Originally posted by JaTo:
Urrrrrrp. Herdy skerdy herdy skerdy. Yar. And yar. [ edited for clarity by caltour ]



You wrote about a thousand words, JaTo. In all those words, here are the only ones that really address the main point of my original post:

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by caltour:
What the hell kind of evidence would it take for you to see that Bush and his cronies lied and deceived and manipulated to whip up support for their war?

Direct evidence of illegal activity for starters and not vague references on perceptions and feelings that were WELL-KNOWN.



You want more "direct" evidence? Have you just completely forgotten about the lies the Bushmen told us? Have you forgotten how they sold us this war? Have you forgotten how incredibly WRONG they were?

Let me refresh your memory:

1. Bush said Iraq had purchased uranium for nuclear weapons from Nigeria in his State of the Union Address. But he had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the documentary evidence had been forged. U.S. embarassed by fake documents

2. Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11. At one point 70% of Americans actually believed this. But he has since admitted that this is not true. Bush backpeddles on connection between Iraq and Al-Quaeda.

3. Bush insisted (and still insists) that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al-Quaeda rebuffed by Iraq

4. Bush insisted that Iraq posessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarised student papers Plagiarized student papers , and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. No WMDs in Iraq

5. Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. "The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat." They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. The Lie Factory

6. Bush said that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Energy Department and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.
The tubes were never a threat.

Seen it all before? What's different now is that we have written corroboration from British intelligence that the Bushmen engaged in these falsifications knowingly and intentionally . Even a half-assed investigation would color this picture in for you. Only the most extreme partisanship can keep you from admitting that.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Blah, blah and blahblah . . . To not plan for the worst-case scenario (i.e., WAR) would be entirely ignorant. BTW, war plans on Iraq were drawn up at the Pentagon during the Clinton and Bush, Sr. Administrations. Should they be strung up for doing that??? Did the conspiracy stretch back that far???



WHO ARE YOU REPLYING TO HERE? IS THERE SOME OTHER THREAD THAT YOU ARE REPLYING TO IN A PARALLEL RED-STATE UNIVERSE, AND YOU JUST GOT THE THREADS MIXED UP FOR A SECOND? BECAUSE IN THIS THREAD, NOBODY IS ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER IT MADE SENSE TO HAVE WAR PLANS. PLEASE STOP IT.


Originally posted by JaTo:
Given this, you're trying to tell me that it's criminal to view and pronounce the relevant points of Hussein's actions and rule in order to make a case of war against him when 10 years of inaction still kept us almost entirely in the dark? (an unacceptable situation in light of the events of 9/11)



No.

Originally posted by JaTo:
I'm reading it as the memo suggesting that a "proactive" invasion (as the Iraqi invasion was rather unique in modern history on this note) was a much more difficult and convoluted sell to the international stage than a "reactive" invasion, since this was a fairly new approach towards rogue nations that were universally seen as a WMD threat.



This justifies the deceit? I'm really getting the sense that you believe the ends (war in Iraq) justifies whatever means Bush used to get there, no matter how illegal.


Originally posted by JaTo:
Question: Where does the US President get his information from on foreign entities for the most part? Answer: the CIA and to a lesser degree, the State Dept.

Question: How did GWB manipulate CIA intel when it's charter is one of political neutrality?

Answer: ______________________(I'll let your expert intel experience fill in this blank for me)



You think that the most rigidly controlled, hard-driving, well-funded, and ruthless administration in history is not capable of exerting whatever influence is necessary to manipulate the content of U.S. government intelligence assessments? How innocent your world must be. You believe in unicorns, too?


Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by caltour:
OK, so you say the article is not good journalism. Next time, you might want to tell us why you think so. I know; smearing someone's work is fun, and it takes all the fun out of it if you have to give a reason.

Because it's trying to scratch up a "conspiracy" play where there is NONE!



Oh. So the London Sunday Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and a hundred other mainstream news outlets are wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. Gotcha.