No Tak...you're missing the point...yes, it was intelligence reports that substantiated the claims but the claims also ignored, "but that they failed to reflect internal debate over those findings."

You clip out the last part of the statement which is the same thing Bush did...both of you are wrong and, perhaps if he hadn't then the hindsight argument would be moot...besides, the point is...what was the rush?

Inspections had recently been resumed...progress was being made...we should have passed our suspicions on to the inspectors for verification...why didn't we?

Saddam wasn't going anywhere.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

The real point here should not be forgotten. Bush was re-elected in 2004 in large part thanks to the right wing so called Christian majority. They said they were elected a god fearing Christian man who was going to keep their cowardly skins safe and do something about gay marriage and abortion. LOL

The real point is that we rushed into war. A so called Christian president backed by a bunch of misguided so called Christian voters rushed into war. That goes against all the teachings of Christ in the bible. Makes a mockery out of the people who say this is one nation under God and they want God put back in public life in this country. Christian nations don't ignore the possibilities and rush to war and kill innocent men, women and children in a country half a world away when it can be avoided.

The real point is the US has shown the world it is far from a Christian nation and that a lot of so called Christians in this country never bother to read the bible at all.

I am a Christian and what this country has done makes me sick and ashamed .

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

I specifically clipped it out because of the point I was making. I said that since nearly all major points were substantiated by intelligence, then the choice made was valid.

Again ALL intelligence has "internal debate". My point is that eventually a decision has to be made and once made the debate becomes irrelevant.

The issue is this: were the major arguments substantiated by intelligence. Yes or no. If Yes, then the decision was valid; if No, then it wasn't.

And that is debatable as well Soho and you know it. This president does not listen to anybody or any intelligence that doesn't agree with what he wants to hear. There was plenty of intelligence given to them saying that Saddam was not a threat before the war started. In fact they outed Valerie Blame to try to shut her husband Joe Wilson up because he was making a major push in the press for the fact Iraq was no danger to the US and he was not the only one saying that same thing by far.

Bush and Chaney's answer to those presenting intelligence that disagreed with what they wanted to promote to get their immoral war was to try to vilify, out or outright shut up anybody that presented contrary intelligence.

There are two sides to every story Soho and you are smart enough to know that I am sure. You like to present yourself as reasonably intelligent. Here's my guess about you. Your a Bush voter who chanted the war drums and your also a proud person who will not admit when they are wrong. Not dissimilar to our current president who will go down in history as the worst president the US has ever seen.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

Except that they didn't out Plame. Richard Armitage did.

As for Wilson, what he reported supported the claim, it did not counter it. Wilson was a liar, pure and simple, even the democrats fessed up to it.

I am solely addressing the issue of whether Bush lied or hid the truth. It is perfectly clear he did neither. All the major claims were substantiated by the report. If so there was no lie. As for hiding the countering claims. Bob Grahmn read the report and concluded that he thought there wasn't enough information to support the vote. So this shows that countering claims were given to Congress.

Did Bush over stress his position, of course. But that is something EVERYONE does, on every issue.

Bottom line...they cherry picked the evidence that substantiated their desire to go to war and negated anything that would promote a desire for peace...you're correct...they decided and debate became irrelevant...sad.

Thing is though...the "if we only knew then what we know now" argument becomes total bullshit.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
~ Albert Einstein

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Are you suggesting that Armitage did that just out of the blue on his own?

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Bottom line, we all cherry pick information. For example you are doing it here.

The point is: did the intelligence substantiate the claims. If yes, then no lie, if no, then there was a lie.

I think you should read more about who Armitage is before you try to create a conspiracy.

What dream world are you living in Soho? Its been proven Chaney and Rove most certainly did out Valerie Blame.

And Wilson like Scott Ritter and other ex diplomats to iraq reported that iraq was a broken country due to sanctions without the ability to be a threat in any big way even to its closet neighbors.

That settles it, you are a Bush voter who is unable to see the truth if it hits you up side your head. So be it.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php