Paladin 77

I am talking about a report provided by the Pentagon during the Bush 43 administration that said Saddam was ONLY capable of conducting military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq. How the HELL would Saddam with that limited military capability pose such a grave threat to the U.S. that REQUIRED our invasion?

IslandDog

Several Intel agencies questioned the nuclear issue and in fact the majority of the Intel said that Saddam did not have a current Nuclear WMD program in 2002. There was also Intel that questioned the Bio WMD hazard. The ONLY undisputed WMD issue was that Saddam, had old gas filled Artillery Shells. That is the ONLY WMD that was found in Iraq. There was no independent confirmation of ANY of the WMD sites listed by the CIA. Every one of those sites had NOTHING. That is what the three former CIA section chiefs said as well as Generals Zinni and Tainer. They all said Bush Cherry Picked the Intel and ignored anything that did not support his contention there was WMD.

I am talking about a report provided by the Pentagon during the Bush 43 administration that said Saddam was ONLY capable of conducting military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq.

Oh, well that is different because I was talking about reports and speeches made by Democrats during the Clinton administration. So it is now your contention that Mr. Clinton lied and Mr. Bush told the truth?

How the HELL would Saddam with that limited military capability pose such a grave threat to the U.S. that REQUIRED our invasion?

Fear! Fear that Saddam would as he suggested, give the WMD he had to AQ types that had a world wide network to distribute them. Yes, Iraq did not have the ability to hit anyone with rockets other than Israel. AQ did have the ability to attack America on American soil. It was at that point that Iraq became a serious threat to America. We did not have to invade Iraq had the leader of that nation kept to the agreement he made with the UN. His choce to thumb his nose at the UN and no bodies fault but his for his fate.

Several Intel agencies questioned the nuclear issue and in fact the majority of the Intel said that Saddam did not have a current Nuclear WMD program in 2002. There was also Intel that questioned the Bio WMD hazard. The ONLY undisputed WMD issue was that Saddam, had old gas filled Artillery Shells. That is the ONLY WMD that was found in Iraq. There was no independent confirmation of ANY of the WMD sites listed by the CIA. Every one of those sites had NOTHING. That is what the three former CIA section chiefs said as well as Generals Zinni and Tainer. They all said Bush Cherry Picked the Intel and ignored anything that did not support his contention there was WMD.

Gene, your understanding of intelligence is weak at best. It is not James Bond or like in books and movies. A case officer goes in country and learns two or three pieces of information and reports back. Others do the same thing. In most cases you have conflicting information and an analyst puts the pieces together as best he or she can and makes a report. This is why you can two conflicting reports that are both valid. Most Intel agencies will have two or eight reports made up covering all bases so when the crap hits the fan they can say that they had the right information but the higher-ups ignored it in favor of their own personal views. Sound like you have heard this one before? All a President can do is read them and make his best guess as to which one is correct. He has to live with the choices he made while others have to live or die because of them. I could present you with a potential war and solutions on how to avoid it and I am willing to bet money you would choose the wrong one, not because you are stupid but because you never get all the information you need until the mission is over and all the facts come out. You sit there with 20/20 hindsight seeing all the facts after the war is over and you say the President should have seen it as you do now. On D-day General Eisenhower wrote two speeches. The landing went badly and if the American people knew how badly they would have screamed for the impeachment of the President. The people in the news understood this and kept their mouths shut. Because of this and other things we won the war. We don’t have a press willing to help us win this time so we are forced to work even harder to beat the enemy.

paladin77

The issue is NOT my understanding of Intelligence. It is the opinion of the most knowledgeable Intelligence operatives that Bush Cherry Picked the Intelligence. Not less then three CIA section chiefs including the Chief of Iraq has said that Bush ignored anything that did not support his decision to invade Iraq. Gen. Zinni was the security coordinator for the Pentagon just prior to our invasion and said the Intelligence he saw was not in agreement with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People.

You have not explained why since Saddam was NO THREAT BUSH INVADED IRAQ?

Saddam was a threat...I have quotes from demcorats who said so!  Will you believe them?

Not less then three CIA section chiefs including the Chief of Iraq has said that Bush ignored anything that did not support his decision to invade Iraq. Gen. Zinni was the security coordinator for the Pentagon just prior to our invasion and said the Intelligence he saw was not in agreement with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People.

And they offer no proof but their opinions because they were selling a book.  I have read other Generals and the like who say the exact opposite.  YOU ARE THE ONE who cherry picks things you try to pass as fact, but in reality, they are only a biased opinion.

Now once again you have successfully derailed the original topic which you were failing in.

drmiler

The problem with response #55 is that Bush and Cheney presented the threat from Saddam as absolute. Bush did not acknowledger ANY of the data that said Saddam was not a threat.

That is just what the Former CIA section chiefs said. Bush used ONLY that part of the Intelligence that supported what he wanted to do. He totally ignored the Pentagon Assessment that Saddam in 2002 was incapable of military operations beyond the central section of Iraq. He lied about the mushroom clouds to scare people into allowing him to invade Iraq when the intelligence said Saddam did not have a current nuclear WMD capability. Bush also ignored the advice about how invading a Moslem country would backfire. He was warned about becoming bogged down in a long war if he invaded Iraq. He was told it could destabilize Iraq. He was told it could create unrest in the greater Moslem world. He was warned about not sending force levels large enough to control Iraq after Saddam was removed.

