Originally posted by BP: 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.
Please point this out, as I'm closing in on the end of the 9/11 commission book and have yet to run across much other than claiming that the Al-Qaeda link with Iraq was overstated, in addition to his active nuclear capability and development program.
Everything else to this day still has some serious question marks surrounding it.
Originally posted by BP:how could they have been so wrong when the 9/11 committee had access to the same intelligence the cia had?
They didn't. This still remains one of the main gripes of the 9/11 commission, in that there still exists periods of time and evidence that neither the CIA or the FBI has released, due to ongoing operations. Care to try that line of BS again and correct it?
Originally posted by BP: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...
Again, if, in 2001-2002, you would throw a decade of Iraq dodging UN inspectors, Hussein's history and US security concerns over tons of missing neurotoxins over a confused report on aluminum tubes and exaggurated Al-Qaeda links, you are certifiable.
The "slam dunk" was placed on information that had existed LONG before the aluminum tube caper...
Originally posted by BP: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 will FULLY agree that the Bush administration "screwed the pooch" when it came to logically and cohesively flushing out our concerns over Iraq and why we had them. The ill-founded tangents weren't needed, as the case against Iraq had been a decade in the making and it stood on it's own, in light of 9/11.
Originally posted by BP: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.
It never would have happened. Iraq bought France off and secured a vote on the Security Council that for all intents and purposes would have NEVER allowed for invasion.
Let me repeat it again; no matter what the concern, France would have never allowed for a fully-supported UN measure against Iraq; at least not with the current government running things.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
