Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is pure conjecture on your part.
>
> oh please, people are so predictable, especially
> in large groups.
>
>
> > Bush/Cheney
> > pushed and sold this war for reasons we still
> > havent been told.
>
> That is pure conjecture on your part! the
> difference is that i'm right about this.
>
>
> > There is no evidence or any
> > indication that any Democratic president (Gore
> in
> > 2000) would have made Iraq the focal point of
> our
> > response to 9/11 which was planned and executed
> by
> > Saudi Arabians that were trained in
> Afghanistan.
>
> iraq wasnt intended focus. if you recall, we went
> into afghanistan first and it seemed like a clean
> sweep. iraq was invaded due to intel that turned
> out to be false. now, would the democrats gotten
> the same information, oh yes, yes they would have.
> politics has damn little to do with our choice to
> invade, we were pissed and wanted vengeance, hell,
> we still are and still do. we're kicking ass over
> in iraq and afghanistan. you still hear about
> iraq everytime it's more than pot shots and road
> side bombs. also, every couple months, we take
> out the new leader of al-queda or other prominent
> member. it's slow, but we are pulling them apart.
Gravis...with all due respects I humbly disagree with your that innocent mistakes were made and that blind vengeance led us to war. In fact is the role of leadership to quell the flames of vengeance not feed it. Instead the Republican party leadership chose to enflame those those passions for reasons that are yet not fully understood. But if you are correct, it does not excuse incompetence at the highest levels. I will leave you with a summary of the Carnegie Endowment Report of Jan 2004....they reported
Administration offi cials systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence
failures by:
Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single “WMD threat.”
The confl ation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose,
distorted the cost/benefi t analysis of the war. (p. 52)
Insisting without evidence—yet treating as a given truth—that Saddam
Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present
in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
Misrepresenting inspectors’ findings in ways that turned threats from minor to
dire. (p. 53)
Interested in reading it all?
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435&prog=zgp&proj=znpp