Bush ignored all of this and guess what-- EVERYTHING he ignored was CORRECT and EVERYTHING he told us was INCORRECT.

drmiler The problem with response #55 is that Bush and Cheney presented the threat from Saddam as absolute. Bush did not acknowledger ANY of the data that said Saddam was not a threat.

You OBVIOUSLY DID NOT read #55, lets try again shall we:

Fear! Fear that Saddam would as he suggested, give the WMD he had to AQ types that had a world wide network to distribute them. Yes, Iraq did not have the ability to hit anyone with rockets other than Israel. AQ did have the ability to attack America on American soil. It was at that point that Iraq became a serious threat to America. We did not have to invade Iraq had the leader of that nation kept to the agreement he made with the UN. His choce to thumb his nose at the UN and no bodies fault but his for his fate.

The CIA Chiefs and Gen Zinni are the people that HAD FIRST HAND Intel and know better then anyone what was known and they have said Bush IGNORED any information that did not support what he wanted to do-- Attack Iraq.

Col repeating the same things even though they have been proven factless.  These people were selling books, and they many of them are affiliated wtih far left groups.  How many of them have documented evidence of what they claim? 

You are wrong!

The issue is WHAT danger did Saddam pose to the United States-- Answer NONE and Bush knew that in 2002.

Mr. Gene,

Since you are of the habit of taking one sentence out of a paragraph and ignoring the rest, I will simplify it for you. The threat from Iraq was his stated goals of doing harm to America. He had no way of getting his WMD to America but Al Qaeda had a way to deliver WMD but had none. Put the two together and you have a serious threat. Look at how people screamed that the President did not connect the dots for 9//11. There was a threat to the nation that the President ignored according to some.

Re-evaluating the intelligence after the 9/11 attacks showed that (a) Saddam publicly stated a desire to attack America for years but lacked the tools to do so. (b) Saddam provided aid to terrorist groups and organizations in the form of money and safe haven. (c) Iraqi intelligence people were seen meeting with known Al Qaeda people in third countries. (d) Wounded Al Qaeda people from Afghanistan were seen in restricted hospitals in Iraq. Proving that he was still aiding terrorist after our President announced new policy and doctrine of holding any nation state accountable for the attacks of terrorist they support.

Putting all this together makes Iraq and Saddam a threat to the United States of America. Your contention that because Iraq alone had no way of attacking America equals no threat to America is bogus. On top of all this there were reports that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons which it had the money knowledge and man power to create. Faced with this you think that the President should sit back and wait for the next attack to do something. If he had I would be first in line for his impeachment. With a war like this we are faced with two choices, sit and wait for an attack or warn people that if you do the precursors of an attack we will attack first. The world was duly warned of our change in policy. And until the anti-Bush people started their noise even Iran fell in line and provided intelligence to us. Once we were seen as weak willed because of the press Iran dumped their leader that assisted us and now we are faced with the next enemy in the axis of evil. One down two to go. And to the people that enjoy their freedom of speech even when it is bad for America I say this. It is your hatred of the president and possibly this nation that will make it more likely that we will have to invade more countries instead of using Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of what will happen when you threaten America.

and btw,,,ya won the stem cell debate too..despite their protest...let em whine all they want...

"and btw,,,ya won the stem cell debate too..despite their protest...let em whine all they want..."

Is ignoring other people's arguments and saying the same thing over and over winning? I never saw anything convincing posed as to why it was the federal government's job to supply the biotech with a few more patents. Did the Col ever explain why we should pay for research so that the companies in question can then charge us 400% more here than they do, say, in Africa?

Did we decide why were were asked to pay for private businesses to create drugs that later our lives can be ransomed for at the cost of billions? I don't recall that.

gene...don't worry...some of these guys think that if they just keep being "true believers" and keep repeating the same discredited talking points crap over and over that their "faith based reality" will actually become real. factis that you are right. saddam was not a threat. 23 senators saw the same thing as the rest of the senate, along with most of the nation fell for the fear game that was played, and continues to be played by this administration.

Nice description of the col. And it's about time that you BOTH realized that Saddam didn't have to be able to drop a missle in the middle of DC to be a threat to the US!

Okay "23" senators thought that way...what about the other 77 that didn't?

Okay "23" senators thought that way...what about the other 77 that didn't?

i think that reflected the society at large at the time...i'd have to look it up , but at the time of the invasion, around 75% of the people did support it as well.

and many of the 77 who did support the invasion have admitted their error either publicly or just have stopped talking about Iraq altogether. word on the hill is that bush only has 12 of 49 republican senators supporting the troop escalation

Nice description of the col. And it's about time that you BOTH realized that Saddam didn't have to be able to drop a missle in the middle of DC to be a threat to the US!

get of the pills doc...lmfao!

saddam was not a threat, and we knew it. playing little rhetoric games and this crap will never change that reality.