2007-02-15 20:45:31 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, do not.
2007-02-15 20:52:52 · answer #1 · answered by m c 5 · 1⤊ 6⤋
I think bad intel,but when you think about it you have intel coming from all over so you are faced with a choice.Either you strike and remove the evil dictator that is in power with possible ties to al-qaeda and wmds or you sit and wait for something to happen.I do not know about you but if I where the President I would not want to sit and wait for another possible attack that may hurt the country even more.As for lies I truly hope not.
2007-02-16 04:57:58 · answer #2 · answered by Chosen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush blames the falsehoods he told the American people and the rest of the world, with respect to his rationale for going into Iraq, on bad intelligence, but I think the reasons why we are there are purely the result of his deception.
For one, I have a hard time believing that the CIA, which is comprised of the crème de la crème of law enforcement and intelligence personnel in the world, could be so incompetent. I think what happened was the CIA reported some accurate information, that in and of itself does not lead any rational person to conclude that we should invade a country, and then Bush and his minions provided their own “interpretative framework “ which exaggerated the seriousness of what was found, thus giving them cause to invade Iraq.
Secondly, even if one could blame the CIA for bad intelligence that does not absolve Bush and his administration of culpability. Why? Well, it’s one thing to state that a country had WMDs; it’s another thing to prove that the same country was going to use them against America or American interests. Many countries have WMDs, and many of those nations are not on friendly terms with the United States. We don’t invade and occupy a country on the basis of their military arsenal. We should only act against a country if they intend to do harm to our nation or our interests overseas.
The only way we could have justification for invading a country, preemptively, is if we had good cause to believe that they would employ those supposed weapons of mass destruction on us or our allies. Clearly, no case was established for an imminent threat. Bush, was in essence, dealing with a non sequitur. The mere possession of WMDs doesn’t necessarily mean the utilization of those WMDs against us, any more than the fact that a homeowner owning a gun implies that he will randomly kill people.
This elementary logic shouldn’t confuse anyone, but apparently basic logic isn’t within the grasp of many ordinary Americans, and many within the global community who supported our leader in his unlawful incursion and occupation of Iraqi.
2007-02-16 17:13:21 · answer #3 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Frankly yes. In kombination with an will to complete the gulf war and end Saddams regim of terror. Johan
2007-02-16 07:10:32 · answer #4 · answered by Johan from Sweden 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,I don't. But some do suspect that the WMD papers from Niger was cooked up by P2 out of Italy. But to prove something like this would be difficult.
2007-02-16 12:07:18 · answer #5 · answered by chuck h 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I think it was based on the need to isolate Iran from the rest of the world
2007-02-16 05:06:12 · answer #6 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - it was caused by the Christian Evangelicals and other Right Wingers persuading the President to launch a Crusade against Islamic Terrorists who, supposedly, were in league with Saddam Hussein.
2007-02-16 04:55:00 · answer #7 · answered by fatsausage 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
of course it is.
Iraq just happened to be the sad country to win the natural resource lottery. and American oil men just happened to have enough politicians bought and paid for to mug them for their oil.
2007-02-16 04:53:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes, and so too will be the war in Iran.
2007-02-16 04:52:54 · answer #9 · answered by Jarvis 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