Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

Bush knew the CIA evidence was sketchy.

Now, yes. Back then, no.

What do you not understand about the following:

1) Iraq didn't account for TONS of missing VX and other biotoxins. They still remain unaccounted for TODAY.

2) UN 1441 stated in NO uncertain terms that he was supposed to account for ALL previously known amounts and quantities of WMD.

Failure on Hussein's part to address this meant we invaded; with ot without the UN due to the security concerns that the bulk of the American population as well the bulk of the Senate agreed was legitimate.

The Senate intelligence committies were presented with the same material the President was; Congress received a review on this material. BY THEMSELVES and without COERCION, they voted to invade.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
He knew very few people would be willing to support his "hit" on Saddam unless he spun the evidence. So that's what he did: he told the American people that the evidence was (in Tenet's words) a "slam dunk." He misled us by saying again and again that the evidence was solid, when he knew it was not.

At the time, it was considered solid. The "christmas tree ornaments" that the kept hanging onto the CORE issue of WMD (which the UN couldn't resolve as there STILL remains tons of toxins and agents that are mising) such as a possible 9/11 connection (turned out to be a rabbit chase), ties to Al-Qaeda even though Hussein has been PROVEN to have had associations and ties to terrorism; just not Al-Qaeda) and the Nigeria uranium report (which MI6 still stands by) were less so; given this they DIDN'T make up the core of the concern.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It was a masterful example of politicking and warmongering, and it was a big fat lie.

The only lie in existance here is the one that you continue to propigate. The CORE of the intel that had to do with WMD was considered solid almost across the board. The fact that it apparently has been proven wrong today DOES NOT make it a lie when it was ACTED upon.

You are an abject and pathetic distortionst for claiming ANYTHING otherwise.

10 years of lies and distortions on Iraq's part and the security concerns that arose out of this in conjunction with the events of 9/11 DO NOT get mitigated by potentially faulty intelligence on Nigeria uranium chases, or trying to creatively frame Hussein with Al-Qaeda, even though a camp existed within the borders of his country that he "claimed" to be in control of.

Nor do our security concerns get mitigated by a couple of UN security council members more concerned about their financial profits and flow of money over tons of missing nerve toxins in the hands of an avowed hater of the US.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
This is another classic JaTo red herring. Who is suggesting that the president should do "case work", or be involved in the gathering and analysis of raw intel? You know I didn't suggest any such thing. It's absurd.

Then what in the Hell did you suggest? The PDB's and intel assessments put the information in front of the President and his staff. Why did Bush then insist on face-to-face meetings with Tenet (something different than Clinton, who preferred reports over meetings) on a weekly basis?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The intel assessment the president received was a SUMMARY of the evidence. Bush was responsible for reading and analyzing that and making a decision based on it.

I've read nothing on the internals of what happened, but I serious doubt he skipped to the last page, read it and said "Let's hump 'em to Hell!", as YOU seem to suggest.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
If you want to maintain that he was allowed to skip straight to the assessment's conclusion and adopt it as his own, then you scare the hell out of me. I'll never understand how you can hold the chief executive to such a low standard of performance.

If the assessment approximated what this administration feared and were most concerned over (and for all intents and purposes, it DID), then PLEASE inform me of a valid reason NOT to attack, given the intel we had on-hand then?

The reasons I can come up with for not invading:

1) Trust Hussein was telling the truth, after he continually lying for a DECADE and throwing up numerous roadblocks to finally reach a successful and comprehensive UNIMOVIC report on WMD for the UN.

2) Trust the UN Security Council, even when the dissenters of our actions cared more about their financial links to Iraq than US and Western security concerns.

3) Trust sanctions would work, even though they were impovrishing the Iraqi people and ultimately further ENRICHING Hussein and his cronies.

4) Trust the weapons inspection teams, who only found the WMD remnants in Iraq after the CIA interrogated defectors and pointed the screwups in their investigation to them.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
In the case of the Iraq war, the assessment apparently included only very weak and unreliable evidence (the aluminum tubes, the "Nigerian uranium," the "meeting in Prague", statements from axe-grinding Iraqi exiles). Bush knew it was weak, but he told us the evidence was strong and solid. BIG FAT LIE.

Your ignorance and short-term memory knows absolutely no boundaries. Damn-well near EVERY intel source on the planet pointed to the SAME estimate the US had:

IRAQ STILL POSSESSED WMD AND HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IT.

I dare you to refute this. I DARE you to refute that TONS of materials, toxins and agents are STILL missing from official UN tallies.

The pieces, in and of themselves, that you refer to above are the tip of the iceberg; they are NOT the MASSIVE concern we had about Iraq (i.e., the 90%). If a complete acounting would have been made, we would KNOW that terrorists would have NO chance at getting any materials from Iraq, regardless if they were Al-Qaeda or any other nutbag outfit.

You may be comfortable painting the "best case scenario" and giving a fair degree of trust when confronted with a dictator who has gassed Iranian troops and his own people, in addition to have continually mislead and lied to the UN.

Most sane individuals will err on the side of caution, especially when they have just been knocked clean out of their socks only a scant year and a half earlier. Especially when putting up what was one of the most heavily armed (conventional and chemical) regimes in the Middle-East. Especially when dealing with a dictator who constantly lied and concealed as much as he could...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Bush blew it by ordering the invasion in the first place. He ordered without any other countries on board to substantially share the burden.

Sue your instructors. The disservice they have done you is extraordinary. The US has almost ALWAYS shouldered the bulk of the burden in regards to UN policing and peacekeeping activities; even with the UN involved in Iraq today, this would be NO DIFFERENT.

I see it as France and Germany stabbed us in the back, when they backed out of UN 1441 at the 11th hour...

...and for little more than purely POLITICAL and FINANCIAL purposes.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Now, as Colin Powell says, "we broke it, we bought it." We're on our own, baby. Come back in ten years, look in your wallet, and tell me that doesn't matter.

If we didn't invade then, it would have been later as Hussein was apparently insistent on keeping up a ruse that he held WMD in order to give Iran "pause". Invasion was practically inevitable.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Even those allies who agreed to be part of the coalition did so against the will of their own citizens, and hence offered only a token level of support. We got their token support only because we are the world's only superpower, and we had a lot of money and promises to throw around, and we could threaten those who refused.

Howard's re-election in Australia seems to counter that half-assed theory; we'll see how Blair fares (I believe he's on his way out). Spain is a unique sitation; Anzar had it won until he stupidly kept blaming the bombings on ETA despite the overwhelming evidence that it wasn't them.

I don't profess to know the political climate in most other nations, so I can't firmly say one way or the other.



Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Note to Mysti-ken: read-only mode = real good idea.



If this thread has to put up with the swill that is being retched up by you and Red, it most certainly can use some external candor and a third-party calling BS when they come across it.

I welcome it, even though I doubt I would escape the scrutiny of Mysti-ken for long, as I totally resemble the aggressive and "take no prisoners" hard-line a$$hole that he so politely refers to...

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe