Was it to pressurize the bureaucrats there to come up with any FALSE, Exaggerated or bogus evidence that Saddam had WMD?
Or was it because he just likes the mindlesss , faceless, immoral , sub human bureaucrats that infect the agency.
or was it because he needed tp pee-pee and they had the only bathroom in Washington DC
2006-12-24 08:46:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The idiot Dick Cheney is one of the founding members of the PNAC who were looking for a war to start to check out the workings of the PNAC. These crooks of the PNAC are a bunch of cowards who created a war for the single purpose of testing the PNAC. Half of the Bush Administration belongs to this Creep Organization.
Check out the http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Check out these crooks that belong to this organization and realize the American people have been had by a Political Think Tank being the PNAC who pushed for this war with lies to the American people.
2006-12-24 13:32:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My guess is his need for fake evidence to justify his case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were so invested in stove piping doctored intelligence to Bush that did not have the peer review and analysis that the DOD professionals in the Pentagon or at Langely ( sp? ) required - in order to bolster weak and unsubstantiated reasons for the run up to war.
Cheney went there repeatedly to brow beat some of the desk officers and section heads into signing on.
2006-12-24 18:05:02 · answer #2 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To tweak the intelligence.
No, Saddam wasn't a nice man. But we don't go to war because someone isn't a nice man. Heck, we'd have to go to war in about 30 different countries if we did that.
No, we didn't attack Iraq because Saddam wasn't nice. So Cheney had to tweak the intelligence to make it appear there were other reasons. Did it have anything to do with 9/11? . . . No.
OK, how 'bout weapons of mass destruction? Maybe we could say that this is why we should attack Iraq. Yeah, good idea. And let's talk about mushroom-shaped clouds over Manhattan to scare people and make 'em think that's why we're attacking Iraq.
The worst thing about it is that, in order to put more troops in Iraq, we had to move them out of Afghanistan. There was ample reason to attack Afghanistan. This is where Osama bin Laden was and the Afghani Taliban was harboring him. But then, just as we were making pretty good progress in Afghanistan, we moved a lot of troops out and put them in Iraq. Now the Taliban is gradually coming back to power in Afghanistan.
Even Marine General Anthony Zinni says this, "We had them in Afghanistan. Then we gave them a gift. We went to Iraq."
Now we're failing in both countries; Afghanistan and Iraq.
2006-12-24 17:38:41 · answer #3 · answered by tychobrahe 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
To make sure the intelligence analysis matched the administrations pre-conceived ideas, so as to provide a plausible reason for the invasion.
2006-12-24 19:01:28 · answer #4 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Or maybe the simplest answer is the correct one: they handle intelligence of the sort that might be useful in preparing for a war.
2006-12-24 17:22:08 · answer #5 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, It's not like saddam was a bad guy or anything*
2006-12-24 16:53:19 · answer #6 · answered by Gottlos 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably normal business.
2006-12-24 18:37:56 · answer #7 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He wanted information they had. That is why we HAVE a CIA.
2006-12-24 17:25:49 · answer #8 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