that all nuclear production facilities in Iraq were destroyed before 1991 and never reconstituted. In March 2003 the U.N. experts asked for a few more months of inspections to verify the chemical and biological weapons disarmament in Iraq. But the U.S. government denied more time for inspections, and invaded Iraq, on March 19, 2003.

Patrick Fitzgerald

Enlarge

Patrick Fitzgerald

After the invasion of Iraq, Wilson publicly criticized the Bush administration in a New York Times opinion column. Eight days later, Plame's identity as a CIA agent was exposed in conservative pundit Robert Novak's regularly syndicated column, along with an allegation that Plame had a role in sending Wilson to investigate the Iraq-Niger "yellowcake" claim. The revelation of Plame's identity began a larger political scandal, and Wilson claimed that Rove had leaked Plame's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation for his public contradiction of Bush administration claims. A subsequent special investigation was launched and placed under the direction of Patrick Fitzgerald, and numerous established and speculated connections to Bush administration officials have since surfaced. On October 28, 2005, a grand jury returned a 5-count indictment against Lewis Libby, Vice President ####### Cheney's Chief of Staff, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. When the indictment was announced, Libby resigned his post.

The indictment alleges that Libby had informed several reporters about Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA, that this information was classified, and that Cheney got the information from CIA sources and brought it to Libby's attention. Libby has been accused of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about the disclosure to investigators, but has not been criminally charged for releasing Plame's name. Both Karl Rove and Lewis Libby had told reporters about the occupation of Joe Wilson's wife in CIA, but Lewis Libby did it first, according to the investigation, to reporter Judith Miller on June 23, 2003.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

lol. great idea! debate publicly to attack another country, give them ample and clear warning!

Clearly it was needed - because a significant number of people in the US and Europe didn't believe that Iraq posed any threat. They believed they were being sold a war on false pretenses, for reasons that were quite different to what was said publicly by politicians.

In any case, if Bush et al knew something that they weren't prepared to reveal to the public, you'd think that releasing it now would alleviate a lot of the controversy. Saying that of course, we do know how very good Bushco are at leaking classified information to the media that serves their purposes, even if it violates the law.

What do you think that whole Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame / Karl Rove fiasco was all about?

Wilson gets sent to Nigeria to verify claims that Saddam sought to buy uranium. He finds no such evidence - yet Bush still includes the claim in his state of the union speech!?

Then when Wilson goes public, the administration retaliates by naming his wife as a covert CIA operative, consequently destroying her career and risking the lives of other undercover agents operating in the middle-east.

Coincidence?

If you want to read about it there's a summary of the whole affair at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Comprises news reports from several different news agencies.

and you are absolutely wrong. a public airing of such is not a bright idea. to do so would compromise how the intelligence was gathered, such as its methods and sources. which would then tell all of our adversaries what we can do. not too brilliant at all.

regarding bush leaking classified info. he, by virtue of his office, can declassify such as he sees fit. so what is classified one day, with the stroke of a pen, becomes unclassified the next. although such is not a bright idea, as listed above.

to illustrate how reports become jumbled, i'm reminded of kennedy sending two advisors to vietnam. their stories upon their return was at polar opposites. it was so bad that kennedy asked if they visited the same country. such occurs when you send someone who is not trained in the job off to gather information and make an assessment.

the wikipedia, btw, is not what i'd consider to be 100% accurate. such can be edited by anyone on the internet. however, one gem in that article that you might have missed is this:

"In the years before and for months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. government officials with the support of other countries' intelligence agencies publicly presented evidence that the Iraqi government had reconstituted its WMD program — including chemical and biological weapons — and furthermore that it was actively trying to obtain the capability to develop nuclear weapons."

in your own source, the wikipedia, it does not implicate bush directly. just this advisor, that advisor. i understand, it's bush's fault! they were his advisors and therefore he's to blame!

it would seem to me that if there was any spinning, it was the advisors of bush spinning things to him.

