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.
Did you read your own link? I have. There was no "fabricated evidence." What there was was poor intel, and lots of it. From your own link:
[/font][/font]
What was this fabricated evidence, and who fabricated it? I guess you could say that Saddam fabricated the lie that he still had WMD via his 'deterrence through doubt' stratagem. Is that what you mean? I somehow doubt it--I suspect that would not at all comport with your preferred narrative.
Read the whole report, even up to the conclusions.
from page 52:
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above.
Read the whole report, even up to the conclusions.
from page 52:
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above.
Carnegie Endowment For World Peace is a liberal anti-war think tank and not official at all. That's like accepting Code Pink's findings.
Read post #301. Independent government investigation called for and headed by Democrats. Also the British Butler report...same conclusion.
Actually, I will grant that Bush & Co. were very good at not saying it directly. They lost no time in implying that there was a vital link between Al Q and Saddam Hussein (there really wasn't), and they had no qualms bringing up 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence - over and over again.
That being said, the US media probably carry the bigger responsibility for that misconception.
Read the whole report, even up to the conclusions.
from page 52:
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above.
But what are the specifics of what the report calls misrepresentation? One that I see is the idea that there was no evidence that Saddam would ever ally with AQ and possibly transfer WMD to them. But this was a matter of speculation to begin with, so it could not have been misrepresentation.
If I say 'I like the Chicago Bulls to win the NBA title in 2014,' is that a 'misrepresentation?' Not really. You can disagree with me. Maybe you think the Heat will repeat. But you can't accuse me of misrepresentation.
It was reasonable to worry about the possibility of a Saddam/AQ collaboration after 9/11. Saddam had many ties to terrorists. Abu Nidal did not retire to Iraq due to the balmy weather.
But what are the specifics of what the report calls misrepresentation? One that I see is the idea that there was no evidence that Saddam would ever ally with AQ and possibly transfer WMD to them. But this was a matter of speculation to begin with, so it could not have been misrepresentation.
If I say 'I like the Chicago Bulls to win the NBA title in 2014,' is that a 'misrepresentation?' Not really. You can disagree with me. Maybe you think the Heat will repeat. But you can't accuse me of misrepresentation.
It was reasonable to worry about the possibility of a Saddam/AQ collaboration after 9/11. Saddam had many ties to terrorists. Abu Nidal did not retire to Iraq due to the balmy weather.
Saddam hated Bin Laden. He was Ba'athist. Read the report.
Actually, I will grant that Bush & Co. were very good at not saying it directly. They lost no time in implying that there was a vital link between Al Q and Saddam Hussein (there really wasn't), and they had no qualms bringing up 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence - over and over again.
That being said, the US media probably carry the bigger responsibility for that misconception.
Ummmm....even the Robb-Silbermann Report stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda
had ties & meetings. What they found was that they didn't have were "operational ties".
Saddam did harbor terrorists. They just didn't have anything to do with 911.
Posted with TapaTalk
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.
