No, these are not good reasons by themself.
Why do you focus on just these weak events? There are other events that were the reasons we went to war. In fact, if you read the 9/11 report or at least do key word searches. President Bush did not go to war because of these two reasons! They were small pieces of many pieces of evidence that showed Saddam was a real threat.
Starting on page 334 of the 9/11 report is chapter 10.3 led "Phase Two" And The Question of Iraq. You will find that president Bush decided not to attack Iraq at this early point. He later changed his mind and I don't think the 9/11 report addresses it because Iraq was not attacked because of 9/11!
If there were 'many' reasons why went to war then why did Bush only concentrate on a few? I find this disingenous because they knowingly made a weak case for war concerning the wmds yet never mentioned any of the other 'many' reasons... Of course the reasons were brought up only after we didn't find wmds.. then all of a sudden the apologists acted as if WMDs didn't really matter..
The media only concentrated on a few.
The President stated his reasons in the AUMF in Iraq and in his speeches before the U.N. and Congress.
That's disingenuous. And, it's not that WMD's didn't matter; it's that this was all the lefties wanted to talk about after WMD's weren't discovered. All of a sudden, as you still pretend, WMD's were the only reason we invaded Iraq.
That's what's disingenuous.
How do you explain Colin Powell's admission that much of the reasons were either exaggerated or simply "made up'? Who gives a about false information that's written on a sheet of paper?
Care to source that "admission" so that we can read and actually form an opinion on what he said as opposed to your characterization of what he said?
Yoni your complainig about someone's characterization of what someone said? That's all you do here when it comes to democrats? You take the liberty of characterizing of what someone's intentions are without any supporting evidence..
I'm not complaining, I'd just like to know where, when, and in what context clambake heard former Secretary of State Colin Powell admitting to "exaggerating" and making up the reason for invading Iraq.
I'm fairly certain that if such an admission had been made, we'd be in the middle of an impeachment scandal that would have eclipsed that of Bill Clinton's.
Now, I'm fairly certain clambake believes the reasons were exaggerated or made up but, that is much different than someone in the administration actually admitting to what could be an impeachable offense.
So, not so much a complaint as skepticism.
As for this part. Really? When?
I didn't bring up the Saddam-WTC link nor the $25K compensation in this thread, the head quote did. Those 2 reasons obviously don't justify a war. head and his liars were throwing all kinds of out to see what would stick as justification.
After all the many insufficient reasons, dubya and head decided the WMD/smoking-gun-mushroom-cloud was the single, primary, overwhelming reason to invade Iraq.
Since the UN inspectors didn't have hard evidence of WMD, head sent Powell to get the UN Security Council vote for the invasion with the "mobile bio-weapons lab" as the definitive proof of WMD. But head, his accomplices and Tenet knew the mobile bio-weapons lab was bull , but they didn't stop Powell, since war-evading head as insane Dr Stranglove was fighting and undermining war hero Powell as too diplomatic and cir spect about starting the war.
It was during a video linked interview with Pat Buchanan, and it pained him to divulge this information. I doubt he would cooperate with any investigation since he played such a performing role, knowing full-well of it's collusive ingredients. He was ashamed of his actions.
If you haven't seen this interview, I don't know how to direct you to it. It has been several years since his dismissal, and the interview took place shortly thereafter.
The question is: Would you accept his word?
I would have to see what he said.
Pardon me for not taking your word for it...but, if this were the case, there's not a liberal alive that wouldn't be beating this drum every day. I've yet to hear Nancy Pelosi use the "Colin Powell admission" as a pretext for attacking President Bush on Iraq policy.
In fact, I've yet to hear any anti-Iraq war Democrat use that reasoning.
So, until you find me a video link or a transcript, it's bogus.
I will look for it.
But I have a question: If he said evidence was exaggerated and some simply made up, would you be inclined to accept his word as truth?
Just for fun, it has been conclusively proven that Iraq had some chemical weapons. Several decades old checmical warheads have been turned into IED's. Granted, it was so old it didn't work anymore and more likely than not even Saddam didn't realize he still had them, but hey....20% still believe Iraq had WMDs and that most of the hijackers came from - you guessed it, Iraq...
Poll: More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved with 9/11
By E&P Staff
Published: June 25, 2007 8:20 AM ET
Editor and Publisher
That's the 'fair and balanced' truth for you.....
The ISG did state that Saddam had worked to keep his scientists ready to resume research in chemical and biological weapons as soon as sanctions were lifted, but had completely abandoned his nuclear program because of costs. So, some people might be confused because of that statement.
Probably not though, since most people didn't take the time to look it over.
Meh, people are idiots and easy to convince.
Context and accuracy.
I'm waiting for the quote.
If Colin Powell said the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't accept his word but, I've never heard him say that...just like I've never heard him admit to exaggerations or fabrications regarding the invasion of Iraq.
True about the UN resolutions, but if you read them, several of them actually authorize war if certain conditions were not met, which they weren't. Not important though.
And Saddam was not really complying. The inspectors filed several complaints that he wasn't abiding by the rules set before him with regards to inspectors. He kept giving a little at a time to try and continually put off getting tossed, but they day the inspectors left they still felt he wasn't complying particularly well.
There was a lot of hedging about by Saddam, and apparently the common theory is that he was trying to create the illusion that he had WMDs more than anything else to exert influence over other Arab nations, and trying to feed on anti-US feelings like AQ has been.
It was Tim Russert, my mistake, and I saw the interview live and nearly fell out of my seat. I haven't found the video yet, but still looking.
Colin Powell Interview With Russert Is Cut Off
Monday, May 17, 2004; Page C04
A State Department staffer tried to pull the plug on Tim Russert yesterday.
Toward the end of a "Meet the Press" interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jordan, the camera suddenly moved off Powell to a shot of trees in front of the water.
"You're off," State Department press aide Emily Miller was heard saying.
"I am not off," Powell insisted.
"No, they can't use it, they're editing it," Miller said.
"He's still asking the questions," Powell said.
Miller, a onetime NBC staffer who recently worked for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also told Powell: "He was going to go for another five minutes."
Undeterred, Russert complained from Washington: "I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that." He later said, "I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate."
As the delay dragged on, Powell ordered: "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please." Powell's image returned to the screen, and Russert asked his last question.
What happened was that both NBC and Fox News were using Jordanian television facilities for back-to-back Powell interviews. Russert was allotted 10 minutes and was asked to wrap when he went over by about two minutes. He said "Finally, Mr. Secretary," but abruptly lost his guest.
Russert was still puzzled afterward. "A taxpayer-paid employee interrupted an interview," he said. "Not in the United States of America, that's not supposed to go on. This is attempted news management gone berserk. Secretary Powell was really stand-up. He was a general and took charge." Powell later called the NBC anchor from his plane to apologize for the glitch.
State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside disputed Russert's characterization, saying that NBC "went considerably beyond the agreed end time. Other networks were waiting for their interviews and had satellite time booked, and we didn't want to keep them waiting."
Asked why he simply didn't edit out the awkward interlude from the taped interview, Russert said: "It's part of the story."
But, that's not all.
I think the biggest factors that led to people believing Iraq still had WMD's even in their absence, post-invasion, is that:
1) Saddam Hussein led the international community to believe he still had them. Until, immediately prior to the invasion, it was pretty much universally, and internationally uninanimous that Iraq had WMDs;
2) Saddam Hussein failed to account for tons of militarily viable chemical weapons precursors and stockpiles that were known to exist prior to the last inspections in 1998; and,
3) Renewed activity at chemical plants that had been shut down after the first Gulf War and for which Iraq had not received permission -- from the U.N. to begin using again because of their potential to manufacture chemical weapons.
Those are the first three that pop to mind.
There's also the allegations of weapons being moved to Syria in the run up to the war with satellite pictures of caravans of hundreds of trucks loading and hauling away something at a site believed to be a weapons depot.
Finally, there's a vast amount of geography in Iraq where there are no people and no fighting, and therefore, no forces and no real good way to search for buried or hidden contraband.
Personally, I think he destroyed some (I seem to remember early reports of chemical contamination of the Euphrates or Tigris rivers early in the conflict) and that he sent some to Syria. But, I never doubted that he had them and that he intended to recons ute his Nuclear program as soon as sanctions were lifted.
I believe the invasion caught him totally by surprise.
Yeah, I remember the incident. Where's the admission of exaggeration and fabrication?
I've read it three times now. Four...one more before hitting the "submit reply" button.
so the invasion took him totally by surprise, but he was able to destroy and move tons of stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria....
Which part are you making up here?
I said I would try to find the entire video---VIDEO---
With your rather extensive knowledge of finding things on the Internet, you might consider helping me in this search.
With the nature of your claim, the internet tubes should be bulging with links to verbatim transcripts and videos of Colin Powell's admission.
I'm not having any luck either.
Interesting isn't it. I will continue to look.
But it was painfully obvious why they were cutting the interview.
It gave Powell no thrill to make his claims.
Well, I've googled Colin Powell fabrication exaggeration and come up with a buttload of links to liberal commentators talking about how Colin Powell fabricated and exaggerated and one where Colin Powell concedes that he may have been mistaken.
Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong
Nowhere in there do I see an admission of exaggeration or fabrication. Do you?
Now, this is shortly before his Russert appearance but, still, I think I would have recalled some admission of fabrication or exaggeration. I know Nancy Pelosi would have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
