Look at the facts. The evidence Bush saw showed that the alleged uranium sale was based primarily on an unverified document and uncorroborated rumors
Quick point, as you keep saying this..
You know that British MI-5 still stands by the documents authenticity, and that Ambassador Wilson's report led the 9/11 commission to conclude that his observations actually supported rather than refuted the Niger yellowcake story...
You know Duelfer's report details that Saddam took pains to keep his nuclear braintrust intact, and these scientists actually individually hid various nuclear related information with the understand that Saddam planned to reconstitute when sanctions were lifted.
You know, granted there may be no clear proof at present that vast stockpiles of old WMD or attempts to rebuild a nuclear program or actionable links to Al Qaeda but there still are ALOT of unanswered questions despite several major investigations.
Bill Gertz's report of Russian special ops (rouge?) moving out something to Syria just before we came. Maybe just some of the tech they were selling Saddam illeagally, maybe the explosives everyone is talking about, maybe WMD...think back 2 years to the Israeli satellite photos of convoys leaving Iraq for Syria...WHAT were the hell Russians doing??
I don't know any facts about transferring WMDs to Syria, but it may make sense that Iraq would transfer the WMDs to Syria. If it did, and that intel was available to Bush, then Bush misled us even more than I thought.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:Funding Al Qaeda...why all the meetings with Iraqi intell, at leat 3 pretty certain and 1-2 other possiblities all detailled in 9/11 commision report.
Come on, Dan. The report concluded that there were contacts, but no ties, between Iraq and Al Quaeda. I don't know why you would bring up those meetings unless you are challenging the report's conclusion. Please don't do that unless you have the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just speculation.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:He gamed billions from oil for food, paid off UNSC members for vetos, was paying them off to lift sanctions and planned to resume WMD per Duelfer's report. Saddam was a VERY bad dude, world class lier, yet liberals act like we invaded a monastary...really weak!
That last sentence is more dramatic overstatement. Come on, Dan. Nobody denies Saddam was horrible. That's Bush's fallback rationalization for the war. But very few people really believe it is a sufficient one. We are not the World Cops. You guys keep confusing the legitimate reasons for hating Saddam with legitimate reasons for launching a war.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:Point is, we have been looking around Iraq for 18 months with VASTLY better access that UN inspectors had, we have captured and interrogated hundreds, we have captured thousands of Iraqi documments and we STILL do not really know what was going on. Yet the left expects Bush to have been clarvoient with the intell he had at hand.
No, we do not expect Bush to have been clairvoyant. I can't really come down too hard on him for believing there were WMDs in Iraq. But I despise him for telling us the case was solid when he knew it wasn't. I will not be lied to.