Now you're just nitpicking! I believe I said Bush et al - whether or not it was Bush directly is irrelevant. His advisors are in his employ, they work for him and he is the boss. As POTUS he MUST assume accountability for the actions of his advisors.

As for the Wikipedia article - it directly references a number of stories from a number of different news reporting agencies. The facts are as I stated them: Wilson's wife had her cover illegally blown as a direct result of Wilson publicly contradicting a statement made in George Bush's State of the Union that formed a part of the adminstrations case for war in Iraq.

Deal with the issues, attacking the reliability of the source is a cop-out, with due respect.

Wilson DID go to Iraq, his wife WAS a undercover CIA agent, her cover WAS blown illegally, and it was blown as an act of revenge for her husband contradicting the president and undermining part of his case for war. You might want to read a little further perhaps:

Along with other reasons for war, the U.S. cited British intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa. The original intelligence showed evidence of purchase of the material from Niger as well as a timeline for negotiations for obtaining the material. Shortly after the 2003 State of the Union address, the documents showing Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium were deemed to be false. (The previous sentence is incorrect and misleading. In fact, President Bush's administration knew as early as October 2002 that there was no substance to the claims that Iraq was pursuing the purchase of natural uranium from Africa. The October 2002 NIE concluded that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.") Later investigations (the Butler Report in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 7, 2004) repeated the claim that there was intelligence from multiple sources other than the Niger documents that indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase the material.

The French Government had warned the Bush administration, a year before the State of the Union, that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.[5] But current critics say the French were denying the evidence because of their involvement in the Oil For Food Scandal. [citation needed]

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) asked the U.S. Government for documentation in the Autumn of 2002, and after some delay[citation needed], the U.S. Government sent documents to the IAEA without further comment. The IAEA experts quickly determined that the documents were primitive forgeries. And the Nobel Prize-winning director of IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries, on March 7, 2003.

The IAEA experts, during several months of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the war, found no evidence of any nuclear programme in the country. That was told to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, before the war. The official U.S. Duelfer Inspection Report found later, after the war, that all nuclear production facilities in Iraq were destroyed before 1991 and never reconstituted. In March 2003 the U.N. experts asked for a few more months of inspections to verify the chemical and biological weapons disarmament in Iraq. But the U.S. government denied more time for inspections, and invaded Iraq, on March 19, 2003.

Patrick Fitzgerald

Enlarge

Patrick Fitzgerald

After the invasion of Iraq, Wilson publicly criticized the Bush administration in a New York Times opinion column. Eight days later, Plame's identity as a CIA agent was exposed in conservative pundit Robert Novak's regularly syndicated column, along with an allegation that Plame had a role in sending Wilson to investigate the Iraq-Niger "yellowcake" claim. The revelation of Plame's identity began a larger political scandal, and Wilson claimed that Rove had leaked Plame's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation for his public contradiction of Bush administration claims. A subsequent special investigation was launched and placed under the direction of Patrick Fitzgerald, and numerous established and speculated connections to Bush administration officials have since surfaced. On October 28, 2005, a grand jury returned a 5-count indictment against Lewis Libby, Vice President ####### Cheney's Chief of Staff, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. When the indictment was announced, Libby resigned his post.

The indictment alleges that Libby had informed several reporters about Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA, that this information was classified, and that Cheney got the information from CIA sources and brought it to Libby's attention. Libby has been accused of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about the disclosure to investigators, but has not been criminally charged for releasing Plame's name. Both Karl Rove and Lewis Libby had told reporters about the occupation of Joe Wilson's wife in CIA, but Lewis Libby did it first, according to the investigation, to reporter Judith Miller on June 23, 2003.

ah yes. bush et al. earlier it was bush's fault. now it's his by association. and btw, bush does not employ them. that implies he is responsible for their wages. such is paid for by the government.......

if one of bush's advisors blew someone's cover, that's not bush speaking. that is some fool running his mouth off. again, not bush.

perhaps the yellowcake was purchased somewhere else? we'll know in about 50 years when its all declassified.

