Official Pentagon study: No credible link found between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda network (Israel, weapons)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

It really doesn't matter though. Saddam agreed to the U.N. resolution that mandated particular actions, which he failed to adhere to. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bush never claimed it did, regardless of what the anti-Bush forces like to state.

And if the UN can't enforce it's own resolution the UN and the resolution both have ZERO credibility and should be ignored.

WHERE is it written in the Constitution that the US is tasked with cleaning up the messes of spineless organizations?

Citing UN resolutions as cause for war is just a cover-up of Bush's failures.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

And if the UN can't enforce it's own resolution the UN and the resolution both have ZERO credibility and should be ignored.

WHERE is it written in the Constitution that the US is tasked with cleaning up the messes of spineless organizations?

Citing UN resolutions as cause for war is just a cover-up of Bush's failures.

This was a resolution that we, the U.S, authored. It was provided to the U.N. to appease the liberals who feel we aren't allowed to make a move without the U.N.. It was us who lead the assault and removed Saddam from Kuwait and us who showed pity on Saddam, leaving him in office.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

This was a resolution that we, the U.S, authored. It was provided to the U.N. to appease the liberals who feel we aren't allowed to make a move without the U.N.. It was us who lead the assault and removed Saddam from Quwait and us who showed pity on Saddam, leaving him in office.

And us who invaded Iraq for at best dubious reasons and lack of planning that would shame a Little League coach.

[irwin]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

This was a resolution that we, the U.S, authored. It was provided to the U.N. to appease the liberals who feel we aren't allowed to make a move without the U.N.. It was us who lead the assault and removed Saddam from Kuwait and us who showed pity on Saddam, leaving him in office.

If the argument and justification for this disaster is now that Saddam didn't follow the resolution to the letter of the law, then the defenders of this mess have really reached a new low.

This was not worth the lives of thousands of Americans, trillions of dollars and the breakdown of our army. This war was and continues to be against our national interests. It is a disaster and the greatest policy mistake of this country since Vietnam.

[tinman01]

The plan to defeat the Iraqi army went off really well. It was the lack of plan to maintain a stable government that has failed utterly.
I never supported going to war with Iraq. We still havent finished in afghanistan. Fighting a war on 2 fronts???? No comment needed.
As for the intel on Iraq.
MI-6 believed he had the weapons.
The mussad believed he had the weapons.
The CIA believed he had the weapons. ( Regardless of what they say now)
CIA never known for their integrety, or honesty. No secret soldiers dont trust spooks.
England was pushing for Clinton to invade, GWB went for it. No one is accusing him of being smart.
Congress based on the same intel Bush and company had went for it.
Senate went for it.
Guess what most americans were all for it.
snap we screwed up.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by irwin

If the argument and justification for this disaster is now that Saddam didn't follow the resolution to the letter of the law, then the defenders of this mess have really reached a new low.

This was not worth the lives of thousands of Americans, trillions of dollars and the breakdown of our army. This war was and continues to be against our national interests. It is a disaster and the greatest policy mistake of this country since Vietnam.

This has always been the argument and justification for the war. Saddam was required by the resolutions to provide verification that he had destroyed his wmd and ceased his wmd programs. He was required to allow the inspectors into these areas and confirm the same. However, since he refused to do both of these, and because we knew that he had ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, we had to assume that he would be willing to provided these weapons to these organizations. We couldn't allow this to happen, so regime change had to be initiated. Though there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, I have no doubt had Osama come to Saddam asking for WMD to attack the U.S., Saddam's enemy, that he would've gladly provided the weapons.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

This was a resolution that we, the U.S, authored.

It was written by the UN Security Council.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

It was provided to the U.N. to appease the liberals who feel we aren't allowed to make a move without the U.N.

As it originated within the UN, there was no "providing" of it done by anyone.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by tinman01

As for the intel on Iraq.
MI-6 believed he had the weapons.
The mussad believed he had the weapons.
The CIA believed he had the weapons. ( Regardless of what they say now)

False. Everyone knew Iraq once had weapons. Everyone knew how many weapons the UN had accounted for and destroyed between 1991 and 1998. There were some unaccounted for. Everyone knew that the former head of Iraq's weapons programs had stated in 1995 that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed weapons in the aftermath of the Gulf War during debriefings after his defection to the west, bringing suitcases full of the official papers with him. Everyone knew that if Hussein Kamel had been truthful, there would be no weapons left. No one could be certain that Kamel had been truthful. Everyone believed that it would be better to have certainty that no weapons remained. At the expense of monstrous disgrace and disaster, we now have that certainty. Kamel had been truthful. Exactly as the work of Hans Blix and UNMOVIC would soon have demonstrated at a cost of zero disgrace or disaster at all if George W Bush had not been so set on his policy of invasion at all costs.

Originally Posted by tinman01

England was pushing for Clinton to invade, GWB went for it. No one is accusing him of being smart.

False. PNAC and Osama bin Laden were pushing for Clinton to invade Iraq. As for Bush and the British, things were entirely the other way around. In his eagerness to show solidarity with Bush, Blair lied to Parliament and to the British people, while violating established rules and procedures of his government. Bush essentially exploited Blair’s misplaced loyalty and treated Britain as if it were a third world client state. Blair essentially dragged his country into a fight that it did not want or need.

Originally Posted by tinman01

Congress based on the same intel Bush and company had went for it.

False. No one sees the same intelligence as the President. The Congress sees what the President decides to allow them to see. In this case, it included entirely fabricated and/or unvetted intelligence that just happened to support the President's otherwise unfounded case. Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense. Bush committed that offense.

Originally Posted by tinman01

Senate went for it.

The lock-step Senate Republican majority made whatever Bush wanted the guaranteed outcome. Let's not pretend that there was doubt about how the Senate vote would turn out. The only question up for debate was was the size of the eventual majority.

Originally Posted by tinman01

Guess what most americans were all for it.

Millions of Americans were against it. The largest demonstrations in world history were staged against it, both here and around the globe. Lock-step followers of a few deceitful demagogues were all for it.

Originally Posted by tinman01

snap we screwed up.

You should probably try to learn some lessons from that.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

News report

From the article, quoting the report:

But I assume this won't put such claims to rest, will it?

The title of your thread is mis-leading.

There is a huge difference between a lack of a smoking gun, and credible evidence.

We convict people everyday in this country without a smoking gun. We convict people on credible evidence. Since it seems that many are now wanting to change the rules of evidence from credible evidence to smoking gun, I would assume you now support letting 75% of the people in prison free.

[GregW]

We went to war because our militarized economy requires that we be at war at all times. Otherwise how could all the profiteering be overlooked? We have become an empire that must continue to expand at grievous cost to ourselves as well as the rest of the world in order to assure the profits of the warmongers.

I swear the neocons that started this mess only read the first half of “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”.