Originally posted by JaTo: 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.
i haven't read the book myself so i can't point you to the page, but you've already admitted to the evidence having "serious question marks surrounding it" and the truth has already been revealed that those tubes could not have been solely intended for nuclear use...or as the bush admin put it..."only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
Originally posted by JaTo: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?
smh & omg. they haven't release the "classified" info most likely because it doesn't strengthen their case! the fact is that with the little bit of information the 9/11 committe had it wasn't hard to tell that the cia and fbi was selective with the information they chose to release supporting the cause for war. if there was undisputable evidence to the contrary you know good and well that it would've been plastered all over the place.
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...
Originally posted by JaTo: 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...
you lost me here. i'm talking about aluminum tubes and evidence to the contrary and you're talking about UN inspectors and neurotoxins. please stick to the point and stop muddying the waters.
Originally posted by JaTo: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.
yet you defend their salacious use of refutable evidence to go to war?
Originally posted by JaTo: 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.
i don't agree with you. a UN solution authorizing actionable force could've come about even without support/backing from France IF the inspectors had been allowed to finish their job AND there was evidence showing iraq was the imminent threat bush said they were...
it all comes back to this point both of us have already made....if the case for pre-emptive strike against iraq was strong enough without all the puffery from the bush admin then why include all the erroneous/questionable filler? it doesn't make sense.
you lost me here. i'm talking about aluminum tubes and evidence to the contrary and you're talking about UN inspectors and neurotoxins. please stick to the point and stop muddying the waters.
