Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests How well has Bush handled the war of terror?

Really? Then why did the CIA state this in their public report of 2002:

"Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs."

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#04

JaTo, all those nifty quotes from Democrats prove just one thing: they were doing their best to demonstrate our resolve to contain Saddam. They show that Clinton administration officials and leading Democrats were fully aware of the potential danger posed by Saddam, and were not going to drop their guard even for a moment. They show that, in concert with other UN countries, the Democrats were positioning us well to make Saddam back down.

You seem to be trying to use those quotes for a very different purpose. You seem to be saying those quotes show that the Clinton-era Democrats were just as hawkish as the Bush-era neo-cons. That is a completely unwarranted assumption.

Just look at how different the context was when those quotes were made (mostly the 1990s). Those quotes were made in the context of a worldwide cooperative effort to force Saddam into compliance. The entire UN was threatening war against Saddam then, to force him back in his box. Those Democrats were speaking on behalf of almost every civilized person in the world when they threatened military action. By contrast, Bush's threats were not in cooperation with any sort of worldwide effort to force Saddam to back down. Quite the opposite. Bush's threats were just token warning of a long-planned, unprecedented, nearly unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a nation that had no significant ability to attack us.

Why do you pretend not to see the distinction between those Clinton-era Democrats' wise cooperation with virtually the entire UN, and Bush's reckless decision to blow off the UN and most of our allies and go to war almost entirely alone?

and the 9/11 committee concluded unanimously that most of the major findings on that report were wrong, unfounded, or overblown. this was especially true of the nuclear section.

how could they have been so wrong when the 9/11 committee had access to the same intelligence the cia had? or was it they just downplayed the "some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs" part on purpose so it could be a slam dunk...

at the very least the bush admin wasn't up front with the disenting views about their "evidence" and support for the war in iraq. don't get me wrong, they had a list of other reasons to invade. but the fact that they either mistakenly or knowingly mis-stated their main reasoning in several instances to gain support pretty much borders on the line of deceit to me. i don't need to be deceived or mislead into believing what's good for our country or the war on terrorism. lay it all out on the table --good and bad-- and let's see where we stand. for whatever reason, i don't feel the bush admin allowed that to happen and i regret we didn't wait longer to go in. had we gone in as part of a UN coalition our troop commitment would probably be around a 1/3 of what it currently is.

well said!

JaTo: further to your many quotes which you undoubtedly attribute correctly.

Assuming that the assertions made about Iraqi WMD by the various authors of your quotes are all true (many are debatable, I think) then the undisputed outcome of the military exercise in Iraq IMO must be considered a massive failure - either with respect to the intelligence upon which the original decision to launch was made, or with respect to the actual execution of the invasion plan.

Because if the object of the invasion was in fact to render the Iraqi WMD harmless, the fact that to date none have been found and are now likely in someone else's possession, is the exact opposite of the desired outcome - and by definition the military exercise is a failure.

IMO, the true purpose of the invasion was, to quote John Kerry here (ironically) " ... to disarm Saddam Hussein" - which is distincyly different than rendering his WMD harmless.

IMO "disarming Saddam Hussein" is nothing more than a thinly veiled euphemism for "regime change" and therefore the principle of imminent danger as rationale for invading a sovereign country, did not apply.

The subsequent disclosures about the content and "value" of the intelligence accumulated prior to the invasion; and the undisputed facts about what has subsequently been discovered about Iraqi WMD IMO fully support this position.

Does anybody understand JaTo's last three posts?

JaTo's posts have often had a "I'm-in-a-big-f******-hurry" quality (he is proud of spending only 5 minutes per linear foot). But this time he's topped himself. These are his most cryptic and obtuse posts ever.

Congratulations, JaTo: I can't refute your point if I can't tell what it is.