May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[ace13 0]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

[Nessa 23]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

that's a great book.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

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.

did bush really start such? or did saddam by refusing to follow un resolutions? did we need to give him another dozen years?

oh of course they come forward now. and tell me something? where were they back when the idea had consent from so many? now they crawl out of the woodwork. i just love it

as for your evidence, i've read it. and dismissed it. you're so hot to blame bush by any means necessary.

and your original statement was - it's bush's fault.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

I read it. Overrated and historically inaccurate, which I'm sure you know.

What is it you specifically think is untrue?

The claims by intelligence officials that intelligence was 'selected to direct a course for war'?

The meetings attended by Tony Blair and the head of MI6 (minutes of which form the Downing Street Memos) that give an unvarnished account of what went on behind the scenes and state specifically that "Bush had already decided on war and wanted them to find a way to justify it and make it legal"

The 'intelligence dossier' that Colin Powell presented to the UN security council, that was taken verbatim from a PHD student thesis?

The statement by Joseph Wilson that contradicted claims made by Bush in his 2003 SOTU speech, and the subsequent outing of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative by members of Bush's adminstration? Officials who have since been fired or resigned...

Where do you want to start?

[Fuzzness 2]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

what does that have to do with iraq?

[Nessa 23]

what does that have to do with iraq?

lol well still the book is very good

[ace13 0]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

what does that have to do with iraq?

Just a little sarcasm--fictional works...haha B)

[Fuzzness 2]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

what does that have to do with iraq?

Just a little sarcasm--fictional works...haha B)

ahhh yeah, like the report on Saddam having WMD's

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

what does that have to do with iraq?

Just a little sarcasm--fictional works...haha B)

Easy to say when you haven't shown any concrete evidence to back up your claims...

I have at least illustrated how I informed my views on this issue, and in most cases provided the sources. Can you say the same?

What we're seeing here is an unreasoning trust in the government, with people dismissing as fiction the word of not one person, but many people in positions of authority who have spoken out about the presidents war policy and the way in which he and his administration have gone about it.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

did bush really start such? or did saddam by refusing to follow un resolutions?

Actually, in early 2003, the UN was working on verifying that Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions. They were bothered by only one party: the US administration that told them to get out 'cause they were going in. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

The bottom line is that the Congressional authorization to use force as a last resort had worked. The UN was doing it's job. Bush apparently didn't like it very much (as that was poison to the already made decision to go in and take Saddam out) and told the UN to get out. It wasn't Saddam this time keeping the UN from doing their work, it was Bush. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

did we need to give him another dozen years?

No. See above.

oh of course they come forward now. and tell me something? where were they back when the idea had consent from so many? now they crawl out of the woodwork. i just love it

Have you read the Senate debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force? I bet you haven't as you'd otherwise not make an uninformed statement as the one above. The critics were always there. And they spoke out as they were in the process to grant the authority. They didn't want to go to war. They wanted Saddam to be pressured into compliance. Which he was (see above) and Bush decided to go in anyways. That decision was made long before the marching orders were given.

Which is why he lied to trump up the case for this illegal wet dream of his (see many posts earlier - the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that). Plainly obvious BS that his troops were told by some AQ lunatic. The DIA told him that there's nothing to that claim of such cooperation and yet, Bush took the word of an AQ crook over that of the DIA.

To be sure: He trusted the enemy more than our intelligence community to then turn around and fault that very same intelligence community for this debacle. You find that acceptable? I sure don't.

Edited May 2, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, in early 2003, the UN was working on verifying that Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions. They were bothered by only one party: the US administration that told them to get out 'cause they were going in. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

The bottom line is that the Congressional authorization to use force as a last resort had worked. The UN was doing it's job. Bush apparently didn't like it very much (as that was poison to the already made decision to go in and take Saddam out) and told the UN to get out. It wasn't Saddam this time keeping the UN from doing their work, it was Bush. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

Yep

Have you read the Senate debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force? I bet you haven't as you'd otherwise not make an uninformed statement as the one above. The critics were always there. And they spoke out as they were in the process to grant the authority. They didn't want to go to war. They wanted Saddam to be pressured into compliance. Which he was (see above) and Bush decided to go in anyways. That decision was made long before the marching orders were given.

Yep

Which is why he lied to trump up the case for this illegal wet dream of his (see many posts earlier - the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that). Plainly obvious BS that his troops were told by some AQ lunatic. The DIA told him that there's nothing to that claim of such cooperation and yet, Bush took the word of an AQ crook over that of the DIA.

To be sure: He trusted the enemy more than our intelligence community to then turn around and fault that very same community for this debacle. You find that acceptable? I sure don't.

Sounds like cherry-picking to me. Bush and his adminstration had ALL the intelligence, but they chose to use that which best fitted their clearly predetermined agenda. They used a few disparate, unverifiable sources, that intelligence officials had the least confidence in and used them, against the advice of those same officials, because they (the Bush adminstration) already knew what they wanted to do, they just needed propaganda to sell it to the senate and the public at large.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

did bush really start such? or did saddam by refusing to follow un resolutions?

Actually, in early 2003, the UN was working on verifying that Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions. They were bothered by only one party: the US administration that told them to get out 'cause they were going in. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

The bottom line is that the Congressional authorization to use force as a last resort had worked. The UN was doing it's job. Bush apparently didn't like it very much (as that was poison to the already made decision to go in and take Saddam out) and told the UN to get out. It wasn't Saddam this time keeping the UN from doing their work, it was Bush. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

did we need to give him another dozen years?

