Why don't you try and answer my criticisms? What exactly is impressive about that performance by him? What piece of intel can ever be certified as reliable except by Father Time?
All these arguments are based on the idea that the Administration had information and looked at it in a way which could be interpreted one way or another, but the truth is that the plans for the invasion of Iraq were on the table before 9-11. After 9-11 the administration found an atmosphere where they could put into action the invasion plans and then started looking for ways in which they could sell this idea to the American people. They had the cart before the horse. This is just good ole fashion colonialism, except instead of taking over a country the idea is to bring markets to US companies. US security, freedom to the Iraqi people and other such arguments are a joke, ideas to be tossed around which distract people from the truth.
Hadn't Saddam been thumbing his nose at the UN since, pretty much, the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991? That is a full decade before 9/11. No one is denying that the 9/11 tragedy gave the excuse they needed to accelerate any plans.
Giddy, So while not wanting to admit that the administration cherry picked evidence, you do admit that they were wrong, in which conflicting evidence they listened to. Does it not trouble you that nobody has been held accountable for listening to the wrong conflicting evidence even though it has cost thousands of lives? Does it bother you that those who originally told them they were wrong to listen to the conflicting evidence they did, were fired or forced to resign? While others who incorrectly went with the wrong evidence have been promoted and rewarded? Does it not bother you that since congress had a stake in this they should have been given the conflicting evidence as well, but were only presented with one side of the evidence, which turned out to be wrong?
1. I think if you heeded all the evidence, you would be unable to make a decision-- as the evidence is conflicting. How would you resolve that? 2. There are times for accountability. For elected officials, that would be election time... or impeachment initiatives. The Administration has a plan and they are sticking to it. You can't definitively make the call just yet because the struggle is far from over. 3. What evidence? Like the guy mcmark is citing? That guy was only profoundly right on one of three issues. We need to look at all those quotes demonizing Saddam which were uttered long before GWB took the White House... It does bother me when things don't go well, but I don't think that things are going as poorly as many here indicate. Much progress is not reported or under-reported.
so why even make such an important decision? becase they already have a timetable to attack anyway whether there are no weapons?
Aren't you forgetting that we had recenly suffered the worst terror attack on US soil in history... and it was no at all beyond the pale that an enemy like Saddam could get a boner for doing us more harm while the momentum is on the enemy's side? The president has a duty to protect the American people-- not the military. That is the job that they sign up for-- even if all they wanted was money for college or some other perceived benefit.
At the very least, if all the evidence was made public, we might not have supported the war. This lends a LOT of credence to the hypothesis that GWB and his crew "cherry picked" the "intelligence" they presented in the lead-up to the war. If you take account of all of the evidence and are not able to support the decision to go to war, then the war is not justifiable, as this one was not. The "plan" leaves much to be desired. So far, nothing they have said has been accurate and nothing they have done has been effective. Thank God that GWB and his cabal will be out after 2008. America simply cannot take any more of his "plan." There were plenty of quotes demonizing Saddam even before GWB took office, to be sure. However, the most recent evidence, especially the people who were on the ground in Iraq, pointed to Iraq having stopped their WMD programs. The people who were claiming in 2002 that Saddam had WMD programs were people with a vested interest in seeing the US invade, people like agents for the Iranian government (Chalabi), and agents for corporate interests (Cheney). You are welcome to crow all you want about Clinton (either one) talking about Saddam and his weapons programs, but the people who actually had first hand knowledge of what was going on in Iraq were reporting that there were no such programs. And those people were ignored or discredited in favor of people like Chalabi and "Curveball." Really? How is the ongoing "sectarian violence" (e.g. civil war) evidence of "progress?"
1. I would present both sides of evidence to congress so their decision was an informed one. They are entitled to all the evidence. not just parts of it. 2. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. were not elected officials. The President is responsible for them and should have been held accountable, not promoted and protected. 3. Evidence like that, evidence like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter mentioned when he said there were no WMD's left there. Evidence like that given multiple branches of official intel gathering agencies which said that information from curveball was not reliable, information like that from the IAEA which said the aluminum tubes were not likely for nuclear purposes, and pointed out that it would be harder to use those for nukes. IS that enough? Because sadly there is much more evidence that was contrary to what was presented, and turned out to be wrong, but this administration only presented the other evidence.
<b>FranchiseBlade 1. I would present both sides of evidence to congress so their decision was an informed one. They are entitled to all the evidence. not just parts of it.</b> Which is a member of the Executive Branch: the Senate or the President? There's a reason there is a separation of powers; ever heard that one?! <b>2. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. were not elected officials. The President is responsible for them and should have been held accountable, not promoted and protected.</b> Maybe he doesn't agree with your asessment of their performance... <b>3. Evidence like that, evidence like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter mentioned when he said there were no WMD's left there. Evidence like that given multiple branches of official intel gathering agencies which said that information from curveball was not reliable, information like that from the IAEA which said the aluminum tubes were not likely for nuclear purposes, and pointed out that it would be harder to use those for nukes. IS that enough? Because sadly there is much more evidence that was contrary to what was presented, and turned out to be wrong, but this administration only presented the other evidence.</b> I think that in matters of international intelligence there is almost always contrary evidence. Would it be unfair to say that your side is cherry-picking just as much as you charge the president with doing?
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is in fact a good reason why the president should provide all information to Congress. Do you understand why there is a seperation of powers?
Doesn't the Legislative Branch draw legislation and the Executive Branch execute? Are you two saying that the EB should take its cue from the LB? Since when is the LB in charge of executing the affairs of the nation? Nobody runs an open book up there. Isn't that what the separate part of separation addresses?
that was after you made this excuse.. but at first you amitted there was conflicting evidence to make a decision.. sp why make a decision.. and why not present the conflicting evidence to congress and the american public?
like what? that millions of people dont have running water? or that in baghdad they only have electricty for 4 hours a day? that they are selling terrorism insurance in iraq today?
Name one president who has every done that? Presidents get elected to lead and to make tough decisions that protect our nation. So you reduce 9/11 to an excuse?
