Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 23 Posted (11 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
This came out yesterday. Surprised the media hasn't jumped all over this. Surprised nobody has jumped all over this. Sure, its already known, but it pretty much debunks the "they still might be out there" theory, the "we haven't searched everywhere" theory, etc. etc.
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
This report is pretty damning. Our reason for going to war was WMD. For six months this country was led to believe that we were under an immediate threat from Iraq's WMD. For six months the Bush Administration tried to convince the world that there were WMD's in Iraq.
This makes me so mad. Why are they not being held responsible? I don't buy the excuse that it was the CIA or FBI's fault, that it was bad intelligence. The responsibility goes all the way to the top, to the people who led us into this war. These people ordered our armed forces to fight a war to defend our country from WMD's, and now 1500 of our soldiers are dead and there are no WMD's.
If Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob under oath, why isn't Bush under fire for lying to the American people and the world? These lies have led to thousands of deaths and incredible destruction.
CaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3217 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 6): So it doesn't bother to you that we went to war on false pretenses, and we now have dead soldiers because of it? I won't try and convince you otherwise, but I just want to know.
Hindsight is 20/20 There is nothing showing that anyone KNEW at the time of the invasion there were no WMDs. For there to be a LIE someone would have to KNOWINGLY mislead the nation. I am not convinced there was a lie.
It is a war, people die. We can't undo what we have done but if the people there want to make their country into a great nation we are enabling them. I am sorry those soldiers are gone but they were 100% aware of the risks when they signed on the dotted line. Death is an occupational hazard in the military.
Imagine all the bad decisions in the history of the world, or even in any of our lives that could be undone if we knew what the result would be. There was actually a pretty interesting episode of Star Trek that addressed this exact issue.
You are just looking for yet another thing about Bush to bitch about.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 10): You are just looking for yet another thing about Bush to bitch about.
I read your post with interest until I got to that line. Come on, did you have to put that in? You do not know my political affiliation, you don't even know what kind of person I am or how I voice my opinions. So how can you make a generalization like that? Moving right along...
I suppose what I'm thinking is that lie, misinformation, etc. Whatever it was that got us into this war, people need to be held accountable. I agree that death is a risk of joining the army, but when our soldiers are sent to an unjustified war by people high up, those high up people should be held responsible.
Iakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3326 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3188 times:
Iraq was a target before 9/11.
This faithful date however hastened the implementation of the plans, the only questions raised were "what good reason to invoke", "how to guide US public opinion along the right path", and "when needed, what alternative reasons to use later on".
On the one hand, they knew the UN would not condone an attack, they knew France, Germany and others would stand in the way, they knew world opinion would generally be against the move, they knew they had to open their wallet to build up a so-called coalition, they knew the troops would be there for years not months, they reckoned justly that by the time the legitimacy of the "invasion" would have evaporated, the dust would have settled, hundreds of calendar pages been turned and the heath abated to standard ISO.
On the other hand they were certain they could count on the (yes, driven by fresh emotions and terribly uncritical) patriotism of their citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, find the money, vote the budgets, crush Saddam's dummy army, and have their feet and enterprises solidly planted in the Middle East.
Following the large-scale slandering of the UN, France and Germany, only to name those three, would anyone think that something along the lines of a "sorry" is due ?
Yes, they lied, nothing new under the sun when the leadership thinks that the ultimate motives are justified. (valid for every country's leadership of course)
You do not pay they to act as Cinderella but to lead the country.
If in business, the CEO lied to the shareholders what do you think would happen ?
Conclusion: in many aspects a political career is safer.
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2): Why are 1,500 of our soldiers dead, for what? Why are so many Americans dead? The reason we went to war, and this cannot be denied, was WMD.
You just brush it aside as old news, but these are people's lives we're talking about.
Not at all, I feel for the brothers and sisters in uniform that have paid the ultimate price. It's not that I brush it aside, it's that it's OLD news. And if YOU can't get past it, you have a problem. What needs to happen now, since we all know it's too damn late to change anything, is to get behind the soldiers that are still there (I didn't support the war, or Bush, or anything except the soldiers).
Quoting Biggles (Reply 5): I will always remember Rummy's "They have WMD's , and we know exactly where there are" speech..
Dumsfeld should have been canned after Abu Ghraib. Check that: Dumsfeld should have been canned when he started preaching about doing this fight on the cheap with only two Divisions and a few Separate Brigades AND then FAILING miserably to have a plan in place after the "Combat Phase" of the operation. Dumsfeld is one of the worst things to happen to the DoD in a very long time. And I know - my office used to be 2E374 at the five sided funny farm. He should have listened to Gen Shinseki when he was told - repeatedly - "beware the 12 Division Strategy with a 10 Division Army". Alas, he did not. Loser.
Quoting Leskova (Reply 8): In related news, the CIA has reportedly located a person that was surprised by this news
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18): Not at all, I feel for the brothers and sisters in uniform that have paid the ultimate price. It's not that I brush it aside, it's that it's OLD news. And if YOU can't get past it, you have a problem.
Duh, clearly I do to. My way of supporting the troops is to get the out of there. Our soldiers do a noble duty, but not when its fighting a war under false pretenses. 1,500 dead soldiers isn't old news, considering that our soldiers are still dying there.
I will not get past it, not until the soldiers come home. Every minute that the soldiers are in Iraq fighting a war that was started based on false pretenses, I will not get over it. Every day that this war is fought and the people that started this war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, etc.) are still in power, I will not get over it. Every time a soldier dies in Iraq, I remember they're there because we were told that the WMD's were an imminent threat, and because of that I will not get over it.
The day that I get over that our leadership lied to us about war (willingly or not) is the day that I become a "fat, lazy American".
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3141 times:
Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 20): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
What needs to happen now, since we all know it's too damn late to change anything, is to get behind the soldiers that are still there
Let me get this straight . . . I suggest we get behind and support our troops and you disagree? Is that what you meant to say, you do NOT support our troops?
I don't disagree with the remainder of your post . . . . . .
Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 20): I think what needs to happen now is the people responsible for this error need to be punished and removed from office. That's what SHOULD be happening now. I can't explain why it is not.
. . . . but I want to make sure I heard you correctly in that you're NOT going to support our troops . . . it's not the TROOPS that are fault . . .
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8721 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2): The reason we went to war, and this cannot be denied, was WMD.
The reason we know about. Whether it was touted or not, it's obvious that Iraq had considerable strategic importance in the global war on terror. We needed a foothold in the mid-east. Now, that's just one of my theories... but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure there's alot we don't know. Also, I think they had a perfectly valid reason to believe there were WMDs and unless we went in to be sure you wouldn't even be able to say "ha! told you so!" And besides, you can't fault one person for trusting our nation's top intelligence sources. If you're gunna blame someone blame the FBI, CIA, etc.
This Website Censors Me
: I'm not convinced of that. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops and the effort in Iraq, however . . . consider this. Had the US continued and com