I read & listen to the media and I'm sure that the congress Dems&Rep alike read the same info and voted (even Kennedy & Hillary) to " go to war " until the wind blew in a differ political direction then all the sudden it's Bushs war and he lied Don't try the WMD thing cause again they all read the same reports.
2006-11-22 21:33:06 · 9 answers · asked by josh m 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Answerman I believe you'll find the NSA actually had these briefs and were held by
the Nat Arms Com. you should look it up and see who sits on that.
2006-11-22 21:55:12 · update #1
I agree with you. It is amazing that congressmen had the same briefings that the president had. They voted to go to war. Now they see the people cannot tolerate the deaths, so they want out and voted out the people who continue to support it. Since there are more deaths in Washington DC, South Chicago, Detroit, and parts of LosAngeles, each of which surpasses horribly the deaths in Iraq. I think we should pull out of all these cities too.
I don't think the war was a wise decision. We should have taken Saddam out. GW is a christian, who hasn't read the bible. In the old testament, The Christians were not allowed to have offensive weapons. They were only allowed to defend themselves. In that case, this was a mistake. That and the fact that the people hate us even more. But since we are there, we should finish the jobs so those who died for the freedom of lthe people will not have died in vain.
2006-11-22 21:58:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As I recall most people were for the war in Iraq because the Bush administration fabricated evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and Saddam with WMD. In addition, those "reports" came basically from all the people Bush and the republican congress ushered into power at the start of the administration. The call for war was due to those fabricated links and lies. The president and the neocons lied to the American people and to congress. THOSE ARE THE LIES. I honestly think this is so obvious that it is not even worth arguing. Your party IS DONE DUDE. You had your chance, all your party does is lie to the American people, and basically you blew it. We will clean up your mess though and then you will continue to blame all of your problems on us and screw the middle and lower classes over. 10 years from now you will have figured out a way to fabricate how the Iraq war was the democrats fault.
2006-11-23 14:02:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're correct about one thing at least - that the Dems in Congress had access to the same intel the White House did. Claims that Bush 'misled' the Congress by limiting the intelligence they had access to is one of the Lies I'm Particularly Tired of Hearing (yes, I have a list). In 1976 the House and Senate intelligence committees were established with the provision that Congress would have *independent* access to all intelligence equal to that of the President. This was done precisely *for the purpose* of preventing the White House from limiting or otherwise manipulating what information the Congress has access to.
Only the internal White House intelligence analysis (and the strategy derived therefrom) are unavailable to Congress, but these do not represent additional or original information, merely an interpretation of the same information Congress already has. Anyone who claims the President was able to limit to alter the intelligence received by Congress is either too stupid or too dishonest to be worth listening to.
The fact that several members of Congress expressed concern about Hussein's regime - even those like Senator Kerry who had attended very few intelligence briefings - makes it clear that they had the same or similar interpretations of the situation, again *independently* of the White House. Given that such statements date back at least to 1998, well before Bush took office, claims of being misled carry almost zero credibility.
If Bush 'lied' or 'misled' the public, it was in giving the impression that WMD was the sole or primary motivation for invading Iraq. In fact it was the only 'selling point' that all of the President's senior staff were willing to support publicly. As with any act of such consequence, the actual reasons are several in number and not nearly as simplistic as the bumper-sticker commentary about the war would lead you to believe.
[When you think about it, if WMD was a lie you'd expect that massive amounts would have been 'found' in very short order. The lack of significant discoveries (*NOT* none, but realtively few) indicates that preliminary intelligence may have been less than ideal, but does not argue for deception.]
2006-11-23 06:06:51 · answer #3 · answered by dukefenton 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see that you have cast your die.....and now for the war of the bush haters.
Well I am sure that you are thinking in the right direction. The only thing is that when something comes out that there was bad information then it always is the highest ranking officers fault because he is a reflection of his people. Bush put those people in power and they screwed up meaning that Bush takes the burden for there actions kinda like a Police chief would.
2006-11-23 05:48:00 · answer #4 · answered by Logical Leroy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I know it will fall on blind eyes, I have this questions to you. Who furnished the intelligence to congress? Why was if found to be juiced, nit picked and reworked to suit his needs at the time? And why did after no WMD's were found did he so quickly change his story to the reason was to overthrow Saddam and then to free the Iraqi people? I am afraid that your (not mine) president is guilty of all these things and the only motivation I can find is his own personal gain from going to war as well as those that are around him including big oil and the arms manufactures.
2006-11-23 05:45:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
a lie is a lie, no matter how many people may have seen the information upon which the lie is based. aside from the WMD, bush lied to the american people about husseins involvement with al-queda. there are so many other lies he has told that don't have anything to do with the war that it is sickening (global warming doesn't exist?)
2006-11-23 07:11:32 · answer #6 · answered by grumpy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is in where the congress got the reports of WMD's in the first place. I suggest you go back and look that up.
2006-11-23 08:06:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Beats me. It's so idiotic I have to take a xanax just to calm down.
2006-11-23 05:41:04 · answer #8 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
go to wtc7.net ,scared me straight
2006-11-23 05:41:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