Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't think we'll know that for several years.<< Dude, didn't you read the Mission Accomplished banner? Hello?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I always assumed the mission referred to in that was 1. Start a war with Iraq 2. ??? 3. Peace!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Actually, change #3 to "Profit!!!" - it works better for this administration.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let me put on my wizard hat and make them materialize for you:> I concede defeat Tom. Albright said thousands and you've found - dozens.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <After 9/11, Saddam was an imminent threat with nukes and other WMDs.> Are you now calling Senator John Edwards a liar?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Iraq isn't even safer for Iraqis at the moment.> The majority of Iraq is safe for the majority of Iraqis.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Actually, change #3 to "Profit!!!" - it works better for this administration.> Yeah, Haliburton should be paying a windfall tax on that 2.4% profit they've made on the war.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Are you now calling Senator John Edwards a liar?<< Misinformed. Like Bush.
Originally Posted By Spree As a percentage; I bet we found more WMDs in Iraq compared to what was thougt to be there then mass graves were found in Bosnia compared to what was said to be there.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I bet we found more WMDs in Iraq compared to what was thougt to be there then mass graves were found in Bosnia compared to what was said to be there.<< We found mass graves in Bosnia. We haven't found WMDs in Iraq. The percentage for Bosnia is > 0, which is higher than the percentage for Iraq.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I concede defeat Tom. Albright said thousands and you've found - dozens.<< You can find more if you google, as I did.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>These quotes are really irrelevant due to the absolute failure of the Administration to vet their information before presenting it as fact.<< If you want to contend that Bush was operating in a vacuum when he reached the same conclusion as every person quoted, that's your privilege. But don't summarily declare the quotes irrelevant. To a large extent, the arguments being advanced by critics of what Bush was saying before the war are based on what was not known, and unknowable at the time. To say that there were reports that conflicted with the conclusions reached is not enough. The case has not been made that anyone could know absolutely one way or another. That Bush "cherry picked" his intel is a given. Just as everyone here cherry picks quotes, facts, and opinions to support their point of view. But Bush did not, in my opinion, alter or direct intel. (Indeed, the various reports that have been issued so far support this thesis. (P.S. I always assumed that the mission that was accomplished was the successful invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam. Silly me. I should have realized that, no matter what is accomplished over there, the goal will be changed and failure announced by critics of the war. And so it continues...)
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>>Are you now calling Senator John Edwards a liar?<< Misinformed. Like Bush.<< But, of course, "Bush lies" scans much better than "Bush was misinformed."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You can find more if you google, as I did.> I doubt I can find one article that says they actually found thousands of bodies, as was alleged.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I always assumed that the mission that was accomplished was the successful invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam. Silly me. I should have realized that, no matter what is accomplished over there, the goal will be changed and failure announced by critics of the war. << It's silly to suggest something is finished when in reality, it has just begun. You can be defensive about it if you like, but it was a stupid PR move to photograph the president with that banner in place, and then wonder why the public would be upset two years later and counting that soldiers are still dying there with no clear end in sight.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>To a large extent, the arguments being advanced by critics of what Bush was saying before the war are based on what was not known, and unknowable at the time.<< Not at all. There was ample pre-war intelligence that said that Saddam's WMD programs were non-existent, and there was plenty of doubt expressed in CIA reports about the administration's primary source for much of it's information. It isn't a matter of what was not known or what was not knowable - it was a matter of what was dismissed as the "facts and intelligence were being fixed around the policy".
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I always assumed that the mission that was accomplished was the successful invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam.<< I don't think we can count it as successful yet. We're still fighting.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam were successfully prosecuted.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>There was ample pre-war intelligence that said that Saddam's WMD programs were non-existent, and there was plenty of doubt expressed in CIA reports about the administration's primary source for much of it's information.<< I would be interested in seeing links to contemporaneous accounts that verify this. I would assume there is not as much available as has been offered to the contrary. But I am interested in seeing the ample accounts that support the attitudes currently held by critics of the way the build up to the war was handled.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We'll see them as phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committe is finally getting around to it. There were articles in the Atlantic Monthly in 2003 and 2004 that looked at this, but I don't have the issue dates at hand.
