Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
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?
|
Yellowcake Uranium, Ahmed Chalabi, Curveball.
Those three things helped lead to their assumption of WMDs - going back over the evidence, it was either gross incompetence or negligence, which caused the administration to use those as pools of evidence for the war.
Azure, you should read the Senate report on Pre-War Iraq Intel. It is an interesting read to say the least.