Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Well, just by searching "false evidence Iraq war" on Google, the very first page that came up (from CNN, go figure) had some direct quotes from Bush in which he makes claims that were later found to be false, like:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
Notice that none of these statements are qualified - there's no "we believe" or "sources indicate". In the second statement there is even a "leaves no doubt" to drive home his entirely mendacious claim, as there was not only plenty of doubt, but a preponderance of evidence to the contrary that the administration chose to ignore.
Now in my view, claiming you have proof of something that turns out to be completely wrong, is manufacturing evidence. "Proof" implies "evidence", and since there was no evidence other than misinterpretation of sources that were questionable to begin with, that is, in the common parlance, "making sh*t up".
As far as the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Rice claimed there were organizational-level links between the two in direct denial of a Senate report released BEFORE her statement that no such links existed. The only "link" between the two was that one member of Al-Qaeda planned some operations while in Iraq, however this is about as relevant as claiming that Al-Qaeda and Canada are bosum buddies because some of the 9/11 highjackers used Canada as a staging point to get into the US.
|
Ummm....I was talking about manufactured evidence...you know the stuff he clearly made up. False evidence was still collected from numerous sources...yet never verified. None of it was verified...which is why most can be labeled 'false' or 'uncredible.' But certainly not made up on the spot because Bush wanted to go to war. That is how I understand every report that has been made available to the public. In fact many people have come out and said that evidence that existed was 'manipulated' certain ways.
Bush also said they have evidence that Saddam had developed mobile chemical weapon labs....which he had...but they weren't being used at the time.
So in essence...that intelligence, which was provided by a defector out of Iraq....was correct to a point. Had it been verified properly, or had the US had boots on the ground collecting it...maybe they would have figured out it wasn't credible. Tenet himself thought it was good evidence.
There is a difference between simply making it up...and having your sources, which they did....and manipulating certain reports(woodward talks about this)...and trying to build support for the war that way.
Many of the democrats didn't even read more than one page of the intelligence briefing. What does that say of them?