conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee
would have made any difference to the other senators
who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called
them.
"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have
changed their minds had they known then 'what they
know now.'
And then there's Sen Rockefellers statement on October
10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
Seems like we would have still gone to war.
WMD's were just a part of the reason we went to war.
When you say Saddam was legally in charge, is that
because he won the election with 100% of the votes?
World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_in_the_United_States
-sm
--- Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Niger uranium issue is grasping at straws, the
> bottom line is that they
> can't find anything, it is the responsibility of the
> President as commander
> in chief of the armed forces to be 100% certain that
> the reasons he gives to
> the American public are valid.
>
>
>
> Spies get their information from informants who may
> have their own agenda,
> it is important when we go to war, we know the
> people giving us the reasons
> are trustworthy, it is the responsibility of the
> President and the Congress
> to validate the information BEFORE we go to war, not
> after.
>
>
>
> Also, we invaded a sovereign country, we didn't go
> in and look for weapons,
> we invaded first, toppled the government, then did a
> quick look around
> couldn't find anything, so we went about our
> business.
>
>
>
> There was never a declaration of war, the President
> just called it part of
> the war on terror, but this isn't looking for
> stateless terrorist, people
> who hide in caves plotting. This was a country, with
> a government and
> infrastructure, Saddam was the recognized leader of
> Iraq, and legally was in
> charge. He was in violation of UN resolutions and
> sanctions, as were the
> countries supporting him in this venture, he did
> seem to want to purchase
> the materials, and some suggest Saddam thought he
> had some.
>
>
>
> The CIA, the Brits, the French, the Germans, and a
> number of intel agencies
> messed up on this, fact remains, there was no clear
> proof of weapons, even
> the info Powel showed the UN was not clear proof,
> the pictures showed what
> looked like weapons factories, but turned out, they
> were not.
>
>
>
> As of right now, they seem to think he had the
> capabilities to quickly begin
> production if he wanted to, but I don't think that
> is enough to base an
> invasion on.
>
>
>
> I don't end the fault at the CIA, the fault lies in
> the CIA, the Congress
> and the President.
>
>
>
> That is the job of Congress, the intelligence and
> armed services committees
> in both houses should be keeping up with this, they
> should be making sure
> the CIA and Military Intel is accurate.
>
>
>
> The failure in my mind falls directly on the
> congress.
>
>
>
> Does anybody know when was the last time the US
> actually declared war
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 6:12 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: 9/11 Commission to Cheney - You're
> still wrong.
>
>
>
> Here I am thinking you're going to apologize to Bush
> and his supporters for accusing him of lying. Even
> Sen. Rockefeller admits he believed the same info
> that
> Bush did and gave his full support for the war. Bush
> didn't lie and he didn't pressure anyone to fudge
> the
> facts. Even Wilson's story was discredited from the
> beginning. The Niger Uranium purchase attempt is
> still
> being investigated.
>
> You say, "their own corruption, misinformation and
> outright lying to the public".
> Now what did they lie about? You won't accept
> anything
> other than guilty will you?
> What do you need Al Gore to say it before you'll
> believe it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
