Zach Dennis
11/4/2004 8:07:00 PM
Ben Giddings wrote:
> Kujawa, Greg wrote:
>
>> 2) Bush lied about things to lead America to war. - He didn't gather the
>> intelligence himself. The intelligence was a result of a combination
>> of CIA,
>> British, and UN data gathering. What was presented to him was the same
>> information that was presented to Congress. The majority of Congress
>> was in
>> favor of what action was initiated based on the intelligence that was
>> presented. Looking back at it the intelligence wasn't 100% correct.
>> Or even
>> 50% correct for God's sake. But it's not like Bush knew there were no
>> WMD's,
>> just went off the handle, and then tried to cover up all of the
>> things that
>> wound up being true.
>
>
> I'm sorry to add another off-topic post to this list, but I can't let
> this slide.
>
> Bush didn't decide to attack Iraq because there was an intelligence
> flaw. The plans to attack Iraq were in place well before the 2000
> election, but they needed an excuse for the invasion.
I had never seen any factual evidence or proof saying this was the case,
only allegations and *some* evidence pointing in a direction, which
still required people to make leap of faith in believing it's truth. A
theory is only a theory unless it can be proven to be true. So far,
factually speaking this theory is still up in the air and cannot be
claimed to be true or false, with absolute certainty.
> Immediately after Sept 11th, Bush tried to get his terrorism chief to
> pin it on Saddam Hussein, and didn't want to listen to the fact it was
> actually al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
You seem to have an inside track on what Bush does, thinks and how he
goes about his business. Again I had only heard allegations and I have
never seen actual proof supporting the claim beyond reasonable doubt.
Only large leaps of faith saying that it must be so based on some
circumstantial evidence.
>
> The fact that the intelligence was wrong wasn't just bad luck, it was
> politically motivated. It wasn't an honest mistake, it was deception.
> Congress fell for it, either blindly, or stupidly.
Again, evidence and proof? Give us something more then just conspiracy
theories and allegations.
>
> But, you're right, in the end it wasn't Bush's fault, it's Cheney,
> Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the other PNAC members in the Bush
> Administration. He's just a figurehead that they can lead to do what
> they want.
>
> The whole group was lying from day 1, implying that Saddam Hussein was
> somehow connected to the Sept. 11th attacks, presenting biased
> evidence about WMD, and refusing to let the inspectors actually
> substantiate their claims, etc.
Last I checked the general public wasn't privvy to the intelligence that
the people in the White House look at. How can you make such an claim
without being able to see exactly what they saw? I am not saying they
were right, wrong, liars or assumers, but you seem to speak as if this
is common knowledge. All I've seen are allegations and *some* evidence
which point in that direction, but certainly don't prove anything
without a leap of faith or assumption on your behalf.
>
> If you honestly believe that the attack on Iraq was never considered
> before Sept 11th, and that the lack of WMD was an honest mistake, you
> *really* need to become more informed.
Please inform me in a off-list post. I'm ready, eager and willing,
Zach