Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
I actually laugh at people that claim they knew before hand that Bush and his team were lying about the WMDs. And their assorted claims after the fact are either complete ignorance to what truly took place or simple lies. The more people say it seems the more they show their complete bias. They almost have a revisionist version of the events. Although many people did disagree with the invasion, they were certainly guessing that the government was wrong or decidedly against any kind of war.
The general academic consensus is that many nations in the world believed that Iraq was still developing the weapons; in fact Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors. The UN was warning Iraq that they should allow inspectors. The US warned Iraq that if they do not allow full freedom to the inspectors, then they will remove the Saddam regime. After the war, the US discovered that the nuclear ambitions likely ended after the gulf war, in the early 90's. The US did discover that chemical weapons might have been the more deadly and closer threat. In fact, long range missiles were certainly being developed. Several investigations by both sides of the political spectrum have found no wrongdoing (not enough at least to accuse the Bush admin of some sort of conspiracy), although there has been much to say about the propaganda used by the Bush admin to justify the war. Keep in mind that the rationale to invade is a totally seperate thing from the media.
We can argue about this all day, but what I have wrote is a pretty good summary.
|
To address your bolded points.
NO-ONE knew beforehand that they had WMD's. Including the British and Americans. I laugh at people that swallowed the whole WMD line, hook, line and sinker.
What IS known now is that (to quote Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s MI6) following a meeting in Washington is that: (Bolded for effect).
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route..."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle535913.ece
Basically ... if the head of MI6 who was in direct meetings with the head of the CIA is quoted as stating that the facts were being "fixed" what more conspiracy do you want?
Disagree and ... self praise is no praise.