Problem is, only one matters in the end, Bush's. You can bring up thousands of people who saw the same report, and can get 1000 different interpretations. Was his interpretation tainted by some latent desire to attack Iraq no matter what? I dunno, some people sure think so.
I have no idea about the Iraq-9/11 connection, and frankly i don't care. Iraq was the only country immediately following 9/11 that issued an official statement supporting the terrorrists, justifying their motives, if not their actions. I remember thinking at the time "big mistake". It smacks of petty playground revenge, perhaps, but I know that for me personally, my anger since 9/11 hasn't abated in the least.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kris Baca
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)
Hi Patrick,
I agree that getting rid of Mr. Hussein achieved multiple objectives,
whether they are worth the risk is to be determined. As to showing
American might and resolve I'd say we did that with Afgahnistan, but
Iraq probably did add to that impression.
Something doesn't make sense though ...
Why did we invade Iraq when we did? The President claimed that we
couldn't wait for the inspectors because Iraq was a "grave and
growing" threat. He said we had to act immediately based on the
intelligence he saw.
However the President's Middle East Advisor at the time, Gen. Anthony
Zinni, who claims to have seen the same intelligence the President
did, said that wasn't the case. When asked if Iraq was an imminent
threat he said:
"No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not
grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of
those."
It's been suggested that the President was given bad information by
the CIA. Yet rather than investigate the CIA, the President has
praised them and continued to insist we had to invade when we did.
Further, Vice President Cheney continues to insist that not only did
Iraq possess WMD, but that they are connected with 9/11.
Every credible source has disputed the 9/11 connection including the
9/11 commission and the lack of evidence of WMD seems to agree with
General Zinni.
So why did we invade Iraq when we did? Why did we purposely risk our
relationship with the UN and our allies to invade a country that most
people who saw the intelligence say wasn't necessary?
If the President was misled by the CIA why did he praise their work?
Why does Vice President Cheney continue to insist on a 9/11 connection
when there is no evidence to support that?
It doesn't add up.
<snip>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
