So, can we finally all admit Bush & Co. lied?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Re: So, can we finally all admit Bush & Co. lied?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030607/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_intelligence&cid=542&ncid=716

This is just one of many stories now emerging that the Coalition seriously overplayed the situation to get support for the war. Given Blair's woes with his faulty dossier, and his conflicting stance now with Bush (Bush: oh, we've already found the evidence; Blair: we will find some evidence), the truth has become readily apparent:

They lied to us.

WOW BORIS, I THINK U R ON TO SUMTHING. CUZ LIKE, SHRUB IS AN IDIOT AND EVERY1 KNOWS SADAM DIDN'T DO NE THING WRONG.

THE STATES SUX, IRAK ROXORZ!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jac de Molay]

I'll take a guy lying about hummers from an intern than a wholesale obfuscation that puts our troops in harm's way based on sketchy rationale.

[Jaguar]

Saddam knew we were coming for him. He had a year to get rid of em all.

I don't doubt that Bush made up some of the WMD evidence though.

BTW, antiwars, I'll tell you where the WMDs are when you tell me how we're getting oil. You seemed so sure of that a few months ago.

Can we finally all admit that Boris & Co. lied?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
I'll take a guy lying about hummers from an intern than a wholesale obfuscation that puts our troops in harm's way based on sketchy rationale.

So you're saying it's better to lie under oath to avoid personal embarassment, than it is to twist intelligence reports to win support for a cause you believe will benefit millions of people?

[Vandal-1]

Originally posted by Fez
Hey you anti-Bush folks... if you really think there is no evidence found then what the hell is this:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...nts/index.html

I call it a feeble attempt to legitmize a lie,larger operations than that have been destroyed in the U.S. propper, maybe it was a crank lab.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Vandal-1
I call it a feeble attempt to legitmize a lie,larger operations than that have been destroyed in the U.S. propper, maybe it was a crank lab.

Read what is said there... maybe you will actually learn something.

[Pekka]

My poor take on this is, that I think the results in Iraq because of the 'liberating' were good enough to do it. However I argue that these results were not 100% sure, and it's one helluva game to play if you don't hold all the cards because at the end it's about innocent people who can be the pawns of perversed wars.

What ever the reasons were in the beginning, I think it is vital that the leaders clearly lets the people know what's going on, since Iraq could not have posed any more serious threat if letting people know all the reasons. This way, it only makes leaders look weaker, because they got caught, and also might make it tougher to get them elected next time.

I personally was more interested in ousting Saddam and the rogue element in leaders, but still I argue that people needs to know all the reasons and should not be left out. I was also saying after Powells UN visit, that evidence is shaky to say at the least, but still we should go with this. I only wished they used more honesty. I'm not saying they outright lied, but they should have filled the people in more, because it's a matter of trust and it should not be broken. Even more so, if planning to do more war, it's risky business...
So getting rid of Saddam

And we should also remember, that Blix and especially Europe got bad rap because they didn't find WMDs. And they had to work with the rogue element in power and limited powers anyway. There was lots of bashing going on how they are unprofessional, and that they don't even try or know what they're doing, hence endangering the whole world. This I want to say, because it was totally uncalled for, or so it now seems.

[Traianvs]

Fez, that's old news, and it's not because you make it look a bit suspicious that it's viable evidence, which this is not btw... according to the weapon inspectors for example..

Especially information coming from the CIA site seems to me as very very unreliable $hit

[Giancarlo]

Well Trajanus, the report was released May 27th.. so it is not that old... and funny how people deny evidence when presented right to them? Stop with the excuses.

The CIA site is better than liberal media sites like the New York Times.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Saddam knew we were coming for him. He had a year to get rid of em all.

I don't doubt that Bush made up some of the WMD evidence though.

BTW, antiwars, I'll tell you where the WMDs are when you tell me how we're getting oil. You seemed so sure of that a few months ago.

Can we finally all admit that Boris & Co. lied?

SHUTUP WORMMONGER

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
BTW, antiwars, I'll tell you where the WMDs are when you tell me how we're getting oil. You seemed so sure of that a few months ago.

Look at a map of ME oil reserves. Look for Iraq on that map. Right in the middle of about 2/3rds of the world's oil reserves. It's a "vital region" for the US (and the entire West) - and not because of its vast reserves of Sand. A little strategic control is a nice thing - unless you mess it up.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


SHUTUP WORMMONGER

If you have nothing nice to say don't post at all. And learn how to spell.

[Solly]

What's done is done. Finding weapons is only relevant if they may in future be used against us. Finding weapons to appease liberal whiners is not on the agenda.

Let's look forward to Iraq II in Syria or Iran.

[Pekka]

JW, This is the exact point I want to argue. If he did get rid of all the WMDs (maybe destroying, or just selling them to terrorists, what ever) it wouldn't make much sense. He'd get rid of the deterrent he needed in the first place, and now he would dump it when the time comes he needs them? Ok, still might happen...

But, if he got rid of WMDs, then we know that intelligence failed to notice it. How the heck that is possible? Sure, it is possible, but doesn't it make you feel a bit uncomfortable, that WMDs can be lost and theyn can be sold to anyone without intelligence being able to track at all? Then, how can be trust this intelligence information and continue doing wars, if the information is so weak? Of course you can never know for 100%, but still... it's a big game to play with such poor information. So, it is safe to say then, that WMDs can be travelled everywhere, sold etc without us noticing it. So what's the point of going to different countries and doing war, if we can't track them? It's a very dangerous game, and with such weak information and intelligence, it's not worth it. Because that will literally endanger all of us.

But I'm not suggesting we shouldn't try. Just make sure our future intelligence operations are working more smoothly, and when we track those WMDs, we don't lose them! And when it's a good time, we blow all traders, buyers and sellers in the air and confiscate them and destroy them. Hardcore operations, together with Europe, Israel, Russia and some other countries, keep 24/7 surveillance on all these guys, gather information and kill them. We don't need to challenge whole countries for war, as it is not so flexible and good. We find them better with doing it ourselves, secretly, and taking out people when we need to. Should be a big joint operation with all the countries we trust in it.
This is the only way IMO we can at least try to fight these things. And if we do war, let's do them for other reasons.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Winston


So you're saying it's better to lie under oath to avoid personal embarassment, than it is to twist intelligence reports to win support for a cause you believe will benefit millions of people?

All things considered, hell yeah. And as far as the "benefit" goes, that remains to be seen.

Considering the clusterf*ck going on in Afghanistan, Im not holding my breath that a desert utopia will arise from the ashes anytime soon.