"The IAEA experts, during several months of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the war, found no evidence of any nuclear programme in the country." not surprising, since the inspections were held up, diverted, and things were moved around. part of the un resolution was unrestricted ability to inspect. it never happened.

"In March 2003 the U.N. experts asked for a few more months of inspections to verify the chemical and biological weapons disarmament in Iraq. But the U.S. government denied more time for inspections, and invaded Iraq, on March 19, 2003." so in over 12 years they still had no idea if such was around? that should tell you something. i'd say it was a smart idea to deny further inspections - get people outta dodge. or do you suspect that they could dodge bombs that well and stay?

all in all, i know there are things we are not aware of - probably for a good reason. and i can understand why. i'm sure national security takes quite a bit of precedence over inquiring minds....

Edited May 2, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Fuzzness 2]

so.... when does the crying and name calling start? i've been waiting for five freaking pages for it

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

so.... when does the crying and name calling start? i've been waiting for five freaking pages for it

cheeseburger eater! there, happy?

[Fuzzness 2]

so.... when does the crying and name calling start? i've been waiting for five freaking pages for it

cheeseburger eater! there, happy?

let me rephrase then... when does the crying, the b!tching. and the insults start?

[ace13 0]

War is never a walk in the park.

The USA never wanted to go to war.

The US did go to war.

The US is at war.

The US must finish the war.

Peace

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ah yes. bush et al. earlier it was bush's fault. now it's his by association. and btw, bush does not employ them. that implies he is responsible for their wages. such is paid for by the government.......

if one of bush's advisors blew someone's cover, that's not bush speaking. that is some fool running his mouth off. again, not bush.

perhaps the yellowcake was purchased somewhere else? we'll know in about 50 years when its all declassified.

"The IAEA experts, during several months of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the war, found no evidence of any nuclear programme in the country." not surprising, since the inspections were held up, diverted, and things were moved around. part of the un resolution was unrestricted ability to inspect. it never happened.

"In March 2003 the U.N. experts asked for a few more months of inspections to verify the chemical and biological weapons disarmament in Iraq. But the U.S. government denied more time for inspections, and invaded Iraq, on March 19, 2003." so in over 12 years they still had no idea if such was around? that should tell you something. i'd say it was a smart idea to deny further inspections - get people outta dodge. or do you suspect that they could dodge bombs that well and stay?

all in all, i know there are things we are not aware of - probably for a good reason. and i can understand why. i'm sure national security takes quite a bit of precedence over inquiring minds....

Dude that's simply semantics - Bush is accountable by association certainly. Whether he knew it or not (and I believe from the available evidence that he did), he is responsible for including a claim in his 2003 SOTU address that he knew the year before to be untrue. He is certainly responsible for the actions of members of his inner circle - or are you saying he doesn't know what his own people are up to? Hmmm... that's usually called incompetance....

With regards to classified information, this administration has shown itself to be extremely flexible with regards to how it treats such information. Again, the leaking to the media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA operative. You don't think that if they had specific evidence of a threat to US national security that they wouldn't release it to the media as a justification of the policy?

They've certainly been very vocal in voicing their achievements in the war on terror, whether it be the latest Al Qaeda bigwig they've killed, or that they foiled terror plot. You don't think so?

I think its a fairly large leap of trust to assume, as you seem to, that the government has acted and continutes to act in our best interests on this issue, when almost every justifying piece of evidence that has been given to the public on this issue has shown to be inaccurate or in some way fraudulent. If they're prepared to lie to get us into a war, what else do you think they aren't telling the truth about?

I trust what I see - based on the available evidence. Again you haven't addressed any of the core aspects of the evidence presented. Until you do - how can you argue about this with any validity?

War is never a walk in the park.

The USA never wanted to go to war.

The US did go to war.

The US is at war.

The US must finish the war.

Peace

Hmmmm.... but they DID want to go to war... That's why Bush was looking for ways to get into Iraq long before they started talking about it in Congress and the Senate. Ummmm... Downing Street Memo? Ah forget it - that's more evidence isn't it. We don't like evidence do we?

Moral postulating apparently justifies a war. Adhering to the law, holding the president's statements and actions up to scrutiny (and those of his administration) apparently does not.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Dude that's simply semantics - Bush is accountable by association certainly. Whether he knew it or not (and I believe from the available evidence that he did), he is responsible for including a claim in his 2003 SOTU address that he knew the year before to be untrue. He is certainly responsible for the actions of members of his inner circle - or are you saying he doesn't know what his own people are up to? Hmmm... that's usually called incompetance....

With regards to classified information, this administration has shown itself to be extremely flexible with regards to how it treats such information. Again, the leaking to the media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA operative. You don't think that if they had specific evidence of a threat to US national security that they wouldn't release it to the media as a justification of the policy?

They've certainly been very vocal in voicing their achievements in the war on terror, whether it be the latest Al Qaeda bigwig they've killed, or that they foiled terror plot. You don't think so?

I think its a fairly large leap of trust to assume, as you seem to, that the government has acted and continutes to act in our best interests on this issue, when almost every justifying piece of evidence that has been given to the public on this issue has shown to be inaccurate or in some way fraudulent. If they're prepared to lie to get us into a war, what else do you think they aren't telling the truth about?

I trust what I see - based on the available evidence. Again you haven't addressed any of the core aspects of the evidence presented. Until you do - how can you argue about this with any validity?

War is never a walk in the park.

The USA never wanted to go to war.

The US did go to war.

The US is at war.

The US must finish the war.

Peace

Hmmmm.... but they DID want to go to war... That's why Bush was looking for ways to get into Iraq long before they started talking about it in Congress and the Senate. Ummmm... Downing Street Memo? Ah forget it - that's more evidence isn't it. We don't like evidence do we?

Moral postulating apparently justifies a war. Adhering to the law, holding the president's statements and actions up to scrutiny (and those of his administration) apparently does not.

semantics? oh please. you insist that bush is responsible for everything. after all, everyone works for him by the logic you try to illustrate. i'm sure bush is responsible for the actions of pvt joe snuffy too. and what administration has not announced their success in a war?

i'm certain we have plans to get into every country. that has been covered already. kinda like nasa, some guys sitting around just dreaming this sh__ up (from the movie armaggedon). i'd not be surprised if we had a plan to invade antartica!

as you decide to place blame, put it where it really belongs - with the national intelligence services. they are the ones who cried the sky is falling and sold such to bush. and your own source (wikipedia) includes foreign intelligence services backing up the initial assessments.

so far all i've learned is this:

government = bush.

advisors = bush

everything wrong = bush

good luck with selling your conspiracy....

[ace13 0]

Fishdude,

Chill man!

Just because you have intent to go to war doesn't mean desire or want.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fishdude,

Chill man!

Just because you have intent to go to war doesn't mean desire or want.

I don't see the difference, other than it sheds a slightly different light on the man's personal qualities. Practically, its a distinction that doesn't mean much I'm afraid.

[Fuzzness 2]

I'm on Fishdude's side. so it's 2-2 now

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

semantics? oh please. you insist that bush is responsible for everything.

No I didn't. I thought we were only talking about the war. You know, the one Bush and his adminstration started.

as you decide to place blame, put it where it really belongs - with the national intelligence services. they are the ones who cried the sky is falling and sold such to bush. and your own source (wikipedia) includes foreign intelligence services backing up the initial assessments.

Sure, if it weren't for the fact that various officials in the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies have spoken out quite candidly about government influence in choosing which intelligence to use and present to the public.

good luck with selling your conspiracy....

Its more than a conspiracy - as I said you're more than welcome to read the evidence and form your own conclusions, as I have.

Suggest you start with the Downing Street Memo, and with the Wilson/Plame article.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude