LOL

That's right I did say, the Authorization did not say Iraq had (as in had back in 2002, had) large stockpiles of MODERN WMD.

But, it DID say Iraq had (as in before 2002 had) large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program.

I have no problem w/ folks who disagreed w/ the decision to go to war. What I do have a problem w/ is the lies and distortions that keep being repeated about President Bush and the reasons we agreed and (signed into law) to go to war.

LMAO, I am not going to play these wiggle games. First it's "have not had", now that I showed you that you did in fact say "had", you are starting up with the "chemical weapons are not WMD" nonsense. Next I'll expect "it depends on what "is" is"...

Read the report, it makes it quite clear that Bush did his best to distort facts and include only those bits of information that supported his long preconceived desire to have Hussein gone. The fact that Congress bought his arguments just shows that they are idiots as well, but does not let Bush off the hook.

AGG

Marsh is not playing games...she is pointing out the proper tense of the helping verbs.

I couldn't care less about the tense of the helping verbs. What concerns me is the duplicitous nature of the case President Bush made to take our country to war. If you're going to declare war and commit our troops and resources, you're intelligence better be concrete fact and not the hearsay that was used.

I supported President Bush right up until he started this war. I thought he did a very good job of handling 9/11 and the war against Al-qaeda, but there is no excuse for the way he handled Iraq. He was wrong then and he's still wrong today.

Want2Stay

And she ended up being wrong on that, since she used the same tense as what was disproven by the report.

So she is now trying to reframe the discussion into "chemical weapons are not modern WMD", which has nothing to do with her original (and wrong) statement.

AGG

Thanks MEDC.

I didn't think that AGG would respond well to the facts.

I figured he'd rather hold onto his "impressions".

Bush Derangement Syndrome is a nasty condition to have.

Want2,

It is unfortunate that we can't have perfect intelligence.

So have to work w/ what we have.

But, I'm grateful that all of the reasons listed in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, turned out to be supported by our pre-war and post-war intelligence.

You can keep telling yourself this if it helps you sleep at night, but the facts are otherwise:


FALSE. (note the tense of "continuing" is present, not past :RollieEyes:)


FALSE.


FALSE.

AGG

AGG...you are mistaken about some of your points...and likely all of them.

Hussein did aid and harbor known terrorists. Do a web search for Hussein and suicide bomber payments. That is not only aid...it is conspiracy to commit murder via terrorism. This alone is a reason to go to war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm


If Hussein had lived up to his post Kuwait obligations, inspectors would have been able to determine his the true situation on the ground. As it is, he didn't, and therefore any mistakes in intelligence fall solely on his shoulders. A man willing to pay for suicide bombings cannot be allowed to thumb his nose at inspectors. He already proved his desire to kill innocents.

As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, while no evidence exists of actual training sites in Iraq the 9/11 commission has documented that meetings between Bin Laden and Iraqi officials did in fact take place...and that later on Iraq actually sought out furthered relations with this organization. (see 9/11 Commission Report).
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

I am not arguing that Hussein was not a bad guy. Having seen PLO terrorism first hand, I don't need to be educated on how bad terror is.

But the world is full of bad guys, leaders who pursue nuclear weapons, terrorize and murder their own people, and cause mischief around the world. We may not like it, we may try to isolate them, but we do not go around overthrowing all those regimes.

No need to go on that tangent, since we agree that Hussein was a bad guy.

Marsh's argument that "all of the reasons listed in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, turned out to be supported by our pre-war and post-war intelligence", however, remains wrong.

At the time of the Authorization, and of Powell talking to the UN about Hussein's "mobile biological labs", Hussein neither had chemical weapons stockpiles, nor was developing nuclear or biological weapons.

AGG

and IF he had allowed inspections, we would not have had to rely on intelligence that turned out to be less than perfect.

True, but I see no point in IF games.

IF Bush had listened to opposing points of view, he would have known that Curveball was a phony.

IF Cheney had listened to opposing points of view, he would have known that aluminum tubes were not for nukes.

Instead, we got CIA agents exposed because their husbands dared to speak out against the false Niger claims.

AGG

Capabilities and potential capabilities are mentioned, but not WMD or even WMD programs.

From the Duelfer Report:

LINK


From a Senate Intelligence Committee's report:



LINK

From the democrat-controlled Senate committee:

LINK

Judge Harold Baer ruled in Federal court that Iraq was partially responsible for the September 11 attacks:



LINK

Yep

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was already signed into law when Powell delivered that speech to the UN.

There was no clause in the Authorization that stated Hussein had "mobile biological labs".

Iraq was not seeking nuclear capability.

Anyway, I am done playing the wiggle games Marsh. You keep trying to change your point, I am not interested in following your circuitous path.

Iraq no WMDs, nor nuclear capability or pursuit thereof. Iraq had no Al Queda (one or two sympathizers does not count, we have that many in this country) until we invaded. Those are the facts. If you want to ignore them, fine.

I believe that had we focused on the real enemy (Bin Ladin) and Afghanistan, we would have had him in custody or dead by now. But Bush's vendetta got in the way, and thousands of people died. IMO, that is too bad and was not worth the price. But we can agree to disagree.

AGG

The democrat controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence found:

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was not just hastily put together. It was carefully crafted... Every verb carefully chosen. And signed into law.

All of the clauses were supported by pre-war and post-war intelligence, all of which, could even stand up against clever retorts like,"That doesn't count."

LOL


I'm good w/ that.

Marshmallow



I agree..If it were true he should resign, and should not have sought re-election. But he didn't resign and he did seek re-election..