Damn Bear . That was a hell of a thread.
While you 2 continue to focus on Bush & Bushco, as it relates to the specific verbage
lied us into war, when you check out some of those old threads, especially in their entirety, IN CONTEXT, the overwhelming theme of so many of H's posts specifically referenced how dishonest Bush & Bushco were supposedly being, supposedly cherry picking only the intel they wanted to use. Bush this supposed dunce, able to rally all these countries, into accepting their version of what Saddam supposedly was, though in some way, Bushco knew it was largely bogus
Too bad the facts don't support much of of it. So, let's get the biggie out of the way 1st....if we're understanding H's public position now, and by all means correct me if I'm "putting words in your mouth",
neither Bush nor Bushco (which is apparently Cheney and Bush's advisers) lied us into war. Neither Bush nor Bushco knew Saddam had no WMD, but took us into Iraq with the bogus claim that he did. Correct??
So, what's left is 3-fold
1st, the intel. FACT is the intelligence community of most every nation, had concluded that Saddam did indeed have a WMD stockpile. I believe that even included the UN. Now, many of these nations didn't think it necessary to go into Iraq, but that's a different issue......that'll be addressed in a moment. Point being that MOST folks believed that Saddam still had his WMD stockpiles. Yes, there were SOME sources that claimed uncertainty, some doubt, but THAT would have been cherry picking, as that was significant minority, while the predominance of the intel had claimed the contrary
2nd, the intent. THIS is an area that can be considered controversial, since it can be argued that Bush was far more willing to take military action, than let's say a Senator Kerry or a VP Gore. That's a judgement call, and neither nefarious or dishonest. Following 911, and I support the decision fully, BASED ON THE INTEL, it would have been grossly irresponsible NOT to have gone into Iraq because......
3rd, the connections. This is the area most controversial, since its also based on intel, that could be seen as cherry picked. Iraq indeed had both direct and indirect connections to Islamic terrorist organizations, including Al-Qeada connected folks. this of course is at the heart of many who despise Bush, and claim there were no connections. Our fine friend Ami provided this
convenient post highlighting the connections in a report. No one is argueing an "operational connection" between the Iraq and Al-Qeada, merely that the connections were there. And following 911, in which Al-Qeada terrorists killed 3000 Americans with box cutters, the thought of what they might do if they could manage to buy/aquire some of Saddam's WMD's, that most rationally minded folks thought he had, was unthinkable
So, one can argue a bad call, even bad judgement, (though not really credible given the intel at the time) but dishonest?? Facts don't support that, no matter how much you might hate Bush......oh sorry, Bushco
