English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

now that even Bu$h says there weren't any and it "was an intelligence failure"

2006-08-22 11:51:13 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Civic Participation

18 answers

From the same guys who were quoted today as saying that the majority of Iran's 300K+ army is untrained and undisciplined.

2006-08-22 11:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by Chronic Observer 3 · 0 0

Your question I understand in two parts - one is that you assume they actually received information from some one and you wish to know who that someone is/was and the second is that you ask why they keep saying the so-called intelligence on Iraq was credible though it has now been debunked as utter rubbish that could only have conned a moron - take for instance buying yellow cake from Niger would be impossible for Iraq since the resource is mined and controlled by the British. Am I correct?

If so to answer the first part: they were not necessarily given the information - certain entities that had a mission (to wage war against Iraq) planted the reports. Scott Ritter has proven that someone not at all versed in the Iraq of the late nineties was responsible for planting the falsehoods. Planting intelligence is common practice. They do it hoping that by the time conflict breaks out credible reason for going to war will since have been discovered, see Tonkin Incident, German attack on Poland Sept 1939, Israel attack on Lebanon 2006 (Lebanonese kidnapped Israeli soldiers they claimed but reports first said on June 12 that Israelis who had crossed into Lebanon were engaged by Hez'balloh losing 8 dead and 2 captured)... Usually a war started under false intelligence ends in disastrous consequences for the one starting it - Vietnam, Japan and Germany WWII, Israel 2006, Iraq 1990...
The difference with Iraq today is that when ever war causing reports are proven wrong and no other reasons for going to war surface, the perpetrators of the attack are held as war criminals - Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Milosevic and Serbia for instance . But in this case, the perpetrators are refusing to do the right thing and say, "sorry we goofed and lied our way info war..."
That's what leads to the nagging question you have on why do they go on clinging onto the dead horse? Sad isn't it? There's nothing more dispicable than a man who keeps complaining to the clothes maker that his pants never dry yet he keeps sitting in a puddle of water.

2006-08-22 17:19:45 · answer #2 · answered by brian s 2 · 0 0

There are 2 known sources for this administrations intel. The first one is a crazy 8 ball that "w" has had since he was a kid. He really loves that thing. And the second is a blind seeing eye dog left over from the Hoover admin. that just hangs out w/ the secret sevice at the white house. He doesnt fetch much anymore though. I have heard some insiders say that "w" sometimes calls up his mommy when he is having trouble w/ his homework assignments that are given to him by cheney.

2006-08-22 15:48:08 · answer #3 · answered by neo-liberal ultra conservative 2 · 0 0

Actually I think you are all wrong. The source that there WMD's was from an inside Iraqi source who according to the Administration USUALLY gave solid information. He originally reported that there were mobile chemical weapons labs. I can't remember the guy's name, but he also gave intelligence during Desert Storm. That's where he built his credibility. Anyone remember his name?

2006-08-22 17:48:06 · answer #4 · answered by Mike V 2 · 0 0

because they had to make it up so they could justify the war and that the US was in imminent threat......do you really think anyone believes it was an honest mistake......George W. and his cronies wanted to finish what they considered a failure on the part of the First president Bush......by not going in and cleaning up the first time in Kuwait. George W.'s father was and is a very respectable man........I know his heart must be broken by his son.

2006-08-22 12:35:40 · answer #5 · answered by Cassie 5 · 0 0

They are still using the evidence Powell used when he made his WMD presentation to the UN. All of that evidence has since been ruled either misrepresented or flat false.

2006-08-22 11:56:17 · answer #6 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0 0

All politicians get their info messed up from time to time. It's ridiculous that people continue to dwell on the past instead of working on a solution for the future.

2006-08-22 11:54:26 · answer #7 · answered by Rawrrrr 6 · 0 0

The CIA, Mossad, intelligence resources from the Shi'ite in Iraq, the French and the fact that WE SOLD THEM TO HIM STUPID!!!

2006-08-22 12:00:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

(from the same source that says that the country is rich in oil)and that to deminish their wealth, someone needs to ruin a mass of the country. That way they can come to us and spend a mass of their money. Therefore making us able to put more of our estate on their land, boosting our market.

2006-08-22 13:04:11 · answer #9 · answered by LDYBLK 2 · 0 0

where did Clinton, Kennedy and Feinstein get the info prior to Bush?????? They had the same facts. How did Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical and biological weapons??? Did they just up and die??? Get your liberal bias facts correct.

2006-08-22 11:57:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers