What's new
By:

Iraq Is Cracking Apart

The Thriller said:
You may want to look up the literally hundreds of books that detail exactly what you're asking for.

The best one however, is called Fiasco.

It details how the Bush administration influenced the intelligence community to give him the answers he wanted. They were then looking for evidence that supported the idea that Saddam had WMDs. Rather than look for intell and then draw conclusions from what you gathered.

As far as "the majority" of the international community? Very debatable. France and Germany didn't believe that he did. However, Saddam wanted to be convincing that he did have WMDs. Why? Because look at his next door neighbor. As long as Iran thought he had them, they wouldn't mess with him.

See, Iran and Iraq aren't friends. Yes, they're Muslim. But Saddam and his government was Sunni and Iran is dominated by Shiites.

Of course, the Bush administration didn't really consider this. Especially the clown on top, because rather than read he relied on "gut instincts."
Click to expand...

And I am supposed to believe the writer of Fiasco? Am I supposed to believe Dinesh D'Souza and his every portrayal of Obama? I find that these people tend to care less about what might be thee truth and more about fattening their wallets. Please tell me your author has the utmost interest in telling the truth and not selling more books by making outlandish claims. If there was tangible proof that Bush forced the intelligence community to pass off bad intelligence in order to go to war then by all means, take it to trial. We don't have that though IMO. I respect your opinion on the matter but I disagree.
 
trigg3r said:
And I am supposed to believe the writer of Fiasco? Please tell me he has the utmost interest in telling the truth and not selling more books by making outlandish claims. If there was tangible proof that Bush forced the intelligence community to pass off bad intelligence in order to go to war then by all means, take it to trial. We don't have that though IMO. I respect your opinion on the matter but I disagree.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to dismiss the author, and the literally hundreds of authors who have written about this, then that's certainly your right. However, you may want to check out the bibliography of interviews, former intelligence higher ups, the cited documents, etc. all the people interviewed don't exactly make money by being interviewed in his book, do they? And do you really want to ignore all the other evidence?

For those who think, "well jeez, how could a president do all this and get away with it?"

Ummm yeah. Lots of presidents have done a lot of bad things. Reagan gave 1500 missiles to Iran. Kennedy/LBJ had Diem (the leader of south Vietnam) assassinated. Truman experimented the atomic bomb on American soil. Downwinders anybody? FDR? Wow... Several others in the early 20th century. Teddy purposely hunted exotic animals leaving the White House for weeks or months. Oh, not to mention the whole Panama Canal thing where we purposely incited a revolution in Columbia with a deal that the rebels would give us the land to build the Panama Canal. Lincoln began a war with Americans (half the country)Buchanan purposely kicked the can down the road on slavery. Andrew Johnson had native Americans forcibly removed. Adams tried to outlaw the press from printing anything bad about him.

And so on...
 
The Thriller said:
Well, if you want to dismiss the author, and the literally hundreds of authors who have written about this, then that's certainly your right. However, you may want to check out the bibliography of interviews, former intelligence higher ups, the cited documents, etc. all the people interviewed don't exactly make money by being interviewed in his book, do they? And do you really want to ignore all the other evidence?

For those who think, "well jeez, how could a president do all this and get away with it?"

Ummm yeah. Lots of presidents have done a lot of bad things. Reagan gave 1500 missiles to Iran. Kennedy/LBJ had Diem (the leader of south Vietnam) assassinated. Truman experimented the atomic bomb on American soil. Downwinders anybody? FDR? Wow... Several others in the early 20th century. Teddy purposely hunted exotic animals leaving the White House for weeks or months. Oh, not to mention the whole Panama Canal thing where we purposely incited a revolution in Columbia with a deal that the rebels would give us the land to build the Panama Canal. Lincoln began a war with Americans (half the country)Buchanan purposely kicked the can down the road on slavery. Andrew Johnson had native Americans forcibly removed. Adams tried to outlaw the press from printing anything bad about him.

And so on...
Click to expand...

I never said Presidents haven't done bad things in the past. I am just not sure if that's the case here and if it isn't the case, then it's not my place to call him a liar. I bet I could find just as many sources with an opposing view and you would feel the same way you do now. With that being said, thank you for the conversation but we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
 
trigg3r said:
I never said Presidents haven't done bad things in the past. I am just not sure if that's the case here and if it isn't the case, then it's not my place to call him a liar. I bet I could find just as many sources with an opposing view and you would feel the same way you do now. With that being said, thank you for the conversation but we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

At best, Bush knowingly exaggerated reports and pressured intelligence officers to give him answers he wanted on Iraq to fit his agenda to take out Saddam and transform the Middle East.(longest sentence ever)
At worst, he lied, in order to stick it to his dad and prove to Jeb who the better man was.

I'm not sure if either is excusable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
trigg3r said:
Such a sad and silly statement. I recall many non conservatives voting to go to war too. Let's leave it at that.
Click to expand...

You haven't followed the news. They were all coerced and deeply regret it now.
 
The Thriller said:
At best, Bush knowingly exaggerated reports and pressured intelligence officers to give him answers he wanted on Iraq to fit his agenda to take out Saddam and transform the Middle East.(longest sentence ever)
At worst, he lied, in order to stick it to his dad and prove to Jeb who the better man was.

I'm not sure if either is excusable.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
trigg3r said:
At the time I would say the majority of the international community believed there were WMDs and that Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors and the world. That was proven not to be the case. It was the biggest intelligence blunder that I can recall. I am not going to hold the POTUS at the time criminally responsible for acting on bad intelligence just as I am not going to hold our current POTUS responsible for drone strikes that take out top AQ leaders. Tough decisions have to be made when you are the POTUS and not all of them are going to be right or popular. If you could prove to me that Bush knowingly sent troops into Iraq after fabricating the intelligence that swayed us into going to war that would be an entirely different thing. I would be right there with you. Since you can't, I can't hold the man criminally responsible. He seems like a pretty decent guy. I am sure he deeply regrets certain things in his Presidency and this one likely is at the top of the list.
Click to expand...

I think you need to do a little more reading into this subject.
 
At least things are getting better...

[video]https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e68_1298982411
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top