Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Incorrect. Congress had their own meetings and hearings with the intelligence people - behind closed doors and in public.
Go back a step. Bush requested information to support his suppositions. The CIA provided the information that Bush requested. Add the Republican spin in the congress. Am I disgusted with the Dems in US and Labour in Britain for the votes, yes!
Then so did a lot of other intelligence agencies around the world.
This is nothing more than a partisan hitjob to try and absolve themselves of their own votes. The fact is, congress had the same intelligence as Bush. They came to the same conclusions as Bush. No one lied. The intelligence was wrong. As simple as that.
The members of Congress most certainly did NOT have the same evidence as did the White House. You might want to look into the Office of Special Plans or the use of the forged Niger documents that were discovered to be bunk within hours of their release by the use of a simple Google search.
Here's a more readable version of UN 1441. Did they just rely on US intelligence?
Nice flowchart. Mind posting a link to the source?
No, the didn't rely solely on US intelligence, then again, neither did the US. Many of the sources of foreign intelligence were picked through to find and promote various aspects that supported their views and assertions. Those things that questioned or doubted the intelligence were intentionally left out. Hence why it is fairly well established that they attempted to guide the public, the UN, and Congress towards their preferred view.
As to the flow chart, yes I do have the source but why is that relevant? Please refute it on some basis such as content instead of source. I did my homework, you can do yours.
As to the OP, I believe that regardless of the outcome, this will be a serious and very much a defining issue in the up and coming debates.
A man sentenced to death in Kuwait for the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies now sits in Iraq's parliament as a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition, according to U.S. military intelligence.
No, the didn't rely solely on US intelligence, then again, neither did the US. Many of the sources of foreign intelligence were picked through to find and promote various aspects that supported their views and assertions. Those things that questioned or doubted the intelligence were intentionally left out. Hence why it is fairly well established that they attempted to guide the public, the UN, and Congress towards their preferred view.
As to the flow chart, yes I do have the source but why is that relevant? Please refute it on some basis such as content instead of source. I did my homework, you can do yours.
based its condemnation of As to the OP, I believe that regardless of the outcome, this will be a serious and very much a defining issue in the up and coming debates.
The Joel Cairo-lke Ahmed Chalabi was also involved on the "intelligence" front. "In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Nearly all, if not all, of this information has turned out to be false. That, combined with the fact that Chalabi subsequently boasted about the impact that their falsifications had in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, led to a falling out between him and the United States."
Here's a more readable version of UN 1441. Did they just rely on US intelligence?
Nice flowchart. Mind posting a link to the source?
Ooooooooooh, The UN, THERE's an effective, trustworthy organization The UN's inability to enforce their own resolutions make the resolutions a joke.
And would you mind posting a link that confirms that EVERY member of Congress enjoys the same level of security clearance as the POTUS and therefore access to the same intel?
I wish our news would find the backbone to call this what it is.
"Bush LIED about the Iraq intelligence". Then again, what do you expect from the media that helped to shove this lie down the throats of every American.
The NYT ran an editorial yesterday, but they didn't call him a liar either. They were also beating the war drum before the invasion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/op...gewanted=print
Clip:
We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public — or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true — to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The UN's inability to enforce their own resolutions make the resolutions a joke.
