View Single Post
03-21-2013, 04:38 AM
Registered User
PricePkPatch's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,482
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Well it was a bi-partisan effort to move ahead with the war, but really how bi-partisan would it be if Bush wasn't constantly waiving around supposedly concrete intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and was prepared to use them against America?
I am not sure how bi-partisant it genuinely was, though. We were right in the middle of the War on Terror, and the democrats were getting their ***** whooped in public opinion as apparently not able to defend the US against their enemies. Just like they approved any defense budget raise in the Cold War, they were forced by political rhetoric to go ahead with it.

Notice how Obama could clamor not having supported War in Iraq, but he wasn't Senator at the time, so he didn't have to vote on it. A very nice loophole.

Originally Posted by RandV View Post
That's kind of the main counterpoint to the whole Iraq war thing, that Bush's 'intelligence' was pretty much fabricated and full of ****. Some people would have been against the war regardless but I'd imagine a whole lot of the support was based entirely on the presence of the WMD threat.
Well, I am not 100% sure they genuinely INVENTED the intelligence. I believe they simply had reached the conclusion they wanted to reach. They dismissed warning signs of the unreliability of much of the intelligence, and the inter-departmental committee who concluded that SH was close to developing nuclear weapons did not actually pooled their intel. They each reached a conclusion and voted on the report; not explaining why they reached their conclusion.

Best example is; I think it's the State Department who concluded to Iraq being close to having nukes based on some sort of enricher gizmo; that's the piece of evidence that tipped their decision.

The Department of Energy actually dismissed the gizmo as useless to develop a nuke, and based their conclusion on evidence the State Department did no considered proof.

It's basically a case were everybody based their decision on their level of incompetence due to top-down pressure by the high-Executive.

I really don't think anybody genuinely faked evidence.

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote