Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Prove it.
Prove it that he intentionally lied, and fabricated evidence leading up to the Iraq War.
Prove that he and his cronies cooked intelligence reports. Prove it.
Your logic makes no sense. If Bush was lying from the start, why wouldn't he send in a black-ops team and plant WMD in Iraq? That way he can justify his war...Cheney can justify making millions....public support for the war would probably still be up at 40-50%....and nobody could in theory say he 'lied.' I mean, if the guy is such a crony, and Cheney is so greedy, why wouldn't they make sure all those ends were covered?
Its funny really. Seems like its popular to say that Bush lied....the whole world believes it already because of the 'spin' the media has used to turn 'intelligence failure' into 'Bush lied - people died.'
Yet, every single report dedicated to finding out that exact so-called 'lie'...has ONLY talked about a massive intelligence failure.
Nothing has been documented about Bush 'lying'......except for those 'insiders'....who suddenly come out and write books telling the whole world how Bush forced the intelligence community to generate evidence that would prove Saddam had WMD. Yet, the real sources....those who investigated the WHOLE fiasco, never said anything about that.
So who are we going to believe? Insiders who take advantage of popular opinion and write books? Or a Senate Intelligence Committee who gathered ALL the evidence available and came to a different conclusion?
Lying is a pretty big demeanor...and by theory, it should be sufficient groups to impeach a President. If Bush did lie....don't you think the Democrats would push the impeachment process? There is a reason the majority of them are staying away from that. And I firmly believe it is because they failed the American people as well.
But hey, lets elect Clinton. I'm sure she'll change her stance a couple millions times before the primaries are even over. 
'I supported it.....'
'Obama didn't support it...therefore he appeased Saddam...'
 |
Well Azure, I have read the Senate intelligence report on WMDs in Iraq, and yes, Curveball and the Yellowcake Uranium were intelligence failures - BUT - the thing you have to remember is that these were gross miscalcuations, bordering on criminal negligence. The Yellowcake documents in Niger were considered to be "obvious fakes" according to just about any independant source who reviewed them, including Hans Blix, prior to the outbreak of war in Iraq. Curveball was considered to be a very sketchy subject, based on the foriegn intelligence service (was it the Germans?) who captured him. Who even warned the Americans to stay as far away from him as possible, and not believe a word he says.
Now, with Intelligence, there is some stuff that is conjecture, I can provide you sources if you like - you wont find much talk about curveball in the Senate report - but you will find what I mentioned about Yellowcake in there.
The question you have to ask yourself is why the CIA was pushing this intelligence - this is arguably the best intelligence agency in the world - when there was so much doubt about it in the world community?
Based on what I've read - none of the Iraq intel should have been pushed up the line, and it was criminal to do so. So the question remains is why was this obvious bad intel pushed up the chain of command to the highest levels? My personal opinion is that Bush Jr wanted a rationale to invade Iraq, so they found a bunch of sketchy intel to support it. I also think that Bush and most of congress believed Saddam probably had WMDs - but nothing concrete to prove it.
*edit*
And just curious, how exactly do you manage a blackops that plants the means of production of Nukes? This isn't like building a pipe bomb here, there has to be some seriously extensive equipment, not to mention, once you start getting a lot of people involved, the web of secrecy diminishes greatly.