Fair Game

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I apologize--I keep forgetting that is it useless to debate with people whose source of "facts" are news reports, political commentary, and sanitized "official" reports.

I hate to inform you, but there are many, many petty despots who "are seeking WMD". That is very different from having them. You make this an issue about whether Bush was an honorable man; see my other post on that point. The point here is he was duped not by the Wilsons of the world, but by the inner sactum he picked to advise him. He most certainly CAN and SHOULD be critisized for putting evil men like Rove in positions of power, and for blindly following bad advice. He was duped, but he set up the rules so he could be duped.

the biggest issue I have with Bush is exactly what you want to absolve him of: with sketchy intel of very (VERY) questionable origin, and with a lot of intel claiming the opposite, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE INVADED IRAQ! If Sadam was "trying to rebuild his WMD arsenal" then there was time to do what every rookie intel professional knows to do: get more information from credible sources. He didn't THAT is Bush's failure.

IB, Joe B, you may know your right wing mantras but you clearly have no clue about this topic. Spouting off selected excerpts from other people's sanitized reports does NOT mean you know jack about the topic. I often disagree with CJ, but on this topic he's about 85% spot on.

You are using the same ignorant argument CBJ7 is using. You are basing your judgement 100% on 20/20 hindsight and not on the operative intel that was available to decision makers at the time. Hence, you are dealing in hypothetical "what-ifs" and not in reality. Nothing you've posted has repudiated the findings of the WMD Commission or the Butler report. Furthermore, you didn't cite any studies other than your own bogus opinion.

[cptjohnstone]

God this subject has been hashed and rehashed 100 times on this board

for maybe the 10th time I have posted the interview on 60 minutes that the FBI agent that was with Saddam said he not have WMD at that time but would do in the future when the heat died down

where did they go, try Syria


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...ag=mncol;lst;4

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...roller;housing

[I B Hankering]

After the First Gulf War Saddam claimed -- and continued to claim almost to the opening salvo of the Second Gulf War -- that the U.S. did not advance on Baghdad because it was afraid of Iraq's stock piles of chemical and biological agents. His generals believed him. As the U.S. built up for the second war, his generals implored him to deploy the WMD to protect their troops. The generals were greatly demoralized when Saddam told them it was all a lie -- but the liberal MSM still claims Bush lied or that Bush should have known better when it is obvious that even Iraqis in very high government positions also believed Saddam had WMD.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?_r=1&pagewanted= print

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are using the same ignorant argument CBJ7 is using.
Because in this case he is correct

You are basing your judgement 100% on 20/20 hindsight and not on the operative intel that was available to decision makers at the time.
Complete BS.

Furthermore, you didn't cite any studies other than your own bogus opinion.
I admit no citing, and said so from the beginning. My opinions are based on far more than your first hand knowledge. That is all I will say. You can remain delusional if you wish.

And as to the Iraqi generals believing what Sadam told them, wouldn't you if the alternative was to litterally lose your head? The people any dictaor trust the least are those closest to him.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.

Originally Posted by Old-T

You really should stick to things you know.

What would that leave him?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

And as to the Iraqi generals believing what Sadam told them, wouldn't you if the alternative was to litterally lose your head? The people any dictaor trust the least are those closest to him.

Your argument is bogus. These Iraqi generals were in U.S. custody in 2006 -- no longer subject to Saddam's rule and no longer in fear of losing their heads when they testified. They testified that they believed Saddam had WMD when he claimed to have them. No where did they state they "knew" Saddam didn't have WMD but chose to "play-a-long" to stay alive.

If the resident experts -- "Saddam's military commanders" believed Saddam had WMD -- how are analysts thousands of miles removed expected to arrive at a different conclusion; especially with sources like Curve Ball and Chalabi reporting Saddam had WMD.

It's not delusional to go with the evidence. It's delusional to impose your 20/20 hindsight on the situation and ignore the impact of operational intel available to decision makers at the time.

[Old-T]

You clearly do not understand the logic of terror.

Yes, I suspect many of Sadam's generals DID believe it. Why? Because to survive (when they were in Iraq with Sadam) you had to show NO sign that you questioned the leader. To allow yourself to have doubts means in a moment of weakness you might slip and acknowledge the doubt in a way Sadam would object to. So you convince yourself to believe every lie--no matter how absurd--the leader says.

So no, it should not surprise anyone that they repeat the lies even when removed from Sadam.

It is hopeless arguing with you on this point. You believe the fairytale you wish to believe. Or, to quote a certain movie, you can't handle the truth.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You clearly do not understand the logic of terror.

Yes, I suspect many of Sadam's generals DID believe it. Why? Because to survive (when they were in Iraq with Sadam) you had to show NO sign that you questioned the leader. To allow yourself to have doubts means in a moment of weakness you might slip and acknowledge the doubt in a way Sadam would object to. So you convince yourself to believe every lie--no matter how absurd--the leader says.

So no, it should not surprise anyone that they repeat the lies even when removed from Sadam.

It is hopeless arguing with you on this point. You believe the fairytale you wish to believe. Or, to quote a certain movie, you can't handle the truth.

You obviously fail to understand how your words serve to completely negate your position.

A spy listening to Saddam would hear: "The U.S. was too afraid to attack Baghdad during the First Gulf War. The U.S. was too afraid of the chemical and biological agents Iraq has at its disposal and the great losses they would have incurred."

A spy listening to one of Saddam's generals would hear a rendition of the lie that Saddam told him.

A spy listening to one of Saddam's colonels would hear a rendition of Saddam's lie that the generals told him; so it goes on down to the private.

U.S. emissaries in communication with other governments in the region heard renditions of the same lie from their counterparts.

"Curve Ball", Chalabi, etc., provided their renditions.

Interpretive analysts, e.g., the aluminum tubes, etc., added credence to lie.

These are the factors the WMD Commission and the Butler report considered before making their determination that the operational intel available to the decision makers supported the theory that Saddam had WMD; not your fairy tales.