where is this guy from?

[christopher w]

You said it all with your "Imagine if" and "Could have been" comments. There is nothing left to say. As I said before short of a signed confession from W. nothing and nobody is going to change your mind becuase you are using predictions of the future ("Imagine if" and "Could have been") to justify your beliefs. How can I debate or prove something to you if you are using "what might have been" as a reason??

And if laughing at zealots makes me troubled then bingo. I am troubled.

[JCarr]

PO,

It was repported that, yes, Suddam Hussein was working with Al-Queada. Later that information was debunked as, the Bush Adminstration, WILLFULLY mislead everyone on the Iraq-Al Queada connection they knew to be false!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html

And here is where I disagree with you..

"Sorry, but an objective/dispassionate review of ALL the evidence trumps information from Naji Sabri, who, being in Saddam's inner circle, could very well have been viewed as providing disinformation to the administration, based on the voluminous statements he made in the run-up to the actual war... "

There were no objective view of the evidence presented about Iraqi and WMD from the Bush Admin. They had an agenda from the start and carried it through the 9-11 attacks.  I dont think anyone is denying that Suddam had to go or was a threat to humanity...but Bush lied to make it happen and using 9-11 (which had NO TIES to IRAQ AT ALL) as a means to invade, makes it that more dispicable. I believe if Bush had went after Bin Laden first and then said while it we at it lets get suddam...history would have treated him much better..

[christopher w]

Positive,

Perhaps there is a point in which you and I can find some common ground.

Nancy Pelosi is a BIG FAT LIAR. Talk about playing CYA...

"Um, I was briefed on it once, and I was advised that it was not being used anymore (waterboarding)".  

As if anyone believes that. I find it very hard to believe that over the course of events since 9/11 that the subject never came up, and she NEVER asked about it? Now that is a smoking gun I would love to see. It would be hilarious to see Ms. Rat-Face try to explain her way out of that.

[PositiveOutlook]

Christopher,

"your "Imagine if" and "Could have been" comments" - T

hat was at the END of the post, lamenting if Saddam was still in power, and if we had done air strikes instead of invade and he had the short time necessary to amp up the chemical program HE HAD ALREADY USED in the past.  What do you think all the chemicals hidden in the bunkers near the ammo were for?

Your attempt to equate it to the rest of the post, instead of the actual SUBSTANCE is telling...



Jcarr...

I don't have a doubt that Bush came to office with an agenda for Saddam, it make sense considering his predeccesor, Clinton, had the same agenda (i.e. - regime change) and Bush 41 did also... 

You also have to look at the geopolitcial realities of it also... look at where Iraq is located, and where Obama concentrated his efforts... Iraq...  He did not concentrate his efforts on Aphganistan for a reason...  The Taliban are the primary ones fighting there, and have been from the start....

It's important to note that Aphganistan and the Taliban were hit first... because that is where Bin Ladin WAS when Clinton had the chance to take him out and didn't... it was also believe that was where he was when we attacked there.  The Taliban were warned in advance to hand him over, they chose to fight, and they were ousted out of power.

"There were no objective view of the evidence presented about Iraqi and WMD from the Bush Admin. They had an agenda from the start and carried it through the 9-11 attacks. " -

By dispassionate and objective, I was refering to the Monday-morning second guessing...  I have no doubt there were all sorts of passions playing out on this, and it is lacks credibility that Bush was the only with the information.  So either the CONGRESSIONAL committee members who have intelligence oversight DID NOT DO THEIR JOB or they saw the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion...  You can't have it both ways, either they agreed or were incompetant in their roles...


From the article you just posted...

"The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued."

Naji Sabri was going to be one of those defectors, according to your previous Salon article, but wouldn't go without his family, and that wasn't able to be put together...  In the lead-up to the war, Sabri prinipally led Iraq's diplomatic efforts to weaken support for a US-led attack on Iraq, so it is logical to come to the conclusion that he had an agenda NOT in our best interest.

Add to that, the French, who were openly against the war, and found to be corruptly colluding with Iraq on the Oil for Food scandal, were the third-party contact for Sabri to the US...  So you have Sabri trying to weaken support of the war, going through the French, who were against the war, and found out to be colluding with Saddam at the time, telling the French to tell us the opposite of what Saddam was projecting to Iran and giving us goblidy gook in answer to 1441 (which specifically stated the consquences) and then the start and stop and obstructing of the inspectors...  Based on that public information alone, it seems quite plausible to discount his verocity when they had other sources, including our own intelligence, previous experience, other government, including our allies, telling them different.

I'm not "defending Bush"... just interested in the history of it... The way it is being portrayed historically now does not follow the events... just a bunch of CYA by Bush, the Dems/Reps, and the media... which is why I think history will not support the current POV on this... but only time will tell which one of us is correct...

[christopher w]

Telling of what? That I find your blind allegiance to be very sad? If that is the case then yes it is very telling. You need to change your name from Positive Outlook to Lemming because that is exactly what you have shown yourself to be. Blah blah blah question nothing. Blah blah blah follow the leader. Although you did show some promise at the end of that last post. It is okay to see both sides of an argument. I promise you the world won't end if you open your eyes a little bit.

The very fact that you choose to basing your beliefs on "future predictions" of "what could have happened" says one thing. Your reaching for anything that will keep your belief system in place. Good luck with that man.

[JCarr]

Christopher,

I'm not "defending Bush"... just interested in the history of it... The way it is being portrayed historically now does not follow the events... just a bunch of CYA by Bush, the Dems/Reps, and the media... which is why I think history will not support the current POV on this... but only time will tell which one of us is correct...

With there being no WMD in Iraqi, and the information of bush knowing, that from my POV is a major CYA from the Dems, mislead, and practically lied. What does that say? How do you conclude that the war was justified under the pretense we were all told? And ESPECIALLY under the fear of Suddam and WMD?

Maybe some information provided later will justify it but I don't see it now!

[sellnbama]

Is'nt it funny to see that the can of worms the liberals insisted on opening has got them all scrambling around.Note to conservatives=sit back and watch the circus the american people are taken notes,in four years all you have to do is say"did you see what a mess that was,now do you want REAL CHANGE?Not gonna be possible to bush blame or repubs caused this.They had the pitcher,the batter,and the umpire and somehow still lost,and somehow lost all the bats and balls. 

[PositiveOutlook]

JCarr...

"Maybe some information provided later will justify it but I don't see it now!" - If you don't see it by now, you are not going to...

We'll have to agree to disagree...