Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Bilmore -- You're apparently forgetting some very clear staetments that the administration made while making their case on WMD that have been pretty well determined not to be true.
To wit:
G.W. Bush -- March 17, 2003 -- Address to the Nation:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Hmmm. Really??
|
yes that was what every government believed and what sadaam's behavior supported. What whacks me out is that within a dozen posts you guys say stuff like this, essentially the President should have known to ignore this evidence from the CIA; Contradicting the posts a few hours earlier about how he should believe CIA evidence form a source that Sadaam wasn't going forward with Al Queda JV.
Some of you guys aren't dumb. You do realize that you propose some all-knowing use of what intelligence is correct and what should be ignored don't you.
I will not re-enter the WMD debate, but let's summarize what has been proven to all who post on this board.
pre-war Bush said:
1 we believe Sadaam has programs to make chemicals/nukes
2 we know he had X tons of weapons, he has a duty to tell us where they are, he hasn't explained it. Sorry, I'm in charge of a country that cannot be attacked by WMD. I can't trust the guy.
3 He has links to OBL
We found proof of #1. We haven't found weapons, but that doesn't mean that #2 was incorrect. As an aside, When Clinton allowed the inspectors to be pulled, knuckling under ot Sadaam, he forced the next real US president to call Bullshit on sadaam for point 2.
#3 is true, although Ty thinks they're the okay kind of forming a joint venture with Al Queda discussions. these kind of meetings were routine in the Mid-East? I bet they become a little less routine now.
As I say, I've won this argument 4 times on this board and won't do-over. I need a challenge.
Quote:
|
I'd love for you to point to one shred of evidence that our government understood that this stuff might well happen, and planned for it -- and prepared our citizenry for such an eventuality before launching the war. You'll have to go beyond a few throw-away words about sacrifice. Rumsfeld, e.g., publicly disagreed completely with Gen. Shalikashvili's testimony that it would take troop levels in the six figures for several years to occupy and pacify Iraq. The White House flatly refused to discuss potential costs of the operation with Congress until well after the war began. There was, in my view, no honest, intelligent, and forthright debate over the cost, benefits, and dangers of the course of action on which the administration set our country.
|
as I've proven previously, if it made sense to go in, it still makes sense even in view of the attacks now. the dead soldiers are a terrible price, but all of us mentally were prepared for more deaths. soldiers die. they die during routine training and they die when we attack a country. I think it safe to say, the day before the invasion began you were all fearful there would be thousands of dead US soldiers. We all hate any of the deaths, but don't act like the deaths change the equation, if it made sense to go in, then it still does.
as to what should/could have been done different, again you don't really say anything other than what is being done is wrong. More troops? for what? more troops equals more non-combat support conveys etc. that is, increase combat troops you increase soft targets. I'm not sure what benefit they would provide- what benefit do you see, other than given 9 morons something to prattle on about beside confederate flags?
Threaded Mode