No. See above.

oh of course they come forward now. and tell me something? where were they back when the idea had consent from so many? now they crawl out of the woodwork. i just love it

Have you read the Senate debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force? I bet you haven't as you'd otherwise not make an uninformed statement as the one above. The critics were always there. And they spoke out as they were in the process to grant the authority. They didn't want to go to war. They wanted Saddam to be pressured into compliance. Which he was (see above) and Bush decided to go in anyways. That decision was made long before the marching orders were given.

Which is why he lied to trump up the case for this illegal wet dream of his (see many posts earlier - the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that). Plainly obvious BS that his troops were told by some AQ lunatic. The DIA told him that there's nothing to that claim of such cooperation and yet, Bush took the word of an AQ crook over that of the DIA.

To be sure: He trusted the enemy more than our intelligence community to then turn around and fault that very same intelligence community for this debacle. You find that acceptable? I sure don't.

oh how special. saddam after 12 years started following such. i find that very difficult to believe. if he showed any cooperation about anything, it was due to him having an angle. as always.

the un was NOT doing it's job. ask that guy named ritter. how can the un have done their job when it took 12 years and things still were not done? to think that 12 years of being given the run around is a pipe dream. don't bet that it would not have taken another 12 years as i stated earlier.

you say "the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that" obviously someone believed that - and i don't bet on it just being bush. but oh yes, it's a conspiracy! it has to be bush!

fact is, someone in the intel community also believed the source. but i know, it's bush's fault! yippee! it's ok, another 2 years and you'll be able to have something new to complain about.

[Fuzzness 2]

umm... there is no completely solid evidence that saddam was complying with the UN.... anyone care to guess the reason?

[almaty 19]

Make sure you don't forget to read the Davinci Code

what does that have to do with iraq?

Just a little sarcasm--fictional works...haha B)

ahhh yeah, like the report on Saddam having WMD's

touche

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

did bush really start such? or did saddam by refusing to follow un resolutions?

Actually, in early 2003, the UN was working on verifying that Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions. They were bothered by only one party: the US administration that told them to get out 'cause they were going in. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

The bottom line is that the Congressional authorization to use force as a last resort had worked. The UN was doing it's job. Bush apparently didn't like it very much (as that was poison to the already made decision to go in and take Saddam out) and told the UN to get out. It wasn't Saddam this time keeping the UN from doing their work, it was Bush. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

did we need to give him another dozen years?

No. See above.

oh of course they come forward now. and tell me something? where were they back when the idea had consent from so many? now they crawl out of the woodwork. i just love it

Have you read the Senate debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force? I bet you haven't as you'd otherwise not make an uninformed statement as the one above. The critics were always there. And they spoke out as they were in the process to grant the authority. They didn't want to go to war. They wanted Saddam to be pressured into compliance. Which he was (see above) and Bush decided to go in anyways. That decision was made long before the marching orders were given.

Which is why he lied to trump up the case for this illegal wet dream of his (see many posts earlier - the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that). Plainly obvious BS that his troops were told by some AQ lunatic. The DIA told him that there's nothing to that claim of such cooperation and yet, Bush took the word of an AQ crook over that of the DIA.

To be sure: He trusted the enemy more than our intelligence community to then turn around and fault that very same intelligence community for this debacle. You find that acceptable? I sure don't.

oh how special. saddam after 12 years started following such. i find that very difficult to believe. if he showed any cooperation about anything, it was due to him having an angle. as always.

the un was NOT doing it's job. ask that guy named ritter. how can the un have done their job when it took 12 years and things still were not done? to think that 12 years of being given the run around is a pipe dream. don't bet that it would not have taken another 12 years as i stated earlier.

you say "the farce about Saddam training AlQaeda in bio and chem weapons use and ####### like that" obviously someone believed that - and i don't bet on it just being bush. but oh yes, it's a conspiracy! it has to be bush!

fact is, someone in the intel community also believed the source. but i know, it's bush's fault! yippee! it's ok, another 2 years and you'll be able to have something new to complain about.

If you don't believe Bush and his administration (as I will refer to him from now on, in case of any "confusion") pushed this country into a war based on false and trumped up intelligence - massively overstating the threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein, prove it. It's really quite simple.

I've shared my views and demonstrated the evidence backing them up - to my knowledge you haven't refuted ANY of the evidence provided.

Again:

What is it you specifically think is untrue?

The claims by intelligence officials that intelligence was 'selected to direct a course for war'?

The meetings attended by Tony Blair and the head of MI6 (minutes of which form the Downing Street Memos) that give an unvarnished account of what went on behind the scenes and state specifically that "Bush had already decided on war and wanted them to find a way to justify it and make it legal"

The 'intelligence dossier' that Colin Powell presented to the UN security council, that was taken verbatim from a PHD student thesis?

The statement by Joseph Wilson that contradicted claims made by Bush in his 2003 SOTU speech, and the subsequent outing of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative by members of Bush's adminstration? Officials who have since been fired or resigned...

I didn't pull this stuff out of my ###. These criticisms come from a wide variety of people, from several different countries and in varying degrees of political authority. Its all out there in the public domain, where do you want to start?

Edited May 3, 2006 by Fishdude