[Jetmech Jr.]

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-12T010812Z_01_RID122734_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-IRAQ.xml

I dunno, Dubyah, your intelligence seems pretty ****ty to me, and I ain't just talking about your WMD information.

[Night Hammer]

ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it

[Rictor]

Erm, maybe it's a problem with the new boards, but the link doesn't display correctly with Firefox.

[vyper]

ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it

Sorry? I'm not quite following that.

[StratComm]

Well Sadam was a complete idiot in the process (kicking out the inspectors when we were trying to make a case that he had something to hide was not a good choice, for one) and there was the same general stuff that ended up getting used to justify the war in the first place, but most of it was, AFAIK, highly inspecific, somewhat out of date, not totally reliable, and contradicted by other evidence.  The issue is not "did [insert political figure here] make up the intelligence", it's "did [said political figure] come to a conclusion based on evidence, or find evidence to fit a foregone conclusion".  Or at least, that's what the question should be.

[Bobboau]

oh, you know it... all your fault, yeah!

but seriously, there was coroborateing sources, I would consiter that a valid excuse for civilians who went along with Bush, but just because other nations think something doesn't mean it's corect, Bush was in charge, he made the choices, he was responcable, you say he was given bad intel? well it was his responcibility to make sure our inteligence services were accurate. I remember hearing a lot about people in the military and CIA who were saying that Sadam didn't have a drop of banned weapons, they were all sumaraly silenced and ridiculed as being clinton appointie anti-american political opertunist liberals.

[vyper]

Actually, in the UK the issue is - did we know it was illegal and Tony had the legal advice toned down?

[Grey Wolf]

This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.

[Ace]

So who's the one rewriting history?

2003: It's about WMDS! Defend America from Iraq's nuclear and biological weapons!

2005: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about WMDs. It's about freeing the Iraqis! Spreading democracy!

2006: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about 'freeing the Iraqis.' It's about the Global War on Terror(tm)!

[Kosh]

ive heard that the US wasnt the only country with intelligence saying all that stuff about Iraq, I read somewhere(cant remember where) that the French and the Brits had the same stuff, were just the only ones that acted on it

The French, to their credit, didn't believe the US. They had no such intelligence.

As for british "intelligence", don't forget about the Downing Street memo. It states pretty clearly that evidence was being "fixed".

[Deepblue]

This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.

I would agree were it not for the comments of John Kerry and Mr. Kennedy. Politicians in general = ick.

[Janos]

This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.

I would agree were it not for the comments of John Kerry and Mr. Kennedy. Politicians in general = ick.

I will take your derail bait and ask you: what kind of comments? Not that it matters anyway.

[NGTM-1R]

The issue is not "did [insert political figure here] make up the intelligence", it's "did [said political figure] come to a conclusion based on evidence, or find evidence to fit a foregone conclusion".  Or at least, that's what the question should be.

There should be a third: "Did [insert intelligence agency here] become so obsessed with looking for such information that they actually found it, regardless of its real existence?"

Because intelligence is like that. If you look hard enough you'll find something, whether it's really there or not. And some people have accused CIA of getting fixated on the subject all on their own. (Of course, that doesn't let the adminstration off the hook necessarily, since they are not the only agency concerned with intelligence in the US.)

[an0n]

Aren't there like 5 people all saying they heard Bush telling people to find reasons to **** with Iraq back in early 2001?

[an0n]

So who's the one rewriting history?

2003: It's about WMDS! Defend America from Iraq's nuclear and biological weapons!

2005: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about WMDs. It's about freeing the Iraqis! Spreading democracy!

2006: It's not about that, only those with an agenda say it was about 'freeing the Iraqis.' It's about the Global War on Terror(tm)!

More like:

2001 - DEATH TO THE SAND-NIGGERS!
2002 - Iraq funded the 11/9 attacks!.......No?
2003 - Iraq has NUKES and ANTHRAX!
2004 - Meh, he was a dick anyway.
2005 - Iran is funding the Iraqi insurgents!!

[Ford Prefect]

Aren't there like 5 people all saying they heard Bush telling people to find reasons to **** with Iraq back in early 2001?

Yes. There was an extensive Frontline documentary about that very question.

[WMCoolmon]

This is one of the two days out of the year I consider this entirely inappropriate. Poor form, Mr. Bush, poor form.

[TrashMan]

Meh..

People wanting to re-write history? What else is new...happens all the time.

[Corsair]

Aren't there like 5 people all saying they heard Bush telling people to find reasons to **** with Iraq back in early 2001?

Yeah... something about an old family grudge...

[karajorma]

Basically Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Snr and Junior wanted a reason to invade.


Pretty sad really. 2000 dead Americans simply to avenge one American who didn't even die.